GenZedong

Uuuuuuugh, “I don’t like this source” is easily one of my least favorite responses; the respondent may as well not even post since they’re ignoring the content anyway. Yes, the Wall Street Journal is puke, but nobody lies 100% of the time. That’s why you need to learn how to read critically.

There has to be some sort of course that people can take to teach them how to properly scrutinize sources and distinguish between good reporting and rumourmongering, rather than trying to take shortcuts like that.

And what’s up with all of the repetitive definitions and attempts to accuse you of being logically fallacious? It doesn’t make the replier look clever; it’s just extremely embarrassing.

Holy crap, this guy BrooklynMan:

I’ll start by addressing your second question first: bias isn’t a binary; it exists on a spectrum. there’s a difference between a tiny bit of bias and extreme bias. So, though previous research and experience, I have come to trust some sources more than others and come to expect certain sources to have more or less bias in one direction or another. that, combined with comparative analysis of multiple sources, one can come closer to factual reporting through one’s own critical analysis of the reporting itself-- however, depending on what’s reported and the sources available, sometimes… one can only be so certain that one is getting the truth.

it can be frustrating trying to find accurate reporting of a story, even from previously trusted sources. I encourage people to read their news from multiple sources whose backgrounds they’ve investigated and to critically analyze the facts presented, and that they apply their own critical analysis to try their best to arrive as close as they can to the facts. Also, to realize that, in the world of corporate media, that being certain that the news you’re consuming is 100% accurate my not be possible.

Has anything libbier ever been spewed?

Always gotta love the faux-confidence the libs have of knowing they are always right, because they can dismiss anyone who doesn't agree with them as biased/a shill/propagandist.

Heaven forbid somebody engage in an intellectually honest debate with somebody with a differing opinion. Even if somebody IS spouting propaganda, you don't become tainted by having a discussion with them; you might even convince a third party who is viewing.

I am an incredibly sceptical person, i read dozens of news sources from countries all around the world, private business news, western state funded news, middle eastern, conservative, nationalist, socialist, im obsessed with learning the narratives around the world and how each society interacts with geopolitics. Never in my life have I found the west so full of shit on a subject, maybe aside for wmds, this conflict has been constantly and consistently lied about in every western news source. Its honestly remarkable, i regularly compare and contrast pro ukraine and pro russian sources down to military movements reports of casualties, wins losses, everything and 90% of the time the Russian information is accurate or damn close to accurate and the ukrainians are just outright lying.

i prefer not to waste my time on speculation from biased sources.

fair question, but I’m sorry that I may disappoint you in saying that I doubt any news source is (or even could be) completely unbiased. major newswire sources do try by only reporting raw facts, but even they let bias slip in when editors choose which facts to report.

So what you're saying, Brooklyn Man, and expect me to believe, is that you have no beliefs and dont listen to anyone. what a moron

That was an exhausting read.

Are you sure that this is not a bot? The BrooklynMan seems to do basic webscraping, then make arguments independant of the context of the article itself, then doubles down on their incoherent epistemology. is it that hard to automate?