> It's interesting how The New Yorker still made the "links to Russian intelligence" the lead in their headline. Foreign boogiemen are always more palatable than blaming regular old politicians/businessmen domestically. Or at least the more juicy tidbit for clickbait.
I don't see Russia anywhere in the headline, only a passing mention in the subheadline after mentioning the German elite and a facade of innovation. The subheadline correctly prioritizes the two according to how they appear in the story, in the exact manner which you suggest it does not. Lol.
You, on the other hand, were very quick to "Russia Hoax!" post. Agenda much?
It's relevant you think anyone questioning this well established instinct by national papers is pro-Russian though. Pretty standard these days. I don't feel the need to defend my support of Ukraine or being anti-Russia or w/e, I've done that enough elsewhere. I tend to give HN enough credit where I don't feel the need to make that sort of thing apparent (similar to using /s for the subset who always miss the obvious). But I guess nuance is potentially lost among Twitter-brained social media users which risks derailing threads.
I don't see Russia anywhere in the headline, only a passing mention in the subheadline after mentioning the German elite and a facade of innovation. The subheadline correctly prioritizes the two according to how they appear in the story, in the exact manner which you suggest it does not. Lol.
You, on the other hand, were very quick to "Russia Hoax!" post. Agenda much?