If you had read me more carefully, Alex39, you would have seen my efforts are not to "kill the messenger" (David Sirota). If I'd wanted to do that, believe me, I would have done so unequivocally.

But forget about Sirota for a moment. The McClatchy writer, Steven Thomma, spends 3 paragraphs setting up his article with a description of Clinton's stump story followed by conjecture: That the stump story wins votes.

It’s just the kind of talk that’s helping her win support from working-class Democrats

There is absolutely no proof that Clinton wins working-class votes with such stories. Working-class voters may vote for Clinton for so many other reasons it's ridiculous. Therefore, Strike One for Steven Thomma. No cause-effect relationship has been established.

The fourth paragraph "debunks" the "story": George Soros and Bill Clinton (not George Bush) are to blame for job losses in Indiana created by "selling" an unnamed company to the Chinese. Gotcha, Hillary! Big Strike Two for Steven Thomma (because this is not journalism; we don't even know what the story is that Got Hillary).

The fifth paragraph begins: In response, the Clinton campaign. . . Huh? We still don't know what the hell is going on: We don't know what the Clinton campaign is responding to. Strike Three, you're out, Steven Thomma. Why? Because besides being unclear, this article is not objective. It's manipulating us, the readers.

Why am I counting paragraphs? To try to show how to read critically. It's not the only way, but it's one way to do it.

Because if after 5 paragraphs you don't know what is happening in a "news" story (because you haven't yet been told any of the facts), you can't evaluate the issues! As a reader, you are being manipulated emotionally to respond in a particular way.

The rest of the story is a garbled mess. Paragraphs 6-10 inform me that Bill Clinton is to blame, not George Bush. The trick in these paragraphs is that this charge against Bill Clinton appears to be factual because local people are being quoted. But so what? Quotes are not necessarily factual. The red flag in this section is this quote: She (Hillary) tried to use us for propaganda. This is said by an Obama supporter, btw. But you'd have to be a pretty sharp and sober reader to notice this detail about the person quoted.

I have no idea how to argue in favor of or against Clinton's stump speech because I can't sort out the relevant details. However, it doesn't matter, because the McClatchy writer doesn't want me to sort it out: He has manipulated my response by withholding facts while leading me to conclude that Hillary Clinton is trying to dupe the voters of Indiana.

Am I going to read David Sirota's version now? Fuck no! From my own previous research on Sirota (read the links I provided above), I already know Sirota's a lying, self-serving hack with no journalistic credentials. (There, I said clearly what I think of Sirota. He sucks.)

Something stinks about this story, and it's not because Bill, Hillary, and George Soros are lying scumbags and George Bush is innocent. I don't know why McClatchy published such poorly written piece in the first place. Maybe Steven Thomma is a friend of David Sirota's? Anything's possible.

The point is, whether you take me seriously or not, you should always read critically for your own sake.

P.S. Even luminaries like Josh Marshall can get duped once in a while, especially if he's too busy to fact-check every last thing that comes across his desk. Josh is only human, after all.

I know. I've been indecisive about choosing one.