Where does that say applause? It says “by comparison”(to booing) they warmly embraced Walz. Why “by comparison”? If they warmly embraced him then just say how they did so. They could have sat silently and waited for him to speak and it would be warmer than booing. They could have brought out a marching band in his honor. If you don’t say who knows? Specificity is important if you don’t want to look like you’re trying to spread a narrative that may or may not be true. I shouldn’t have to go find another article describing the event to know what actually happened.
As I said it could mean any number of things the threshold they established was warmer than being met with boos. They can either describe what they are claiming happened within the article or be yet another shit journalist. Not that they care as long as their headline gets clicks.
What else would they do? It’s either cheer or boo.
If they had got up and left en masse they’d write that.
If they started a riot, then they’d write that.
Seriously does everything need to be spelled out for you word for word?
It feels like if they had explicitly wrote “they then cheered for Walz” you’d be in here questioning the applicability of the word “cheered” based on the number of people cheering, the exuberance of their cheers, and the length of which the cheer was sustained.
Seriously does everything need to be spelled out for you word for word?
Yea, unless they just want everyone to guess what happened (applying their own biases to that in the process). I don’t see why expecting a piece of journalism to be as accurate as possible is such a controversial opinion.
Where does that say applause? It says “by comparison”(to booing) they warmly embraced Walz. Why “by comparison”? If they warmly embraced him then just say how they did so. They could have sat silently and waited for him to speak and it would be warmer than booing. They could have brought out a marching band in his honor. If you don’t say who knows? Specificity is important if you don’t want to look like you’re trying to spread a narrative that may or may not be true. I shouldn’t have to go find another article describing the event to know what actually happened.
Wtf do you think warmly embraced means? Jesus, use some context clues or I don’t know find a video of them applauding Governor Walz.
https://youtu.be/xOigsXPRsuk?si=tN5vgzsC2IrlL7Z5
That legitimately took me 15 seconds to find a video where I could hear them clapping.
I’d go even further and say “warmly embraced” is an understatement compared to Vance being openly booed by the same convention.
As I said it could mean any number of things the threshold they established was warmer than being met with boos. They can either describe what they are claiming happened within the article or be yet another shit journalist. Not that they care as long as their headline gets clicks.
What else would they do? It’s either cheer or boo.
If they had got up and left en masse they’d write that.
If they started a riot, then they’d write that.
Seriously does everything need to be spelled out for you word for word?
It feels like if they had explicitly wrote “they then cheered for Walz” you’d be in here questioning the applicability of the word “cheered” based on the number of people cheering, the exuberance of their cheers, and the length of which the cheer was sustained.
Yea, unless they just want everyone to guess what happened (applying their own biases to that in the process). I don’t see why expecting a piece of journalism to be as accurate as possible is such a controversial opinion.
What do you expect, for them to have sucked his dick?
Given the vagueness of the article that’s a possibility.