"Does that mean we should assume you only read what confirms your own biases?
That would explain a lot about your attitude and behavior here. "
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
No, it does not mean that at all.
Once you familiarise yourself with an online news outlet over a period of time that is enough to build an opinion of that particular outlet, you know whether it is credible, reliable and worth spending your TIME reading their reporting or watching them.
An example:
Say, I'm reading and watching every day 10 news outlets. I've been doing so for a long while, they are credible, proven and worth my TIME.
Today I've come across Haaretz for the first time, have read numerous stories there, exactly the same ones that I have also read in my other permanent 10 outlets that I use daily.
So, in just one day, I am able to say whether I want to read Haaretz again tomorrow or not, right?
If I'm not sure, I will repeat the whole process tomorrow or even the day after.
Say, I like what Haaretz reports because I've cross-check their info with the 10 outlets that I use. From now on I will include Haaretz in my daily reading.
Say, I didn't like what Haaretz writes because their reports didn't match with other proven 10 outlets - I'm not gonna come back to Haaretz again and WASTE my time.
Now, coming back to you.
You are saying that you do read Haaretz.
Why?
Because they provide good and credible info, isn't it?
Or, because they provide you with dodgy reporting, inaccuracies, or even sometimes outright lies?
So, when you say that you read Haaretz, I understand that you agree with their news coverage and that's WHY your read it.
On of my questions to you, in my previous post was:
"Well, if you do read Haaretz, how can you have opinions so FAR OFF from those expressed in just about every article in Haaretz?"
So I ask again, why what you write in very many posts here on HC doesn't match what Haaretz reports?
Expand
