Well established? Then why is it relatively unknown? It’s barely searchable on any media bias metric, which is a bad start for it’s overall out reach and popularity.
USA Today? Please. I’m talking about worldwide outlets of varying neutrality and bias. Reuters, Al Jazeera, Sky, BBC, and AP to name a few.
Check those out if you get tired of the echo chambers I’d expect to find in social media ads and poorly worded tweets. You’re one step up from YouTube Shorts “news”.
There’s the deflection. Classic.
I read several worldwide publications of varying neutrality and bias to piece together a comprehensive understanding of issues.
You continue to post publications I’ve never heard of and of varying leftist bias. I look them up each time. You should heed your own advice and try broadening your news beyond obscure outlets. If they source a well known outlet that backs up the claim, linking to them would offer you better credibility. Unfortunately that’s not typical from my experience, reading these Facebook quality reports.
Justifying biased reading as “They haven’t sold out” is akin to burying your head in the sand.
It’s funny how that’s always the response. Obviously it has nothing to do with the well known bastion of free thought journalism at checks notes Black Agenda Report. How dare I question their credibility when they’re so well known… Lol
Lemmy, introducing you to the weirdest sources of biased “information”.
Tell me you touch young boys without telling me you touch young boys.
None of which align with each other, hence my continued statement of reading from many sources, of varied bias and neutrality. At least I know who is running the show in these places, unlike the unknown outlets you dredge up from the backwaters of the Internet.
You seem to have a serious comprehension problem. Best of luck on your continued education.