• Fazoo@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    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

      • Fazoo@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        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.

            • §ɦṛɛɗɗịɛ ßịⱺ𝔩ⱺɠịᵴŧ@lemmy.mlOP
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              4
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              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?

              • Fazoo@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                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”.

                • §ɦṛɛɗɗịɛ ßịⱺ𝔩ⱺɠịᵴŧ@lemmy.mlOP
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  4
                  arrow-down
                  3
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  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.

                  • Fazoo@lemmy.ml
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    arrow-down
                    2
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    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.