And Just Like That

What happened?

They ate up what Tucker Carlson had to show them.

The same people who say "YOU WATCH MSM, SHILL!"

Oh, I thought you were about to trust mainstream news.

I listen to the Meidas Touch and Brian Tyler Cohen, MSNBC (rarely CNN, simply because I'm just not interested in their platform) C-Span, NBC, ABC, Rueters, AP News.

Between that selection, you can find the common denominators, find out whats factual, hear about different context/takes. I don't like listening to talking heads though. Whenever someone invites a legal expert to give an opinion.. I'm like "Imma head out now." Because it's speculation, and between all of the news that I give time for, I hear the information anyway through the reporting that they do.

So, yes, I do listen to MSM, but I also do more than just that. To blindly distrust the MSM for the sake of distrusting the MSM is a genetic fallacy and not a wise approach. I would tell people who hate on FOX news the same thing. There are some based takes from their other shows that aren't primetime. But for Hannity? Tucker? Yeah, now, screw those asswipes. Though, the number of people who will actually report the facts are rapidly dwindling over there in spite of their dominion lawsuits that are revealing so much.

I cherry pick too.

Distilling facts is different from cherry-picking.

Lol, I know what you mean.

It is different.

Given the meme, I need to spell this out. Distilling facts is listening for words spoken/written from the primary source. So, for example, if a news company is reporting on Biden or Donald Trump, often they'll quote him and shed some context. The easiest thing to verify through other news sources (as someone has to report what happens, how else do we hear about it?) is by listening to other sources and checking for consistency. C-Span is really good at giving the full transcripts/hearings etc. In this, you can find what was actually said. You might hear multiple news sources mention the same level of context and will reference the date and the event. To which, you can go back and repeat the steps and see for yourself.

Once you've done this for a while, you can start to see who is reliable in their reporting, who paints a bias, and who stretches the truth.

AP News and Rueters are pretty solid in those classifications in that order. AP News states the facts and references events that happened which surround the incident. They don't paint anyone as bad or good, but most of the time state the facts; they have really high standards for reporting to their news section. Often, you might find a reporter who works for MSNBC/CNN/FOX/ABC/MSNBC or what have you, also post an article there. Their editors go through it and ensure the minimum of bias is placed in the article.

Once again, I'm not saying that they're always perfect. What I am saying is, from most of the independent and main stream news media sites that I've heard RWNJ reference, those sources are tabloids by comparison to AP News when it comes to standards.

It’s Amazing isn’t it, how people will treat some opinion by some obscure entity as valid, and write off journalists who went to college and established a reputation for themselves and are legitimately employed at a reputable news agency. Fox I believe is the only main stream news organization that outright lies to its audience.

Not to mention it's no longer Antifa FBI pretending to be MAGAts while the real Trumpites sat at home crocheting...