CNN has a slight liberal bias, but it’s tremendously exaggerated. Just cite it. Don’t fall for their gaslighting

Take it one step further, ask them to explain with facts why the source or article you're posting is fallacious. Ask them to explain the bias in your article, then have them explain how the bias interferes with the facts presented in the article.

Yep — also, “Can you cite me a source that you think covered this subject better? I’d love to read it!”

And really, I would!

But sadly, very few of them will admit they’re getting their information from Breitbart, Newsmax, OANN, Trump himself, or from each other via random social media posts.

Even they know their “sources” are BS. So instead they expect us to believe all the convoluted information they’re spouting about “voter fraud,” or whatever the MAGA thought bubble’s fixation of the day is, sprung forth fully-formed in each of their heads independently.

Lol!

And naturally, they’re not equipped to do the really critical media reading and analysis you’re suggesting, either.

There is little doubt why Clumpy said he likes the low info/low IQ voters- they are easily fleeced of their money and easily manipulated.

They deal? I don't think I've ever witnessed that.

That's not the reason I don't cite it. Use sources that have a high level of factual reporting. That way they can't say you are using false sources

I do have a personal preference for the New York Times, Politico, the Washington Post, etc. since they specialize in print journalism (I don’t watch much TV news), they break more original facts, and their articles tend to be better written and go into deeper dives.

But CNN is fine, it’s serviceable. It does have a tendency to blend analysis/spin and fact reporting.

But it’s not fake news, and it’s not the “Enemy of the People!” or whatever Donald Trump and his cronies are saying about it.

You could do worse, much worse — and right-wingers do.

New york times and politico both have high levels of factual reporting, and the washington post is mostly factual, so it might be better to use them

Problem is, most right wing see WAPO and NYT at the same punching line as CNN

But you can prove them wrong, which you can't do with CNN

I sure do cite them: as well as NPR, Bloomberg, Business Insider, even the Wall Street Journal and the Hill when I can. Honestly, I’m not picky.

But it doesn’t really matter. I’ve never gotten a kudos from a right-wing debate opponent saying — “Hey! I noticed you cited the Wall Street Journal in your argument! That’s a source I trust — I’ll have to check that out.”

They don’t really care.

Their complaints about “CNN” have metastasized to encompass anything they deem “mainstream media” to the point they’ve become impervious to facts from any reputable source.

NPR! Reuters, BBC, AP -- and Al Jazeera, because it just makes their heads explode.

This nation really really needs to improve its education system.

Advantages of CNN:

1. Always up to date
2. Covers most stories
3. Easy to find articles, don’t have to spend a ton of time digging

Disadvantages of CNN:
1. Pisses brainwashed conservatives off.

Basically.

There aren’t usually great reasons to object to the reporting and analysis of the outlets in this middle quadrant here. They are staffed with professional journalists and if they get something wrong (inevitable when you handle large quantities of breaking, fast-evolving stories), they’ll issue retractions and clarifications.

(Asterix next to the New York Post ever since they decided to trade their reputation for being Giuliani’s mouthpiece on the Hunter Biden Laptop crap though. When this chart is revised, which typically happens every year, NY Post will probably shift farther to the right. 2020 was an enormous year for news reporting so we might see some changes.)

I'd say that's pretty accurate