Hacker News Reader

Comment by Alupis | Hacker News Reader

How many boogey boo's can we fit into one article?

Project 2025, and rightwing, and environment, and Heritage Foundation, and LGBTQ+, and abortion, and religion - oh my! We can't forget the boogey man himself, Trump!

All tied together by what averages out to ~$6,000 annual donations to a wide variety of groups. Oh, the horror! I'm certain we can be 100% confident Shell doesn't also donate to Democrat groups! No way!

Of course this article should be filed under "News" instead of "Opinion" - we only report the unvarnished facts here! No angle or bias, we pinky swear!

Election-season extremely biased hit pieces are not a lot of fun to read, let alone discuss. Just devolves into a circle-#*@! with people screaming propaganda past each other.

View on HN

Many companies speak out of both sides of their faces. Open secrets is a great place to find out more balanced assessment of campaign contributions. Here is for Shell Oil:

https://www.opensecrets.org/political-action-committees-pacs...

I like how the PAC is called "SHELL USA, INC. EMPLOYEES' POLITICAL AWARENESS COMMITTEE," which is typical political doublespeak. History shows that Shell spent at least 2 to 1 on Republican versus Democrat campaigns.

https://www.npr.org/2023/06/14/1182102392/shell-plans-to-inc... Shell is claiming it will zero greenhouse gases by 2050 but is currently increasing the production of fossil fuel products.

In investment groups evaluation of shell https://www.climateaction100.org/company/royal-dutch-shell/

There are too many links to court cases against Shell for environmental damage to list here.

At the end of the day, there has been enough validated investigative reporting on oil companies and their sabotage of climate change actions to discount the Guardian's article. There's too much money in fossil fuels, too many people getting a cut, and too many 401(k)s to be able to decimate the fossil fuel industry.

What did you expect, the only thing missing are "EXTREME far right" (as opposed to far right, and right, because EXTREME).

Also conspicuously missing from this one is a taking a problem that everyone experiences (inflation, healthcare, unable to afford a house) and then making sure to state that while it's a problem for everyone, it's especially bad for maarginalized communities, people of color, women, etc. That one is more of a Washington Post speciality though.

What does marginalized even mean, anyway?

It's a TheGuardian article, that's what they do. What else where you expecting?

Journalism... I suppose that's a tall ask these days.

Journalists that see their role as being political activists are really just propagandists with a paycheck.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com