Holy mother of nonsense. We do circular reasoning now?
You are projecting and not really paying attention to what I am writing.
Really?
What I've already said on the topic:
"There is no clear governing model to determine the scale of honesty of news organizations as many undefined variables exist. Is one media source, that regularly and unfairly criticizes a political party, more dishonest than a mega-news corp that publishes a single grand hoax that, perhaps intentionally, crashes the economy?"
"100 Buzzfeed articles may not be as overreaching as 1 WAPO article." (in any context, including conspiracy theories)
impressive that you changed the order of your statements. we didn't talk about over reaching until I brought up the fact epoch was putting pseudo science with a link. You are intentionally now trying to reorder your arguments at this point.
So for those who want to know. the overachieving argument should come after the quote beneath the next one
Oh further more, those parentheses are new. not his original argument.
What I've already said on the subject:
"You can take it however seriously you want. They make articles that pander to their base, as do all publications. If one of their stories is being used, you can check their sources."
"They do that. They will do it again."
and I brought up that it's quite clear the pandering they are doing is conspiracy and pseudo science.
Are we confusing the difference between a News Platform/Publisher and a News Reporter? Many reporters earn their own reputation in order to become recognized and prestigious. A site like Epoch will publish almost anyone if it aligns with their base's interest and gets them more clicks/$.
News reporters should definitely be researching what they are reporting. If a report goes on writing an article about a conspiracy, and the platform allows it. It is wrong. And this still fails to refute my point
Epoch is not a trustworthy source
if you want to gundown mediabiasfact check go ahead. But if they (epoch) are putting out clear articles that are untrue, which I showed an example that they were.
There's only so long before you call the kettle it's color.
I wasn't the one saying that you are a leftist. You did that.
And I wasn't the one arguing that having a bias for a side somehow changes the fact that the most prominent/overeaching conspiracy theories are on the right wing, or arguing that that epoch is a trustworthy news source. Because that's essentially what you were arguing. I pointed out x thing, you went out of your way to talk about y as if it changed x. When it never did.
X being epoch isn't credible
y being that fact checkers have issues and it goes into confirmation bias.
Tell me, does fact checkers having issues somehow the contents of the page for epoch? That they posted pseudo science. If it somehow does, please tell me how.
tell me how rendering invalid mediabiasfactcheck changes epoch's page: