The agency now believes “with low confidence” that Covid-19 likely came from a lab leak
I shared the RT article instead of other articles, because other articles are really biased and act like this CIA assessment is the truth. While this article put in the first paragraph the “low confidence” part and actually talk about the factors that may affected it. Which is quiet telling about the shitty quality of journalism currently.
You must log in or register to comment.
RT is Russia Today. A literal russian state run media.
Is the article factually correct or not?
Does it show any uneeded biases?
Looking forward to you posting an article from Stormfront and asking the same question.
What kind of non answer is this.
The kind that shows when your source is already ridiculously biased and also very bigoted, expecting someone to even give any of the articles the time of day just in case there are no errors or biased reporting is just silly.
RT is highly biased and very bigoted.
Stormfront is highly biased and very bigoted.Are some of their articles factually accurate? Possibly. Why should anyone give them the attention?
So…what is your point here exactly?
You did not show any problems in the article, what are you looking for here exactly?
My point is you are using a highly biased and bigoted source. Hence my saying you are using a highly biased and bigoted source.
What I am looking for is someone not willing to give bigots page views. Sadly, that is not you. You’re fine with promoting the bigots because you’ve decided one of their articles is bias-free. Which makes me wonder what your own feelings are about things like queer people and Ukrainians are.
Edit: also, Holocaust denial. RT pushes that too. Huh… Just like Stormfront!
Get out of here with that crap.
What crap exactly?
other articles are really biased
This is sarcasm, right?
See for yourself;
New York Times: C.I.A. Now Favors Lab Leak Theory to Explain Covid’s Origins.
Here is the first paragraph: A new analysis that began under the Biden administration is released by the C.I.A.’s new director, John Ratcliffe, who wants the agency to get “off the sidelines” in the debate.
So one single article out of the who knows how many sources on the entire planet you could have gone with was biased, so you went straight to the bigoted Russian state-run media.
And the fact that you think a single NYT article proves your point is ludicrous.
Reuters: CIA now says COVID-19 ‘more likely’ to have come from lab.
First paragraph: The Central Intelligence Agency has assessed that the COVID-19 pandemic is “more likely” to have emerged from a lab rather than from nature, an agency spokesperson said on Saturday.
OH MY GOD THE BIAS!
Wait, I don’t see the bias there at all. They’re just quoting the CIA without making any judgments. It’s literally the factual thing you were claiming the article from the bigoted source is.
Meanwhile, at your beloved RT: https://newrepublic.com/article/117759/anti-semitism-rising-russia-simon-wiesenthal-center-accuses-rt
You are hopeless, you want to just keep arguing without reason.
The bias in Reuters is that they don’t show any potential factors that may have affected this and they don’t show in the headline or the first paragraph the “low confidence” part.
Oh look. Here you are defending a Nazi.
I guess that explains everything.
- Can you quote the part where I am “defending a Nazi.”.
- What the hell does me as a person have to do with the post?
Nope. With reason.
The reason is that you are using a source which is bigoted.
You’re clearly fine with that, which makes me think you share their bigotry about things like Jews and queer people.
Dear Flying Squid, read more to improve yourself.
Here is a good link for you to read: Ad hominem.
Here is a good quote from there:
Often currently this term refers to a rhetorical strategy where the speaker attacks the character, motive, or some other attribute of the person making an argument rather than the substance of the argument itself. This avoids genuine debate by creating a diversion often using a totally irrelevant, but often highly charged attribute of the opponent’s character or background.
