• arakhis_@feddit.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    16 hours ago

    maybe as European im not too well versed in US sources and judged too harsh based on anecdotal experience. All the news Ive seen are always on the “nothing has been said” or “thats reaching” side.

    my bad then

    • EmpathicVagrant@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      16 hours ago

      You’re on the nose with that, which is why ground.news is so vital especially now. You can read about the same story from multiple perspectives and often they’ll have a handy synopsis that has key info from all the writings.

      Or for that matter, see through the flood and read about things that matter a lot more.

      • arakhis_@feddit.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        15 hours ago

        Well what ground news wants to do -critical evaluation and media literacy- is so vital.

        But ground news deciding on what exact position on the spectrum a source is, seems to achieve the exact oposite: make people depentend in questioning and finding a variety of sources.

        Nowadays everything needs to happen in an instant.

        If theres a solution that only takes half a snap, that will be the only relevant choice for the mass. Thats why Im instantly asking, because just today I referred to this source to someone else as a might-be-bad example but instantly realized, I will have to ask this on the next situation (now)

        Anyways thanks for the correction!

    • assaultpotato@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      15 hours ago

      For the record I can’t comment on this specific article - it may be a nothingburger. I just think Newsweek itself is not inherently problematic.