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".
Reuters is ran by Bell Globemedia and has ties to the Rothschilds, Al Jazeera is ran out of Dubai and is Qatari state-owned, Sky is owned by Comcast, BBC is well established in their elitism, and Vanguard + Blackrock are the big financiers behind AP.
You seem to be doing a ton of projecting, I hope you're ok. Take it easy and be well.
None of which align with each other, hence my continued statement of reading from many sources, of varied bias and neutrality. At least I know who is running the show in these places, unlike the unknown outlets you dredge up from the backwaters of the Internet.
You seem to have a serious comprehension problem. Best of luck on your continued education.
They are all ran by the top 0.1%, any opposing views were intended to simply ignite the ongoing culture war as a distraction from topics like this US backed coup in Peru. Your selection of news outlets is on par with using CNN, Fox, MSNBC, NY Times and the Washington Post. It's wild to me you are blind to this aspect while also soo quick to critique actual independent media.
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".
Reuters is ran by Bell Globemedia and has ties to the Rothschilds, Al Jazeera is ran out of Dubai and is Qatari state-owned, Sky is owned by Comcast, BBC is well established in their elitism, and Vanguard + Blackrock are the big financiers behind AP.
You seem to be doing a ton of projecting, I hope you're ok. Take it easy and be well.
None of which align with each other, hence my continued statement of reading from many sources, of varied bias and neutrality. At least I know who is running the show in these places, unlike the unknown outlets you dredge up from the backwaters of the Internet.
You seem to have a serious comprehension problem. Best of luck on your continued education.
They are all ran by the top 0.1%, any opposing views were intended to simply ignite the ongoing culture war as a distraction from topics like this US backed coup in Peru. Your selection of news outlets is on par with using CNN, Fox, MSNBC, NY Times and the Washington Post. It's wild to me you are blind to this aspect while also soo quick to critique actual independent media.