If the articles are so wrong it should be easy for you to prove so.Correct.
Be reasonable... What is the point of using sources that are known to be unreliable, why does every reader have to fact check the articles in your notoriously unreliable sources for themselves? Right wingers have been going on about fake news, dismissing sites like CNN because it is supposedly left wing (I don't watch CNN and I have never felt the need to check)
I was told I wasn't allowed to use the Washington Post as a source because it was left wing, even though it is considered a reliable source (not sure about opinion pieces though)
Prove those articles are true by using reliable sources.
You havent even bothered to point out what about the reporting you think is false.
If you reject a source merely for its bias, we can reject you for yours.
One of those sources was the Washington Post. This is what your own bias site said about it:
"These media sources are slightly to moderately conservative in bias. They often publish factual information that utilizes loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by appealing to emotion or stereotypes) to favor conservative causes. These sources are generally trustworthy for information but may require further investigation."
Thats hardly grounds to call them "notoriously unreliable". In fact they were the only ones that got it right about Hunters laptop.
Most of your so called reliable LEFT biased sites fall into the same catagory.
Youre just looking for any excuse to avoid the truth. DEMOCRATS CHEATED. TRUMP IS RIGHT. ELECTION WAS RIGGED. Thus making all the charges related to it false.
Last edited: