LA Times with a fascinating example of how journos like to COMMUNICATE things without SAYING things. The thesis of the article is that ICE is going to somehow prevent people from voting. This is, according to the author, Bad. Now an ordinary person might have some questions at this point. Like, how could ICE possibly prevent anyone from voting? Doesn’t ICE detain illegals that aren’t allowed to vote? If so, how would anything ICE does impact the vote in any way? But journos are NOT ordinary people. Journos have special training that allows them to bypass such irrelevant matters. No joke - These questions are not even *considered* in the article, let alone answered. Seriously! Read the whole thing! They’re just … not there at all. They don’t exist. Instead, the author simply presents as fact that ICE will impact the vote in some way. There is no explanation or even a hint of an explanation as to how this could be true. No mechanism is even hinted at. The author also mentions - almost as an aside - that the DOJ has sued LA for allowing illegal voting. Is the DOJ right? Is the DOJ lying? These questions are not presented. The author does not care. Such questions are unimportant and shall not be acknowledged. Call me old fashioned but I think we deserve a higher QUALITY of hackery from our journos. I don’t want transparent nonsense like this. I want to be gaslit until I don’t know what’s what anymore. Do better journos.