WIRED bias

I like the daily updates that I receive from WIRED Magazine.  However, the 8/2/18 article Crying 'Pedophile' Is the Oldest Propaganda Trick in the Book had me questioning what I was reading. https://www.wired.com/story/crying-pedophile-is-the-oldest-propaganda-trick-in-the-book/?CNDID=48648177&mbid=nl_080118_daily_list1_p3 

It opens with

Almost a year ago, a woman accused Tom Hanks of sexually abusing her as a child and began posting reconstructed memories on Twitter. The accounts are disturbing and specific, but incomplete and unproven—something Hanks’ accuser attributes to the trauma-based mind control she believes herself a victim of. Even though (or perhaps, because) her claims remain unverified, the pedophilia allegations were quickly embraced by a group known for up-leveling whisperings of child abuse into full-blown scandal: devotees of the QAnon conspiracy.

I was curious because I was no that familiar with this oldest propaganda trick and with QAmon.  As I read further, this comment caught my attention.

Where false pedophilia charges go, genocide and repression follow. (A related strategy: Far-right commentators such as Ann Coulter have accused refugees of preying upon children as a way to justify not aiding these groups as they flee deadly, oppressive situations.)

I have no use for Ann Coulter.  I think she is scum, but I felt I was being “sucked in” by another old trick – dabbling innuendo in an otherwise factual but emotionally laden article.  It was time to do a little credibility checking.  First, I needed to check-out WIRED magazine’s bias quotient.  I went to Media Fact Check (https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/) and did a search on WIRED.  It reported

These media sources have a slight to moderate liberal bias.  They often publish factual information that utilizes loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes) to favor liberal causes.  These sources are generally trustworthy for information, but may require further investigation. 

Wow, that was what caught my attention.  It jumped off the page when I was reading the article. 

Next, I did an Internet search on QAnon.  It found the following at National Public Radio https://www.npr.org/2018/08/02/634749387/what-is-qanon-the-conspiracy-theory-tiptoeing-into-trump-world

The conspiracy theory centers on a mysterious and anonymous online figure — "Q." According to The Daily Beast, "Q" began posting on anonymous Internet message boards in October 2017. The person or persons behind the "Q" persona claim to possess a top-level security clearance and evidence of a worldwide criminal conspiracy.

This is not at all inconsistent with what the WIRED article reported.  What bothered me was the subtle “bias building” aspects of the article which included other “strawman” type jabbers at other far-right personalities.

When done reading the WIRED article, I felt kind of used.  I have no respect for political fringe elements, either right or left.  I also take issue with authors who subtly attempt to manipulate.  I have learned to read with a jaundiced eye and check out everything, especially stuff that attempts to reinforce through confirmation bias.