3 ms·

How about reacting to the message instead of the messenger? Then there is the fact that there are several recent occasions where such "right wing tabloid(s)" tu

How about reacting to the message instead of the messenger? Then there is the fact that there are several recent occasions where such "right wing tabloid(s)" turned out to be right while the "good, responsible and professional" left-wing publications were very much in the wrong. Blindly siding with any type of publication just makes you a tool for their use whether that'd be a left-wing "useful idiot" along Lenin's lines or the right-wing equivalent.

gremlinsinc 3y ago
my point is the entire site feels shady. also I'm not talking about left wing publications. I'm talking about major news outlets like the ny times, local news papers and tv stations, CNN, etc. I'm also curious what stories you think right wing tabloids got right.
- the_third_wave 3y ago
  > I'm not talking about left wing publications. I'm talking about major news outlets like the ny times That is a contradiction nowadays, the NYT is squarely on the left side of the political spectrum [1]. This goes for the news department but even more for the opinion department which leans even further to the left [2]. As in what "right wing tabloids" got right the prime example is the "Hunter Biden laptop story" - which is far more than a single story but which has become known under those terms. Even though they were factually correct the "left-wing media" has done its best to smear them, try to connect them to "The Russians", label them and otherwise avoid touching the factually correct reporting on Biden's son and what that entails for "The Big Guy". There are other examples where they got things (mostly) right where the "left-wing media" after several years of denial finally came around, a good example of this is the origins of the SARS2 pandemic where the lab leak option was directly put aside simply because their undesirable person #1 (Trump) happened to suggest it. When I read something on e.g. The Guardian I'm flabbergasted by the torrent of climate scare propaganda they keep on pushing which makes it hard for me to take them seriously. That does not mean everything they publish is nonsense, sometimes they engage in factually correct reporting on salient issues. This is why I don't immediately denounce anything published by them as being tainted by their propagandistic tendencies. So, look at the message, not solely at the messenger. If I can do so I do not see why you couldn't. [1] https://www.allsides.com/news-source/new-york-times https://www.allsides.com/news-source/new-york-times [2] https://www.allsides.com/news-source/new-york-times-opinion-media-bias https://www.allsides.com/news-source/new-york-times-opinion-...

gremlinsinc 3y ago

my point is the entire site feels shady. also I'm not talking about left wing publications. I'm talking about major news outlets like the ny times, local news papers and tv stations, CNN, etc. I'm also curious what stories you think right wing tabloids got right.

the_third_wave 3y ago
> I'm not talking about left wing publications. I'm talking about major news outlets like the ny times That is a contradiction nowadays, the NYT is squarely on the left side of the political spectrum [1]. This goes for the news department but even more for the opinion department which leans even further to the left [2]. As in what "right wing tabloids" got right the prime example is the "Hunter Biden laptop story" - which is far more than a single story but which has become known under those terms. Even though they were factually correct the "left-wing media" has done its best to smear them, try to connect them to "The Russians", label them and otherwise avoid touching the factually correct reporting on Biden's son and what that entails for "The Big Guy". There are other examples where they got things (mostly) right where the "left-wing media" after several years of denial finally came around, a good example of this is the origins of the SARS2 pandemic where the lab leak option was directly put aside simply because their undesirable person #1 (Trump) happened to suggest it. When I read something on e.g. The Guardian I'm flabbergasted by the torrent of climate scare propaganda they keep on pushing which makes it hard for me to take them seriously. That does not mean everything they publish is nonsense, sometimes they engage in factually correct reporting on salient issues. This is why I don't immediately denounce anything published by them as being tainted by their propagandistic tendencies. So, look at the message, not solely at the messenger. If I can do so I do not see why you couldn't. [1] https://www.allsides.com/news-source/new-york-times https://www.allsides.com/news-source/new-york-times [2] https://www.allsides.com/news-source/new-york-times-opinion-media-bias https://www.allsides.com/news-source/new-york-times-opinion-...