Just a week or so ago Trump suggests the US will take over Gaza

[UltraBudgie]

Yo, [sup]?

Not much, [/sup] with you?

[quintessentone]

LOL don't be so sensitive, I was on Media Bias about another post, wanted to see how they rated out.

I was ONLY checking because somebody got pissy for me using X.com sources suggesting they were right-biased

like Maxmars suggested every site has its biases and slant regardless 

but let's not pretend CFR.org doesn't have Democrat ties and objectives

Leadership

The point remains that the facts can still be reported correctly no matter the political leaning, correct?

[Maxmars]

LOL don't be so sensitive, I was on Media Bias about another post, wanted to see how they rated out.

I was ONLY checking because somebody got pissy for me using X.com sources suggesting they were right-biased

like Maxmars suggested every site has its biases and slant regardless 

but let's not pretend CFR.org doesn't have Democrat ties and objectives

Leadership

I sometimes wonder at the "metrics" of labeling any author as "conservative" or "liberal," "left or right-leaning" (outside of self-advertising,) etc. 
It seems disingenuous that any individual should be defined that way. 

But I understand the desire to say, one way or another, that a particular persons opinion may sway one way or another.

But then there is "the source"... like a publishers with "editorial" oversight AND input, other retailers of "news" or opinion, etc.   They sort of frequently self-identify, don't they?
Don't always really need a metric, in some regards.

I can't ever sit comfortably with the notion that I can 'reject' an idea, not by its' content, but by who is talking.

On the other hand, to elevate one's reputation of bias to the level of "newsworthiness" might also suggest self-service.

(Ugh!  Some aspects of the media just can't help but be toxic in this context.)

[putnam6]

I sometimes wonder at the "metrics" of labeling any author as "conservative" or "liberal," "left or right-leaning" (outside of self-advertising,) etc. 
It seems disingenuous that any individual should be defined that way. 

But I understand the desire to say, one way or another, that a particular persons opinion may sway one way or another.

But then there is "the source"... like a publishers with "editorial" oversight AND input, other retailers of "news" or opinion, etc.   They sort of frequently self-identify, don't they?
Don't always really need a metric, in some regards.

I can't ever sit comfortably with the notion that I can 'reject' an idea, not by its' content, but by who is talking.

On the other hand, to elevate one's reputation of bias to the level of "newsworthiness" might also suggest self-service.

(Ugh!  Some aspects of the media just can't help but be toxic in this context.)

My local paper sucks I have a subscription to WAPO so lets end the notion Im stuck in a right-wing echo chamber 

I like Ground News for most stories I care about and then try and read a couple of viewpoints from either side