Wikileaks dumps massive amounts of first-hand info that can easily be combed through by a reader who actually wants to get to the bottom of what's going on. Hardly the same as mainstream media spinning their narratives with the now meme level anonymous sources.

Most buzzfeed articles have better sourcing than the guardian now

This post was edited by EndlessSky on Nov 28 2018 12:59pm

It's definitely not the same thing, but if we just pretend for a moment that all stories with solely anonymous sources never got published in the past two years, that's a massive amount of information we never would've had.



Buzzfeed has some solid journalists covering Russiagate.

This post was edited by IceMage on Nov 28 2018 01:05pm

that's true, but people still ignorantly claim anon sourcing is inherently an issue.

>reads article
>says "anon source"
>lol gottem
>*creates meme*
>lol fake news msm
>*checks wikileaks*
>mmm new pizzagate info
>deepstate confirmed

truth is we all believe/disbelieve anon sources on a slide rule based on face validity and ideology. and the other truth is that anon sourcing is a necessary evil to ensure info comes out. the same people lambasting anon sources wouldn't claim whistle blowers are a societal problem, even tho those exposed by whistle blowers constantly claim they should be exposed.

No, not all stories. But when the baseline of a news platform has been anti-trump for the last 2 years, when the overwhelming majority of their "anonymous sources" are always anti trump it should sound off some alarm bells that maybe they are pushing a narrative?

I mean it was similar to the Syria coverage. All of these sources of how Assad is bombing kids, how people are fleeing from Aleppo, etc. And then you look at it objectively and realize both sides are committing atrocities, rebels are using human shields, etc, yet that side of the story is nowhere to be found in the news. My problem is not so much with the fake news but more with how asymmetric the coverage is to push a narrative.

These few fake stories are of little consequence, it's the broad asymmetric reality of how Trump is being covered that's the real issue. It's not objective, but rather a narrative.

Trump doesn't believe the US government's own intelligence on the murder of Khashoggi or the US Government's own conclusions about climate change. He also doesn't believe US intelligence's findings about Russian interference.

If there truly is a deep state, Trump might salavage his historical ranking as an average US president. If there isn't, there are good arguments to place him in the bottom 5 and as one of the most anti-American presidents ever.

while all of this is true to an extent Trump himself made it his mission to demonize the media. he sowed distrust of the media to exploit a certain electorate that already distrusted MSM. frankly, if you feel sorry someone who kicked a bees nest you're a sucker. is coverage of trump biased? yes. should that be pointed out when the bias rises to levels of factual inaccuracy? yes. is it more trump's fault than the media's? of course.

no one feels sorry for the kid who went to that indian island and got shot full of arrows, and yet we hear about Trump the victim constantly. its pitiful that in the battle against modern news this wrinkled orange blob is the best champion that has emerged.

cant forget that he didnt believe in war in Iraq aswell

the people pushing pizza gate are like 50 trolls on the internet. a mainstream media website is supposed to have higher standards, pretty big false equivalency.