Hard to argue with your second point. Can’t argue to your first point because your name has me thinking of other things…

Our economy also used to be comprised entirely of beaver pelts. What is your point?

Didn’t come across as bickering at all. I appreciate the clarification.

I never stated there wasn’t a scale of bias. Nor did I mix them all into a single pot. Now did I say everything is a bad as fix news. Nor did I say you can’t trust anything. I agree with all of what you just said.

What I said was that there is no such thing as objectivity. It is impossible for a multitude of factors. The best we can achieve is an attempt at balance. And because of that you should never get your news from a single source.

How is that “propaganda” and “nonsense?”

the problem is who has money to buy a newspaper.”

Yes. That is what I was referring to.

Reading through the comments I am curious… why do people think somebody gets into the news business, especially today? One doesn’t become a media tycoon for reporting objective news. They never have. They never will. They get into the business to control the message. Why is anybody surprised by this?

I read the times. Does it have bias? Yes. Literally impossible for any journal to not have bias. Objectivity is a myth. I think it’s more important to be able to see where that bias is, and then seek a counter balance to it.

Don’t read a single source. Otherwise you’re just another Fox News viewer.

While I don’t necessarily disagree with either of your points, neither of them have anything to do with what I was responding to.

I read the times nearly every day. Not sure what you mean by this. Can you expand? I find their reporting on trump to be pretty real. Their interview with John Kelly straight up calling trump a fascist is pretty damning. So…

Legit entertaining

This is how he has always operated. People tend to forget.