Apparently someone’s downvoted this as misleading, clickbaity and/or sensationalized as well. That’s funny, only a little while ago another piece not entirely in accordance with the going McCarthyist hysteria also ticked someone off. Assuming there were actual reasons, what were they?

I mean, nobody at Snapzu would haul off and do something like that without being able to specify what stated facts or drawn conclusions may’ve mislead someone, would they?

Or if it was clickbaityness — you know, from this, the veteran investigative reporter who broke the Iran/Contra scandal, recipient of the George Polk Award and the I.F. Stone Medal — they should be able to point out exactly what it was that struck them as clickbaity, right?

Perhaps they made the decision to reflexively downvote this as somehow sensationalized. I’d like to know the precise reasoning behind that controversial decision on their part. Clearly any Snapzu user should be able to articulate why they elected to negatively curate, right?

Goodness, what would it say about them if they couldn’t cite any fathomable reason? That they’d acted without thinking? That they lost it? That they saw something that might’ve, gasp! informed them, so they knew what they had to do? I’d hate to think that was true, but I’ll face the possibility honestly. Something I wish they’d tried first, before going full chickenshit.