Anyone still trying to say AP and Reuters are independent and unbiased after the way they’ve covered Israel’s genocide is just revealing their own extreme ideological bias.
Also, the whole concept of saying to avoid liberal sources and then pointing to liberal sources while saying that they’re “unbiased” (as if bias free sources are even possible) is a peak example of fish not knowing what water is.
Okay… let’s play this game. I want you to go ahead and prove these “facts” of yours for me. Give me unbiased sources that provide empirical evidence to support your claim.
EDIT: Note how throughout the rest of this conversion, this person failed to answer the question, and tried several times to distract by trying to make be defend a point that wasn’t necessary to defend. This is what they do.
You first. Please present your empirical evidence from completely unbiased sources for your claims:
Because sensationalism creates ad revenue.
and
So the news you receive from any side of any story is going to try and make you as angry/scared as possible so you’re more apt to share it and spread the word
and
they then use the page bits and time spent on their sites to generate more ad revenue.
and
tankie, far-left, liberal, democratic, conservative, republican, and MAGA-affiliated sites. They’re guaranteed to not be honest with you
and
stick with independent and unbiased sources like Reuters and Associated Press.
(Here present empirical evidence from unbiased source for the claim that these networks are independent, for the claim they’re unbiased, and for the claim that you should stick with them).
Go on, practice what you preach, don’t just be a bad faith hypocrite who’s bigmad that his own personal bias isn’t unquestionably accepted as gospel truth.
Lol
“Everything I don’t like is fake news”
Considering how freely and often you use terms like “shitlibs,” I can see how something like this might make you laugh.
Is it the over seventy prestige in journalism awards between them that you find funny?
Anyone still trying to say AP and Reuters are independent and unbiased after the way they’ve covered Israel’s genocide is just revealing their own extreme ideological bias.
Also, the whole concept of saying to avoid liberal sources and then pointing to liberal sources while saying that they’re “unbiased” (as if bias free sources are even possible) is a peak example of fish not knowing what water is.
Yeah… there no point it discussing this with you.
Average liberal when presented with facts.
Okay… let’s play this game. I want you to go ahead and prove these “facts” of yours for me. Give me unbiased sources that provide empirical evidence to support your claim.
EDIT: Note how throughout the rest of this conversion, this person failed to answer the question, and tried several times to distract by trying to make be defend a point that wasn’t necessary to defend. This is what they do.
Lol. So not Reuters or AP then.
Either back up your claim or walk away.
You first. Please present your empirical evidence from completely unbiased sources for your claims:
and
and
and
and
(Here present empirical evidence from unbiased source for the claim that these networks are independent, for the claim they’re unbiased, and for the claim that you should stick with them).
Go on, practice what you preach, don’t just be a bad faith hypocrite who’s bigmad that his own personal bias isn’t unquestionably accepted as gospel truth.