Fundamentally ethical and reliable? Wow. It says a lot that Fox and OAN are your basis of comparison. Search CNN.com for Donziger and see how many results you

Fundamentally ethical and reliable? Wow. It says a lot that Fox and OAN are your basis of comparison. Search CNN.com for Donziger and see how many results you get. I'll save you the effort; it's ZERO. Here's a CNN page full of facts on the kids in border camps - https://edition.cnn.com/interactive/2021/04/politics/biden-administration-border-crisis/ https://edition.cnn.com/interactive/2021/04/politics/biden-a... People will read that, and think to themselves, oh what an even handed tone. What a large number of facts, and nice graphic breakdowns. But the crucial context is missing - who is running those camps, and what are their contracts like? Those people are making money hand over fist, on the back of the misery of children in tin-foil blankets drinking water out of toilets. Same with their "fast facts" section on Assange - an exercise in misinformation. The information might be "factual", but it's carefully selected to give a particular impression. Crucial information isn't there, such as the US' key witness admitting he gave false evidence, or Nils Melzer's observations. Yes, a search for Nils Melzer yields TWO articles - compare to a search for 'Kardashian', which yields 1,700 hits. There are more stories about the Kardashian's shoe line than the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture. A search for 'Chomsky' yields 7 result; none seem to be about him or his observations. Yes, SEVEN, the single digit number. 'Zizek' yields ONE (and 'Žižek 'yields zero). 'Snooki' yields 116. That's not News bud; not any more than Fox. That's entertainment. If you want to learn about a fire in California there are hundreds of ways to do it, and they're probably mostly better than CNN.