[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by BoLevi

I didn't spend any time on that website, so I have no comment.

You should learn to take that stance on most issues.

I understand the Reason foundation owns the magazine and is basically the Koch brothers foundation.

Glad you can admit the obvious.

But I am interested to see examples of where the publication itself has been so manipulative. I read Reason.com from time to time and they seem to be one the least partisan (as in Democrat vs. Republican) publications out there. They are ideological in terms of being small-l libertarian/ small government types, but that isn't the same as examples of misinformation, manipulation, etc.

How about being identified by the US Senate as part of the movement to promote climate science denial? Would that be good enough? Probably not.

"Despite polling that shows over 80 percent of Americans favor action to reduce carbon pollution, Congress has failed to pass comprehensive climate legislation. The 19 Senators delivered over five and half hours of remarks describing the activities, backers, and affiliates of 32 denier groups. Each Senator called out one or more organizations, including the Advancement of Sound Science Center; the Acton Institute; Americans for Prosperity; American Legislative Exchange Council; the American Petroleum Institute; the Annapolis Center for Science-Based Public Policy; the Cato Institute; the Center for Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change; the U.S. Chamber of Commerce; the Competitive Enterprise Institute; the Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation; the Franklin Center for Government and Public Integrity; the George C. Marshall Institute; the Global Climate Coalition; the Heartland Institute; the Heritage Foundation; the Hoover Institution; the Hudson Institute; the James Madison Institute; the John Locke Foundation; the Lexington Institute; the Locke Institute; the Manhattan Institute; the Mercatus Center; the Nevada Policy Research Institute; the Pacific Research Institute; the Reason Foundation; the Science and Public Policy Institute; the Thomas Jefferson Institute for Public Policy; the Virginia Institute for Public Policy; and the Western Fuels Association."

What do a lot of these interests have in common? Koch funding and directly contributing disinformation in the climate science discussion.

They are certainly pro-market, although they don't seem to be explicitly pro-fossil fuel (very regularly anyway).

Really? Just did a search for fossil fuels on their website and it returned 744 articles. Fracking returned 327. Drilling returned 473. Oil returned 4,345 articles. Coal returned 1,216. Natural gas returned 1,160. Gas returned 4,738.

No fixation on fossil fuels there.

As far as publications go, they don't seem to promote a private agenda any more than say The Washington Post with Bezos or the NYT with Sulzberger. If you have sufficient critical thinking skills, you can gauge the merit of an argument or piece without needing to refer to the name at the top of the paper or on the cover of the magazine.

How about this beauty currently on the front page?

https://reason.com/2020/09/24/unlock...ounds-already/

Dumb as ####.

If you could indulge me on another example which does not involve a defunct website that is for sale.

How about tobacco and their support for big tobacco? That a good one? They have 2,647 pro-tobacco articles on their website. Knock yourself out.