2 ms·

I guess your assumption is that everyone left-aligned watches (and agrees with) MSNBC. That isn't true. I certainly don't watch it. There are reliable news out

I guess your assumption is that everyone left-aligned watches (and agrees with) MSNBC. That isn't true. I certainly don't watch it. There are reliable news outlets. Don't assume that just because an outlet has a political skew in the direction opposite from your preferred one that everyone you disagree with must watch and endorse it. That's a strawman.

dev_by_day 5y ago
> That's a strawman. Its a strawman that you are introducing by saying: > I suspect what you mean by this is "outlets claiming to report 'news' but actually spreading misinformation". > That's quite different from "disagreement". I am pointing out that there is not a large difference between what you say is misinformation and disagreement. Many news outlets get things wrong and are guilty of allowing political bias to steer them towards saying things that are not true. You can't just call something misinformation because you disagree with it. Nearly every news outlet in this country has gotten things wrong at some point and a tenuous definition of misinformation could be used to make them all look bad. Citing something as "misinformation" is often a strawman argument and a word used to dismiss viewpoints people do not agree with on any issue that has some ambiguity, including the lab leak theory.