3 ms·
Again, you’re just confusing disagreement for bias. As if The NY Times or WaPo don’t provide a platforms for left wing think tanks? Are you worried about the bi
by WillPostForFood 6y ago
Again, you’re just confusing disagreement for bias. As if The NY Times or WaPo don’t provide a platforms for left wing think tanks? Are you worried about the bias of The NY Times Editorial page when they undermine the science of gender or IQ? The WSJ editorial page should be the most important thing you read every day so you can actually understand the reasoning (yes reason) of people with different positions than you.
- fulafel 6y agoNo, there's not a "both sides do it" situation in this production of intentionally misleading content in the most prominent newspapers.
- baggy_trough 6y agoIf you believe so, then you should try to break out of your bubble a little more.
- fulafel 6y agosee the recent insurrection at WSJ reported eg as " 280+ Wall Street Journal Journalists Sign Letter Blasting Opinion Section for ‘Lack of Fact-Checking’ and ‘Disregard for Evidence’" (https://www.thewrap.com/280-wall-street-journal-journalists-sign-letter-blasting-opinion-section-for-lack-of-fact-checking-and-disregard-for-evidence/ https://www.thewrap.com/280-wall-street-journal-journalists-...)
- baggy_trough 6y agoYour comment is fully compatible with my comment above.
- rswail 6y agoThe first problem is agreement on facts. For example, the following are questioned and dismissed by large numbers of opinion pages in the WSJ and other Murdoch papers and media outlets: * Is COVID a pandemic? * Is climate change happening at a rate that is unprecedented in archeological and geological time? * Is that climate change due to human activities? Let alone ridiculous assertions like claiming that the Democratic party in the US espouses "socialist" policies or that the GOP party has "fiscal conservatism" as an underlying principle.
- rufus_foreman 6y agoDo you think climate change is happening at a greater rate now than it did at the K-T boundary?