It's frustrating how close some people are to realizing that their favorite news sources are not news anymore. They're all propaganda pieces bought and paid for

It's frustrating how close some people are to realizing that their favorite news sources are not news anymore. They're all propaganda pieces bought and paid for by big tech and government subsidies - being used to report on narratives and feelings to control how people react and think on social issues instead of thinking and reacting for themselves. If they truly wanted to be unbiased, you'd write an article like: - Permafrost is melting at faster rates than before in Alaska, showing varied studies and charts. - People are being displaced because their houses were built for permafrost and now that it's gone their houses are falling apart. The journalist seems to have done this from my reading. - We need to look at the future and see how this will affect our planet, our ecosystems around it, and the people directly affected by it. - We're looking at old traditions and cultures to try and come up with new unique ideas to living in the north as 'naturally' as possible. The journalist doesn't need to "tell" you you need to be concerned. They don't need to tell you "possible reasons or speculations in an industry or environment the journalist has next to no experience in, that may or may not directly correlate to the plight of the Alaskan permafrost but it's convenient and helps drive the narrative so we'll put it in". Tell us the facts and let us make our own opinions. I'd read the original washington post article in full, but they want me to pay for it so I'll pass. Pay for biased journalism? Nah, I'm good.