No. It is unsubstantiated because you have provided no substantiation. To anybody that is not you "their recent track record" is not a meaningful statement without some context or citation.
That does not provide any amount of substantiation to your claim. Not only is it an anecdotal claim, you're not even relaying the anecdotes themselves!
Also just dropping in to make a blanket (and OT) claim that the WaPo is putting out clickbait "lately" reeks of ulterior motives. If you actually had a substantiative claim about how this particular story is misleading or erroneous that would be another thing.
The WP article title is "David Gelernter, fiercely anti-intellectual computer scientist, is being eyed for Trump’s science adviser."
Your WE article says "Gelernter is also a fierce critic of academia."
Gelernter is self-defined as anti-intellectual. He wrote a book titled America-Lite: How Imperial Academia Dismantled Our Culture (and Ushered in the Obamacrats).
His Amazon book description states "David Gelernter connects the historical dots to reveal a stealth revolution carried out by post-religious globalist intellectuals who..."
Ya, you can usually make arguments about how clickbait or sensationalist headlines are "accurate" as long as they contain seeds of fact, but that hardly makes them any less clickbaitish nor representative of the objective facts as a whole.
So, in totality, the true clickbait here is the Washington Examiner article, the one that you provided.
The source that you were complaining about, is in this instance at least, accurate and representative of the whole. Absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence, but this thread has painted a pretty clear picture to me at least.
I think HN mods may have changed headline to a more reasonable one (or maybe they didn't) but lets contrast the reasonable HN headline (US Senate votes to undo FCC internet privacy rules) with the more alarmist Washington Post version (The Senate just voted to undo landmark rules covering your Internet privacy).
I mean, OMG, these privacy rules were Landmark. And now they are Undone. And it's YOUR privacy that is gone. OMG OMG OMG your ISP is going to start spying on you Right Now! Guaranteed per the headline.
Look, I don't agree with this action by the Senate either as I read about it.
I just am opposed to clickbait headlines from Washington Post and feel they go a bit far and it's worth looking into the claims and implications they make rather than taking them at face value. And they have been getting a bit carried away with this type of thing and sometimes don't present a very accurate picture. That's all.
As far as the thread painting a clear picture it does for me as well. The picture I get is that otherwise intelligent people are forgiving when sensationalism and clickbait support an ideology they uphold.
Yes, but my point isn't ideology or it's opposite. It's click bait headlines that have a distorted take on the actual event. If you don't see these type of headlines as clickbait (for whatever reason, ideology perhaps?) then we'll have to just disagree.
(full disclosure, I disagree with a good share of Washington Post's ideology and consider much of what they print little short of propaganda, but that's just me.)
Oh, and I don't like what I perceive as sensationalist clickbait headlines, no matter what the ideology is.
