in my opinion, these news sources can be good to a degree.
how i view it is: you can read these news sources to learn about shit, it's not that they never have good pieces points or analyses, but you must be constantly aware what they report and how they report it will very frequently frame issues to support US (or western, liberal capitalist) interests.
in terms of people saying these are bad only looking for leftist propaganda and confirmation bias, i gotta say your take is very presumptuous and also wrong, there's a lot of valid criticism you can have of these news orgs and there are definitely legitimate news sources outside of that mainstream sphere. why do you conflate critiques of this sort with "being edgy?" that sounds like a failure of understanding what these critiques are about or perhaps even their existence.
what makes you so dismissive of criticism of mainstream news?
in my opinion, these news sources can be good to a degree.
how i view it is: you can read these news sources to learn about shit, it's not that they never have good pieces points or analyses, but you must be constantly aware what they report and how they report it will very frequently frame issues to support US (or western, liberal capitalist) interests.
in terms of people saying these are bad only looking for leftist propaganda and confirmation bias, i gotta say your take is very presumptuous and also wrong, there's a lot of valid criticism you can have of these news orgs and there are definitely legitimate news sources outside of that mainstream sphere. why do you conflate critiques of this sort with "being edgy?" that sounds like a failure of understanding what these critiques are about or perhaps even their existence.
what makes you so dismissive of criticism of mainstream news?
Many of Chapo heads want far-left fake news, let's be real for a second. People here would claim DPRK state media is more accurate than the BBC.