I've been on a tear lately regarding Conservative Brief because this organization is just so damn lazy in their reporting to the point where their headlines are frequently misspelled or don't make any sense. This latest one that is about a "who cares" sort of issue, somehow managed to confuse even people who are going to support everything that the right puts out there.
src
I don't know if their headlines are limited to a certain number of characters or what and I also don't understand why every single word is capitalized other than "a". It certainly shouldn't be and would have gotten me in "what the hell are you doing?" trouble when I was a college newspaper editor some 25 years ago.
So this article is meant to be about White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt responding to criticism from the press and people on the left in general that a recent order to have federal employees return to work in an actual office as an attempt to purge anti-Trump employees from their jobs. The implication here is a funny one because what are the press suggesting? That left-leaning people are lazy and don't want to go to the office? How would any administration even know the political leanings of every single person employed there? I mean, I suppose there is a way with all of the clandestine agencies in the USA but what are the chances that all of the remote workers just happening to be anti-Trump? It doesn't seem very likely does it?
Well the article, which does what Conservative Brief always does, simply spins a weave of somewhat related information in the first paragraph or two and then goes on to re-list a bunch of things that may or may not be related in the bulk of the entire piece. It's just a bunch of poorly pieced-together near-nonsense that the editors over at Conservative Brief can toss out the door 25 times a day or so.
I had to look this up but "Spox" is shorthand for "spokesperson" and while that very well may be the case it is not like everyone just knows that and therefore it is really stupid to put that in a headline. Also, what is with the "worker buyouts a purge anti-Trumpers" ? What does that even mean? Well, it doesn't mean anything because whoever wrote this couldn't be bothered to put "of" at the end where it belonged. Maybe they ran out of lower-case letters or something.
The really sad thing about all of this is that Conservative Brief is a wildly successful operation that at least back when the following data was gathered, had only 3 employees in total.
src
Now I am in no way stating that people should get their information from NY Times or WaPo, both of those publications are also partisan trash that is almost completely devoid of factual and informative information. However, you would be hard-pressed to find an article published by either one of those guys where they don't even bother to spell check or make sure the headline actually makes sense.
I think that you are probably better off not looking at ANY NEWS rather than looking at what any of these have to say but I am a bit distraught that there seem to be a lot of people that while in the process of turning their backs on legacy media, are now turning towards something that is actually a lot worse. Not only does Conservative Brief peddle propaganda, but they also don't even bother to make certain that it is presented in a coherent fashion. I fear for humanity that this one site is actually becoming one of the most popular sources for "news" in existence at the moment.
Now I will say one thing in CB's favor. They actually do go back to edit incorrect information once it is called out and will put notes in the revised article recognizing this "error." But herein lies the problem: I don't believe that these were errors in the first place. I think that CB is intentionally putting out false information because they know that nobody reads the retractions or corrections and will carry on with their lives with bad information that I think CB puts out there on purpose.
I once again would like to attempt to persuade anyone that looks to Conservative Brief for information to look honestly anywhere else because if you take what they write at face value, you are worse off than not having ever heard about the issue in question at all.
