Michael Schellenberger

Rank 39 of 47
|
Score -98
2/20/2025, 5:11:05 AM
X
In reply to:
Michael Shellenberger
@shellenberger
·
327d
Here’s the Times a week ago lying brazenly. Scroll down the thread and you can see they later alter the headline. They’re effectively saying that accusations of government waste, fraud and abuse are a conspiracy theory. Everything’s fine. Media gaslighting as usual.
Michael Shellenberger
@shellenberger
·
335d
The New York Times says “Musk Asserts Without Proof That Bureaucracy Is Rife With Fraud.” Seriously? The GAO — under Biden — estimated last year that we are losing $233-$521 billion *per year* to fraud. Guys, it’s right there. Why do you continue with this… fraud? SMH
Michael Shellenberger
@shellenberger
·
327d
Both of these examples of disinformation were published today
Michael Shellenberger
@shellenberger
·
327d
For weeks the media have insisted that Trump and Elon were lying about rampant government fraud, waste, or abuse. Finally WSJ admits that “wasteful spending… isn’t hard to find.” Ya think?

The statement engages in public discourse by addressing issues of government waste, fraud, and abuse, drawing parallels to past events. It critiques media narratives and suggests a pattern of oversight or denial by authorities and media outlets.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement does not directly harm but implies negligence or misinformation by media and authorities, which could be seen as harmful if unfounded. [-1]
  2. Principle 2:
    I will respect the privacy and dignity of others and will not engage in cyberbullying, harassment, or hate speech.
    It challenges media integrity but does not engage in personal attacks, maintaining a focus on institutional critique.
  3. Principle 3:
    I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
    The statement aims to promote awareness of government issues, potentially fostering understanding and scrutiny. [+1]
  4. Principle 4:
    I will engage in constructive criticism and dialogue with those in disagreement and will not engage in personal attacks or ad hominem arguments.
    It engages in criticism of media narratives, but the tone could be seen as dismissive rather than constructive. [-1]