It's funny how that's always the response. Obviously it has nothing to do with the well known bastion of free thought journalism at checks notes Black Agenda Report. How dare I question their credibility when they're so well known... Lol
I read several worldwide publications of varying neutrality and bias to piece together a comprehensive understanding of issues.
You continue to post publications I've never heard of and of varying leftist bias. I look them up each time. You should heed your own advice and try broadening your news beyond obscure outlets. If they source a well known outlet that backs up the claim, linking to them would offer you better credibility. Unfortunately that's not typical from my experience, reading these Facebook quality reports.
Justifying biased reading as "They haven't sold out" is akin to burying your head in the sand.
Explaining the outlet is well established and not dictated on what to publish in order for it be broadcast to the masses is deflection? How about instead of saying it's baseless, you highlight what doesn't align with your US Today articles so we can have a discussion instead of sticking your nose up?
Well established? Then why is it relatively unknown? It's barely searchable on any media bias metric, which is a bad start for it's overall out reach and popularity.
USA Today? Please. I'm talking about worldwide outlets of varying neutrality and bias. Reuters, Al Jazeera, Sky, BBC, and AP to name a few.
Check those out if you get tired of the echo chambers I'd expect to find in social media ads and poorly worded tweets. You're one step up from YouTube Shorts "news".
Lemmy, introducing you to the weirdest sources of biased "information".
Yes, because the US has never been involved in imperialism in Latinamerica, this has to be fake because US good.
It's funny how that's always the response. Obviously it has nothing to do with the well known bastion of free thought journalism at checks notes Black Agenda Report. How dare I question their credibility when they're so well known... Lol
They're a 17 year publication which hasn't sold out, maybe read more than just the same sources to gain a better view of whats going on in the world?
I read several worldwide publications of varying neutrality and bias to piece together a comprehensive understanding of issues.
You continue to post publications I've never heard of and of varying leftist bias. I look them up each time. You should heed your own advice and try broadening your news beyond obscure outlets. If they source a well known outlet that backs up the claim, linking to them would offer you better credibility. Unfortunately that's not typical from my experience, reading these Facebook quality reports.
Justifying biased reading as "They haven't sold out" is akin to burying your head in the sand.
My apologies this isn't a corporate media outlet ran by the 1%
There's the deflection. Classic.
Explaining the outlet is well established and not dictated on what to publish in order for it be broadcast to the masses is deflection? How about instead of saying it's baseless, you highlight what doesn't align with your US Today articles so we can have a discussion instead of sticking your nose up?
Well established? Then why is it relatively unknown? It's barely searchable on any media bias metric, which is a bad start for it's overall out reach and popularity.
USA Today? Please. I'm talking about worldwide outlets of varying neutrality and bias. Reuters, Al Jazeera, Sky, BBC, and AP to name a few.
Check those out if you get tired of the echo chambers I'd expect to find in social media ads and poorly worded tweets. You're one step up from YouTube Shorts "news".