i think it’s useful to point out regardless so people can form their own opinions with as much information as possible about potential ulterior motives

[–] Arkouda@lemmy.ca -4 points 11 months ago (2 children)

It isn't ever useful to attack the mouthpiece instead of the point.

[–] AlolanVulpix@lemmy.ca 9 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Actually in this specific scenario, when we are trying to encourage and grow the buy Canadian movement, and move away from reliance on American, it makes sense.

[+] Arkouda@lemmy.ca -6 points 11 months ago (2 children)

If the information is sound it doesn't matter who is saying it. Hard stop, no arguments.

[–] AlolanVulpix@lemmy.ca 2 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

If the information is sound it doesn’t matter who is saying it

Who is saying the information isn't sound?

[–] Arkouda@lemmy.ca -2 points 11 months ago (1 children)

The Ottawa Citizen is American owned media pretending to be Canadian, infiltrating Canadian culture and politics.
Do you disagree with the articles points? Is there any misleading or false information in the article?
I hear you. Attack the points, not the person. In general, agreed.
Do you have an alternative source reporting on this that is acceptable to you for consumption?
Not on this particular topic, but I also haven’t looked. See American owned media pretending to be Canadian, infiltrating Canadian culture and politics.

Who is saying the information isn’t sound?

[–] AlolanVulpix@lemmy.ca 3 points 11 months ago (1 children)

They're American owned and infiltrating Canadian culture and politics, that still doesn't mean the information isn't sound.
I agreed with attacking the points, not the person. I never even reference the article in this sentence.
Sources acceptable for my consumption, again doesn't mean I am insinuating that American owned media doesn't provide sound information.

So, who is saying the information isn't sound?

[–] Arkouda@lemmy.ca -5 points 11 months ago (1 children)

So, who is saying the information isn’t sound?

You are by attacking the source when you have no other alternative for what is in the article, and openly admit the article has no issues presenting facts.

Regardless of who owns the thing, it is still headquartered on Canadian soil, employing Canadians, and providing information that "real" Canadian sources aren't.

So give me another source, or shut up about it.

[–] AlolanVulpix@lemmy.ca 3 points 11 months ago (1 children)

You are by attacking the source when you have no other alternative for what is in the article

lmao. what ever shall we do if the Ottawa Citizen didn't uniquely create this article? There is no known alternative for this article, so I suppose it's of utmost critical value?

This point is irrelevant, because if I can find an article from a better source, then the point is moot. And besides, you are insinuating that the Ottawa Citizen provides a service that is unique, and cannot be replicated, which is untrue.

Regardless of who owns the thing, it is still headquartered on Canadian soil, employing Canadians, and providing information that “real” Canadian sources aren’t.

By going to the site, you are providing it clout that it is undeserving of. And when Canadian media is struggling, that's not a good thing.
actually there is a conflict of interest, when the ownership is American. These kinds of media output articles more favourable to their owners, because that is literally their business model.
Is it really headquartered on Canadian soil, employing Canadians, and providing real information? I'd rather take my chances with real Canadian owned and operated media.

So give me another source, or shut up about it.

Nah. You shut up about it.

[–] corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca 2 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Hard stop

This is rapidly becoming its own red flag.

It's like "literally" was in the 1900s

[–] Arkouda@lemmy.ca -1 points 11 months ago

in the 1900's? that is one way to say "30 years ago".

When people tell one that their behavior is a red flag to score brownie points in public because they cannot address the point made behind "Hard stop, no argument" is a special kind of feeling that I cherish. Like literally, you have no argument so you should literally just have kept your mouth shut. Hard stop.

[–] pupbiru@aussie.zone 5 points 11 months ago (1 children)

it is useful to know that there might be reasons besides the point that they’re making though… you can make all completely correct arguments and still be wrong in a wider context

why are they making the point? why do they care? what outcome are they trying to achieve? perhaps incentives are aligned, but perhaps not

spin exists, truth can still be misleading