The internet has so many wonderful things about it, but equally as many toxic, dysfunctional, negative things, too. One of the worst places in all of the internet (and that’s saying something!) are Facebook newspaper article comments like Sun Journal or Portland Press Herald. For the most part, I avoid even engaging here, since they make YouTube comments look like a haven of logic and compassion…

Today I had an experience which depicts that really well. This blog entry is not about any specific individual but more an example of the type of communication we’re having, so I’ve removed the person’s name and photo.

Portland Press Herald posts the below article about COVID updates. The poster responds with “Can’t your reporters find anything in the Portland area to write about other than Covid?” I’d argue that constant updates about where we are with COVID, regardless of one’s stance on vaccinations, masks or the seriousness of it, is logical. It impacts us every day, no matter how we feel. That said, I can understand being over-saturated in updates and I absolutely like the idea of criticizing media – when it’s accurate criticism.

However, after about 30 seconds of looking at PPH’s Facebook page, I was able to find a ton of their prior articles directly before this one, that have nothing to do with COVID. Out of the first 7, 6 had nothing to do with COVID:

After looking for just another minute or so, I found that the next 6 out of 7 articles also had nothing to do with COVID

I commented on the poster’s comment and tried to be as civil as I could. I took screenshots of these collections and asked “These are 6 out of the past 7 stories they posted (the 7th was indeed about COVID.) I tried to be honest and accurate by acknowledging that one was about COVID.

I posted a second time with the second set of pictures and said “And then these are 6 out of the next 7 past stories (Again, the 7th was COVID related.) That means 12 out of the past 15 stories on their FB page are not COVID related. Sounds like COVID is in the minority, wouldn’t you agree?”

The original claim was about a disproportionate amout of COVID articles compared to non-COVID. When shown evidence that this isn’t accurate (of which the poster could have identified in seconds of searching, as I did) they moved the goal posts. Their response was “There is no reason for the PP and other news media outlets to keep repeating the same “vaccinated vs unvaccinated” formula stories day after day. Just give us the numbers and leave it at that.”

So, we’ve moved from “Too many COVID stories” to “They’re covering it wrong.” Fine, again, I’m okay with criticizing the media. However, I’m not sure how you “Just give us the numbers” without also identifying vax and unvaxxed numbers considering those are a part of the numbers…

I attempted to respond to acknowledge this moving of the goal posts, but I received an error:

I received this error because the original poster was updating their original comment, revising it to officially move the goal posts from COVID stories to vax/unvax coverage.

Original:

Revised (note the “Edited”)

Okay, fine, that’s not the end of the world. I revise shit all the time after recognizing I didn’t make my point effectively. That’s not the end of the world. The 2 things that come next certainly were the icing on the cake, though:

I’m not sure where she got this from. I said no such thing…in fact, I specifically showed examples and commented on the opposite. So the “I agree ____” is a hair off base!

From here, I’m about ready to check out of the conversation, there’s no good faith convo here, so why bother any further? But, the original poster did it for me, she actually didn’t stop at just editing her original comment, but now deleted it and re-posted. She posted the same exact words but didn’t want my contradictory posts displaying anymore (note to the no “Edited”):

All of this is silly and meaningless. Two people having a pointless online conversation where one person is acting in poor faith happens about a million times a day. On its own, it’s barely a blip on the radar. So why bother making this blog entry?

Well, this person isn’t always just a regular average Joe voicing their opinion, but this person is seeking power for a local Maine City Councilor position, including “More public forums, and expanded use of Facebook” because they’re such a pro at public Facebook convos.

Good luck, Hampden:

UPDATE: 11/3/21 Election Results Update: They lost.