I'm still confused... why? Why would the US Media hold up someone who is not conservative leaning as the opposition to a conservative leader they don't like instead of claiming them for their own?
My first instinct is that they do it for the same reason they called Merrick Garland a moderate: to neutralize opposition.
I'm not really sure what benefit that would have here, though, since no U.S. news consumer is voting in the Hungarian presidential election.
...which suggests a simple case for Hanlon's Razor: never attribute to malice that which can adequately explained by stupidity. There may very well be no conspiracy here, just terrible journalism.
EDIT: Well, no, really, that's too kind. They clearly _do_ know that Marki-Zay is pro-choice and opposed to the LGBT law, so this isn't a case of simple stupidity.
I'm still confused... why? Why would the US Media hold up someone who is not conservative leaning as the opposition to a conservative leader they don't like instead of claiming them for their own?
My first instinct is that they do it for the same reason they called Merrick Garland a moderate: to neutralize opposition.
I'm not really sure what benefit that would have here, though, since no U.S. news consumer is voting in the Hungarian presidential election.
...which suggests a simple case for Hanlon's Razor: never attribute to malice that which can adequately explained by stupidity. There may very well be no conspiracy here, just terrible journalism.
EDIT: Well, no, really, that's too kind. They clearly _do_ know that Marki-Zay is pro-choice and opposed to the LGBT law, so this isn't a case of simple stupidity.