3 comments
excuse my salty drunk post, i just thought idiots who worry so much that others can't see the slants for themselves might want to ease off of their virtue signalling. oh, and idiots who can't see the slants for themselves might want to find something else to do with their time.
[excuse my salty drunk post](https://i.imgur.com/nhaaZwr.gif), i just thought idiots who worry so much that others can't see the slants for themselves might want to ease off of their [virtue signalling](https://i.imgur.com/a6kkvF0.gif). oh, and idiots who can't see the slants for themselves might want to find something else to do with their time.
You're not wrong.
Any large media outfit is going to post a lot of bullshit. It's how they got enough sales to become big.
However some are better than others, and some so bad that I understand why people won't even look at them.
For example 'Thinkprogress' is so biased that it makes British tabloids look reputable. It's hard to argue in favour of a news outlet like that, and sadly the more mainstream outlets seem to be losing even more credibility every day.
I've gotten to the point that I don't believe anything that gets reported until I have cross checked it with a few independent sources.
At the end of all that, you're still right. We should judge each article by itself, but I don't blame others for ignoring some publications. The problem with that is if you throw out all dubious news, there is nothing left.
You're not wrong.
Any large media outfit is going to post a lot of bullshit. It's how they got enough sales to become big.
However some are better than others, and some so bad that I understand why people won't even look at them.
For example 'Thinkprogress' is so biased that it makes British tabloids look reputable. It's hard to argue in favour of a news outlet like that, and sadly the more mainstream outlets seem to be losing even more credibility every day.
I've gotten to the point that I don't believe anything that gets reported until I have cross checked it with a few independent sources.
At the end of all that, you're still right. We should judge each article by itself, but I don't blame others for ignoring some publications. The problem with that is if you throw out all dubious news, there is nothing left.
I have found that WP has had some great coverage over the past few months. There was a really well put together article 2-3 months ago about the Obama administration's response to Russian interference in the lead up to the election, and I remember thinking at the time that it was the best article I had ever read from any US source.
Just look at the URL of any news article and it will tell you if you've stumbled into the shit section. This post's section, for example. A number of other sites do this too, the Guardian has a couple of really bad sections that I stay well away from.