Vox: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
no edit summary
(username removed) (Created page with "On June 6, 2022, the American news and opinion website vox.com published an opinion piece entitled “What the deepfake controversy about this Chinese actor says about conspiratorial thinking,”<ref>https://www.vox.com/culture/23150487/zhang-zhehan-deepfake-fandom-conspiracy-theory</ref> authored by one of their staff contributors who is billed as a culture reporter.<ref>https://www.vox.com/authors/aja-romano</ref> Regardless of the title of the piece and the author’s...") |
(username removed) No edit summary |
||
| Line 31: | Line 31: | ||
This author is well known for shipping another Chinese fandom pairing and writing explicit fan fiction about that couple pairing. The author failed to disclose that this fandom that they support dislikes the JunZhe fandom. Failure to mention this potential bias undercuts what little argument they can be said to have made. In addition, and extremely telling, the author of this piece, less than two weeks after this piece was published, wrote an email to the only news outlet at the time printing positive news on Zhang Zhehan directing this news outlet to retract the positive article and, in that same email, directly contradicted their vox.com opinion piece on key fundamentals of their argument and continued to spread the false accusations against Zhang Zhehan.< | This author is well known for shipping another Chinese fandom pairing and writing explicit fan fiction about that couple pairing. The author failed to disclose that this fandom that they support dislikes the JunZhe fandom. Failure to mention this potential bias undercuts what little argument they can be said to have made. In addition, and extremely telling, the author of this piece, less than two weeks after this piece was published, wrote an email to the only news outlet at the time printing positive news on Zhang Zhehan directing this news outlet to retract the positive article and, in that same email, directly contradicted their vox.com opinion piece on key fundamentals of their argument and continued to spread the false accusations against Zhang Zhehan. | ||
[[File:Header - Email to China Story.jpg|none|thumb|Header of Email to China Story]]dfd | |||
<gallery mode="packed" caption="Email Text - Incorrectly states that claiming ZZH was not cancelled by the state was not supported by the facts. Documents show state agencies MCT and NRTA denied involvement."> | |||
File:Email2a.jpeg | |||
File:Email2b.jpg | |||
File:Email2c.jpeg | |||
File:Email2d.jpeg | |||
</gallery> | |||
This article is an opinion piece, plain and simple. An opinion that is not backed up by fact and contained no research on the actual topic of the article. Had the author done any research, it would have shown real world facts diametrically opposed to what the author has claimed. | This article is an opinion piece, plain and simple. An opinion that is not backed up by fact and contained no research on the actual topic of the article. Had the author done any research, it would have shown real world facts diametrically opposed to what the author has claimed. | ||
[[Category:Media]] | [[Category:Media]] | ||
<references /> | |||
(username removed)