>>18857082>Quotation marks in a headline always indicate a claim made by someone else.Contradicts:
>>18855400>The media doesn't necessarily agree with everything it reports on, which is very, very, easily signposted by means of quotation marks.I can't even tell if you're the anon who tried to defend Dave and the WON tweet, but either way you've missed the point. That anon was adamant that the quotation marks in the WON tweet function as scare quotes to express a sense of ironic detachment for the purpose of "separating out a claim, while not necessarily agreeing with it." He attached an image featuring the text of headlines for two anti-Trump articles, both of which clearly employ terms critical of the quoted speaker in a way that the WON tweet does not. He was grasping at straws in his efforts to defend Meltzer, and your eyes scanned over all of this without ever actually comprehending what you were reading. Good job, dumb dumb.
>>18857106You are correct, but the poorly worded WON tweet and Melter's response to it has teed him up for this /pw/ shitpost. What's ridiculous is watching people try to argue that this isn't so.
