The doctor in your story is discredited
Fauci is in it?!
The doctor in your story is discredited
I'm not arguing that they are "less reliable" than other sources, because I don't blindly trust any source of news, but they make political donations.
Trump, QAnon and an impending judgment day: Behind the Facebook-fueled rise of The Epoch Times
If you are a news organization, you have absolutely no business endorsing, or promoting politicians.
I know lots of others have done it, but it's dirty, and it means that they are absolutely not reliable as an objective, unbiased source of news.
Let me know if you find one. Best you can do use a variety of sources and compare what they are saying.I'm trying to think of an objective, unbiased source of news here in the US,
I don't think they exist, either.I'm trying to think of an objective, unbiased source of news here in the US,
The epoch times pushes conspiracy, theories, election denialism, and QAnon.Show me evidence that the Epoch Times is any less reliable than any source you rely on and I'll consider this a reasonable criticism. Lol.
What election did they deny occurred,?The epoch times pushes conspiracy, theories, election denialism, and QAnon.
InsufferableWhat election did they deny occurred,?
I'm trying to think of an objective, unbiased source of news here in the US,
Let me know if you find one. Best you can do use a variety of sources and compare what they are saying.
O'ReillyI don't think they exist, either.
I'm not arguing that they are "less reliable" than other sources, because I don't blindly trust any source of news, but they make political donations.
Trump, QAnon and an impending judgment day: Behind the Facebook-fueled rise of The Epoch Times
If you are a news organization, you have absolutely no business endorsing, or promoting politicians.
I know lots of others have done it, but it's dirty, and it means that they are absolutely not reliable as an objective, unbiased source of news.
They spent $1.5 million on ads for Trump on Facebook. That's what the article link was for. The rest of it, I trust NBC just as little as the rest of them, so I took it as opinion.When NBC calls them the biggest Trump advocate, all that means is that they report on the good things he does, not spin everything he ever does as bad and even make up bad things like all the other "news outlets". This is more an indictment of the mefia when they have to spin objective reporting as advocacy.
I'm trying to think of an objective, unbiased source of news here in the US,
They spent $1.5 million on ads for Trump on Facebook. That's what the article link was for. The rest of it, I trust NBC just as little as the rest of them, so I took it as opinion.
Hm..."according to data from Facebook’s advertising archive"
Facebook told NBC that Epoch Times spent 1.5 million on "pro-Trump" ads. I'll translate: Facebook considers everything the Epoch Times reports "pro-trump", so they either block the links to their site, or down-boost any posts that link to their articles. In order for outlets like Epoch Times, DailyWire, etc, to get any screen time on Facebook is to buy ads. As such, Epoch Times buying ads to get people to go to their site is considered by Facebook as spending 1.5 million on "pro-trump" ads.
You have to be careful when reading trash outlets like NBC though. They use clever and vague wording, in this case "$1.5 million on about 11,000 pro-Trump advertisements".They spent $1.5 million on ads for Trump on Facebook. That's what the article link was for.
Hm...
That's an interesting take. Not sure I buy it though.
It's a gray area.You have to be careful when reading trash outlets like NBC though. They use clever and vague wording, in this case "$1.5 million on about 11,000 pro-Trump advertisements".
The only advertisement NBC provided in their hit piece on a rival media outlet was this:
View attachment 408506
So that's a pro Trump advertisement according to NBC. To me, it looks like an advertisement for the epoch times itself.
How about you?
I don't trust people who think they have all the facts and have a full understanding of what is and isn't true.Just reporting the facts. You always have the right to disregard any facts you want.
It's a gray area.
It doesn't look unbiased to me.
I don't trust people who think they have all the facts and have a full understanding of what is and isn't true.
You have an opinion, and I have an opinion. I'm just not arrogant enough to say mine is "facts".
Is that a fact?I don't trust anyone who can't tell the difference between a fact and an opinion, or who accuse people of thinking they have all the facts simply because they do know the difference between fact and opinion.