Double Down News
View company profile →
I'm not entirely sure about this site…
I'm not entirely sure about this site as a valid source for information and opinion. I think I may have a problem with standards in general. I appreciate that each of the journalists seems free to use their own style of presentation, but some of the tactics employed in delivery has me questioning the validity of content... as does some of the choices made with the headlining. The headline stating "Jeremy Corbyn Demolishes The Establishment" is a typical example. Anyone who has been on Youtube for five minutes will understand the use of terms like 'Demolishes, Terrifying, Destroys' are all inflammatory terms used to stir up emotion, exaggerate and entice people into viewing the topic, ie clickbate. That the site employs the use such terms in their headlines, on their own website is a touch unsettling. That is, aside from the fact that Jeremy Corbyn comes with his own set of questionable behaviour, and seeming to be 'Lorded' here as some sort of intellectual guru on the behaviour of the establishment raised some considerable alarm bells of their own. I think Articles like "Former British Soldier EXPOSES the monarchy" which really made me think, are undone with such headlines. It taints them with a sense of parody and undermines the power of the message they carry by labelling them as some sort of revenue seeking information provider. The "God Help Us" article on Liz Truss was a kaleidoscope of exaggerated laughing, odd mannerisms, video inserts and strange undermining tactics that do little to add credence to it. It is a detrimental way to present serious issues IMO. Adding to the hoard of already illegitimate sources of information that present in this questionable manner is... odd, and I can't see why anyone intent on serious information dissemination would do so, at least to this level of extremity. I think If the substance of an article is sufficiently compelling, (and actually, in this case I think it is) then requirement for such overstated delivery is superfluous. I'm not saying that news delivery has to mimic the stoicism of the BBC, but I do think this 'over the top' presentation style does the channel a disservice. Well, that is my two cents. I've been honest (as I try to be) with my impressions, which I hope will help you come to conclusions of your own without having to invest as much time as I do in drawing a accurate conclusion. I'll keep visiting the site for a bit and see how things develop, but I already have my reservations. Edit: I've been visiting the sight for a few weeks now and have come to the conclusion its not a legitimate news site at all. There have certainly been no updates for the past week, maybe longer. The leading article is at least two weeks old. There's not even any coverage on the Liz Truss' resignation and that was four days ago, so that about says it all.