this post was submitted on 19 Jun 2024
47 points (89.8% liked)

Melbourne

1789 readers
111 users here now

This community is a place created for the people of Melbourne and Victoria. We are a positive, welcoming and inclusive community. We might not agree about everything, but we always strive to stay civil and respectful.

The focus of our discussions is based around things that effect Victoria, but we are also free to discuss our local perspective on wider issues. Or head to the regular Daily Random Discussion thread to talk about anything.

Full Community Guidelines

Ongoing discussions, FAQs & Resources (still under construction)

Adoption Certificate for Nellie, the Daily Thread numbat (with thanks to @Catfish)

Feedback & Suggestions

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

But quoting it implies it’s an invalid claim.

Interesting. I read the quotes as meaning: someone else said it, it's not just some opinion we made up. In this case, it was reporting the coroner's official finding.

In other words, I understood it to be reinforcing the claim rather than invalidating it.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 week ago

Yes, that is how they use quotes. Without them it would appear as though the The Guardian was making its own assessment of the system, which it is not.

People need to read beyond the headline and understand how it relates to the content of the article itself. I've seen a few threads on reddit recently where people were outraged about headlines and assumed the article was contradicting their beliefs when it was actually validating them. An example is this article by The Guardian, which is about the correlation between generational wealth inequality and gaps in life satisfaction between generations. /r/Australia was absolutely incensed by the headline and most of the comments in the thread were along the lines of "FEELS LIKE?! HOW DARE THE MEDIA GASLIGHT ME!!!!!" despite the fact that the article was about how young people were feeling and was arguing the exact thing everyone assumed it wasn't.