Michael Schellenberger

Rank 42 of 47

Score -120

-3

Media outlets uncritically embraced the notion that what Trump had done was unconstitutional. They uncritically accepted claims that USAID people would somehow be put in grave danger. It was all total nonsense, the evidence shows.

2/22/2025, 2:01:44 AM

In reply to:

Michael Shellenberger

@shellenberger

328d

For weeks, the media said that, by eliminating USAID, Trump had created a "constitutional crisis" and "abandoned" vulnerable people. It was all nonsense. A federal judge today ruled that the "risk posed to USAID employees... is far more minimal than it initially appeared. "

The statement critiques media coverage of Trump's actions regarding USAID, suggesting that the media uncritically accepted claims of unconstitutionality and danger without sufficient evidence. It implies that the media failed to engage in thorough analysis and fact-checking.

Principle 1:
I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
The statement accuses the media of causing harm by spreading misinformation, but it does not provide evidence to support this claim, potentially violating the principle of doing no harm. [-1]
Principle 2:
I will respect the privacy and dignity of others and will not engage in cyberbullying, harassment, or hate speech.
It challenges the integrity of media outlets, suggesting they did not respect the privacy and dignity of those involved by spreading unverified claims. [-1]
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.
The statement does not engage in constructive dialogue but rather dismisses opposing views as 'nonsense,' which could be seen as a personal attack on media credibility. [-1]