• mbp@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    15
    ·
    1 year ago

    How was that a decision not fueled by pure desperation? Who advised this beyond the consulting group that was previously working with Morgan Stanley? Oh my god

  • athos77@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    Not that I doubt the content, but I’d really prefer that we don’t accept random YouTube channels the same as news. This is probably better suited for videos.

    • Vodulas [they/them]@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      1 year ago

      This is a politics community, not specifically news. Plus the video lists a link to the sources they used in the description. I agree that folks should take a skeptical eye to any videos posted, but outright dismissing all videos is not the solution.

    • bermuda@beehaw.orgOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Why not, exactly? If you don’t like or trust the content that one format of media provides then you are more than welcome to report it to the staff of the community, but the fact that one is a visual media and another is reading doesn’t make it unfit for a community about politics, especially when the topic LITERALLY IS politics.

      To me this just reads like insecurity. You want politics to be more “mature” than news which is why you don’t watch youtube videos.

      • Umbrias@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Alternatively videos have reasons they make a terrible format for sharing news due to the inherent time investment required and the difficulty of skimming for information. I can read a news article in 3 minutes that takes someone ten to ramble off, and video scrubbers don’t help bouncing between and referencing information at all.

        Easier in some circumstances to absorb, harder to share and discuss, overall frustrating. No insecurity needed. Your immediate psychoanalysis tells me you might be projecting though. Consider that one for a while lmao.

        • bermuda@beehaw.orgOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          It’s not news. It’s from 2009. The data on their returns recently did come out but the deal is already 14 years old. Stop treating it like news. They didn’t “just” do this. Chicagos news media exploded about this in 2009 when it happened and this is more of a political analysis about the situation.

          And yes everybody is projecting except you.

          • Umbrias@beehaw.org
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Do you genuinely believe the terminology of whether you consider this fits as “news” or not has any relation to the problems I outlined?

            And yes everybody is projecting except you.

            Hmm. Lmao

    • yessikg
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      He has sources linked in the description and a text version with more detail