# Disdain for Publishers

Disdain for the vulnerable, all because of a different decision regarding the vaccine. How does that even come about? I found it quite striking, particularly because the response was so "matter of fact" blunt about denying a man his life. One might see the respone as logical and rational, but though it might at least be the latter, it appeared to be merely repeating the arguments found in the corresponding article being shared. That is, it took me back to a tim when I would read close to the entirety of a newspaper and think of it as the norm through which to become informed. How lovely to have such a guarantee that one is obtaining such useful information, or especially information whose use can be specifically understood.

We, or I, never questioned whether a proportion of writing was biasd or misleading, except for some of the personal bias put forth by the author, based on their personal experience and style. But it didn't go much beyond that. In fact, since they had set out to write an article on the subject at hand, it would cause me to assume both that the author is somewhat knowledgable about the subject at hand, or that they were intrested in that particular subject. In any case, it conferred some significant expectation about their competence.

And how has that changed? Well, quite generally, the understanding that writing has to be produced which can serve the publication, in a very basic way,