2ndpillar2 wrote: ↑Sat Dec 18, 2021 12:30 pm
Yeah, USA today is a bastion of truth and the American way:
https://iotwreport.com/usa-today-hammer ... fake-news/ As for your USA today obfuscating report, an ex-vice president of Pfizer, is bringing charges against Fauci, along with Bill Gates, etc., in the World Court. And it was Fauci who lied to the Senate when he said he did not fund gain of function to Wuhan. He thought he was safe, because he had changed the definition of gain of function, but the questioning had gone beyond simply the term used and narrowed in on the purpose of the funding. That will probably not be brought to court until 2022.
https://headlineusa.com/fauci-big-pharm ... -humanity/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics ... b-funding/
No, your backing of Fauci, and using a proven propaganda machine for your reference, is not putting you in a good light. Fauci may or may not escape justice, but his followers will certainly reap the results of his political based edicts.
Compared to world news daily, yes USA today is reasonable.
And, you are ignoring Reuters.
But, then you go into using 'headline usa'... a site that uses loaded terms and far right extremism in it's headlines. Sorry, but that reinforces my point.
For example, the rating about usa today is
Overall, we rate USA Today Left-Center Biased based on editorial positions that slightly favor the left. We also rate them High for factual reporting due to proper sourcing and a clean news reporting fact check record.
and compare that with 'world net daily' and you get
Overall, we rate WND Questionable based on extreme right-wing bias, promotion of conspiracy theories, and numerous failed fact checks.
And, headlineusa is a site registered via Iceland. Between that, and the loaded terms they use in their headlines make the source suspect.
“What do you think science is? There is nothing magical about science. It is simply a systematic way for carefully and thoroughly observing nature and using consistent logic to evaluate results. So which part of that exactly do you disagree with? Do you disagree with being thorough? Using careful observation? Being systematic? Or using consistent logic?�
Steven Novella