> You cannot trust facts reported in an article that's advocating change. There's zero reason why an article advocating for a change can't also contain trustw

> You cannot trust facts reported in an article that's advocating change. There's zero reason why an article advocating for a change can't also contain trustworthy facts. I'm not saying this article is a good example of one, but I wouldn't follow "You cannot trust facts reported in an article that's advocating change." as a general rule. Pretty much every article advocating for a change is going to include facts, but that doesn't make them all untrustworthy. Advocating for something in an article doesn't require the author to ignore everything that doesn't support their viewpoint, or lying/misleading, or cherry-picking. Identifying that an author is advocating for something should cause you to be on the look for out for those types of things (that's just critical thinking), but they shouldn't be assumed and the article or the facts it contains shouldn't be immediately dismissed as untrustworthy or wrong based on that assumption.