Are there any decent news sites anymore?

[opethNJ]

I listed 7 total sites that I wouldn't use as a solo source with those being: The Epoch Times, Natural News, TGP, CTH, 4Chan, Reddit, CNN, MSN, Wiki. I have to wonder why you focused on The Epoch Times ( a conservative site) vs realizing that its essentially 50% democrat and 50% republican which I would not solo source. 

Still, I have no bias towards either side because , much like I said over and over on a past site, I do not not think that the current POTUS and the last POTUS are anywhere near good enough to lead this country. That both parties have to do way better then they have. 

In regards to The Epoch Times again as shown on that other site I don't believe in posting anything unless I have good information to make and informed decision on whatever it is I am saying. I've been to The Epoch Times quite a bit and just by looking at the article rotation you can easily see they are anti-vax which I don't agree with and very pro-Trump. Inherently people or sites should be able to believe what they want so at its core I support them being antivax and huge supporters of Trump. I disagree with both but as I said, I support their choice to do just that. Which leads to that list of sites I wouldn't solo source. When trying to figure out the truth, using anything or anyone with a clear bias means you are only getting 1 side of the story.

 

This thread is about "Are there any decent news sites anymore?". That's it.  Not what is the best sole-source news site?. 

I listed one as part of the discussion, and you appeared to lump it in with some very suspect news sites (GWP, CT) known for peddling outright falsehoods. and called it conspiracy-driven.  All I did was try and clear up what I considered misinformation about the one that I originally presented as a good news site. That's why I focused on it.


...

As to anti-vax, a lot of people equate anything negative about the covid vax as anti-vax.  They know they are being disingenuous, but they still do it because it makes the people questioning one vaccine sound extreme and ignorant. I disagree with that approach.  Historically many vaccine rollouts wound up with significant regrets. There are plenty of people including many many doctors and scientists, especially now that the data is out, that rightfully questioned the covid vax. 

Of course, the MSM painted all doctors not buying the narrative as quacks. We all remember and there are plenty of news articles to illustrate this. Many were very highly respected in the field of immunology yet journalists with no medical experience got to wield the club of "Science" and shut them down.

People still call those that didn't trust the COVID vax as "anti-vax" to paint them with a certain light. You may want to consider that. ET only ever posted sourced journal info, gov't info from FOIA requests etc. and rightfully questioned the narrative. It turns out it wasn't so effective or safe, so who was really reporting correctly -- the MSM that said it was nearly 100% effective and nobody could die from it or transmit COVID, or others simply reporting what turned out to be verified significant side-effects and pretty weak efficacy?

Sorry to go off topic, but "anti-vax" is just a purposefully misused term for painting things in a poor light.

Why do you get to dictate what a decent news site is though? To me being able to trust a given site is as much a part of it being decent as anything. 

Again i listed 9 total sites I try to not or will not use as single source of information. Yes The Epoch Times is one of those 9 just like the 8 other ones are also.