Reposted by SarahInTx
👇🎯 Reporting large nominal numbers without relevant denominators is journalistic malpractice.
I really would like to hear a non-nefarious reason why reporters at places like the NYT, WaPo, or NPR can't take 10 second to tell us that the $100 billion we spend on SNAP is 1.3% of the budget or the $6 billion that went to the AIDS program in Africa was 0.9% of the budget. Love to hear a reason.
seriously, can anyone give me a reason why reporters refuse to express huge budget numbers, that they know are meaningless to their audience, in a context that makes them understandable -- such as a percentage of the budget? I NEVER get an answer to this question.
December 9, 2025 at 3:21 AM
👇🎯 Reporting large nominal numbers without relevant denominators is journalistic malpractice.
Reposted by SarahInTx
Meanwhile some of the most interesting organic radical action on the ground is coming from rural communities protesting data centers. Somehow that doesn’t excite a lot of people who preach about radial action.
December 7, 2025 at 5:26 PM
Meanwhile some of the most interesting organic radical action on the ground is coming from rural communities protesting data centers. Somehow that doesn’t excite a lot of people who preach about radial action.
The river is famous to the fish
December 6, 2025 at 8:07 PM
The river is famous to the fish
December 3, 2025 at 3:23 AM
I genuinely have no idea what this means? What’s this got to do with literally anything in my community right now? I like this one instead:
December 3, 2025 at 3:23 AM
I genuinely have no idea what this means? What’s this got to do with literally anything in my community right now? I like this one instead: