This is equivalent to the “victor” of a conflict writing history. Ideally, this stuff should show the original statement, their sources and a critique, then po

This is equivalent to the “victor” of a conflict writing history. Ideally, this stuff should show the original statement, their sources and a critique, then potentially a rebuttal. So often, political coverage contains outright lies or mischaracterized truths from both sides. Take in recent news the “hunter biden laptop”. A senate subcommittee documented it appeared legitimate (a quick search finds this https://www.hsgac.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/HSGAC_Finance_Report_FINAL.pdf https://www.hsgac.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/HSGAC_Finance_Rep...), yet the news almost everywhere claimed it’s “fake news”. Even Wikipedia claims it a “conspiracy theory”, which based on the senate report - it is a conspiracy, but not a theory. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biden%E2%80%93Ukraine_conspiracy_theory https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biden%E2%80%93Ukraine_conspi... The wiki even contains stuff that has since been retracted. https://www.npr.org/2021/03/31/983159102/hunter-bidens-memoir-beautiful-things-seeks-to-tell-just-where-hes-been https://www.npr.org/2021/03/31/983159102/hunter-bidens-memoi... > A previous version of this story said U.S. intelligence had discredited the laptop story. U.S. intelligence officials have not made a statement to that effect. I think it’s fine to criticize stuff, but you have to present both sides. Not just say “fake news” and move on.