3 ms·

If you go to CNN.com (or Fox, or MSNBC or whatever) right now, you'll find that almost everything is fully true. Find me a story in today's news that is 'not t

If you go to CNN.com (or Fox, or MSNBC or whatever) right now, you'll find that almost everything is fully true. Find me a story in today's news that is 'not true'. You probably can't. That's what I mean by 'mostly true' or credible. I agree that sometimes, some of their stories are not true. But this is rare. And of course they all have their biases. And yes, Greenwald and Wikileaks also have biases.

wallace_f 10y ago
First of all, Wikileaks has obvious bias against the DNC/Clinton/establishment politics, most of which are personally motivated by grievances of Assange, which are based on perceived injustices he has suffered allegedly coming from them. I will however defend Greenwald on alleged bias. Greenwald is a Jewish-born gay man who justly and earnestly defended a White Nationalist on principle alone. I can't think of another journalist who more purely fights for constitutionally-granted civil rights. Can you? Now, about your inaccurate news argument. I believe you ignored the examples I already listed; however, graciously allowing that to be set aside: you said that you'd find most information accurate information at CNN. In fact, I believe one could dutifully read the information at CNN and it would be mostly accurate; yet the reader's perceptions would still be further from reality than one who read a lot of misinformation from mainstream representations of alt media like reddit.com/r/conspiracy. For example, Google searching site:cnn.com Tulsi Gabbard returns mostly articles with headlines with negative connotations about her 'facing criticism for meeting with Assad.' How many US citizens know most of our funding towards the Syrian proxy war with Russia is to ISIS and Al Qaeda in Syria? "If you don't read the news, you're uninformed. If you read the news, you're misinformed." -Mark Twain

wallace_f 10y ago

First of all, Wikileaks has obvious bias against the DNC/Clinton/establishment politics, most of which are personally motivated by grievances of Assange, which are based on perceived injustices he has suffered allegedly coming from them. I will however defend Greenwald on alleged bias. Greenwald is a Jewish-born gay man who justly and earnestly defended a White Nationalist on principle alone. I can't think of another journalist who more purely fights for constitutionally-granted civil rights. Can you? Now, about your inaccurate news argument. I believe you ignored the examples I already listed; however, graciously allowing that to be set aside: you said that you'd find most information accurate information at CNN. In fact, I believe one could dutifully read the information at CNN and it would be mostly accurate; yet the reader's perceptions would still be further from reality than one who read a lot of misinformation from mainstream representations of alt media like reddit.com/r/conspiracy. For example, Google searching site:cnn.com Tulsi Gabbard returns mostly articles with headlines with negative connotations about her 'facing criticism for meeting with Assad.' How many US citizens know most of our funding towards the Syrian proxy war with Russia is to ISIS and Al Qaeda in Syria? "If you don't read the news, you're uninformed. If you read the news, you're misinformed." -Mark Twain