That wouldn't be a reliable list for anyone but myself. I have no right to tell anyone what sources are "worthy" of trust. Maybe you could, as I just noticed another post of yours that you felt needed to be archived instead of directly linked (https://poal.co/s/Politics/22267). I realise there may a very good reason why other than not wanting to give views to them. As I said, it's up to each of us to vet our own sources and who we allow to influence our views. Isn't that pretty much the basis of Free Speech that we value?
That wouldn't be a reliable list for anyone but myself. I have no right to tell anyone what sources are "worthy" of trust.
I know. What I asked wasn't to classify MSM as trustworthy or not, but more like a list where you could easily see what side of the political spectrum they are leaning towards.
A post per news outlet (with a description) to give the ability for people the weigh the pros/cons, and discuss wether or not they should be trusted.
...give the ability for people the weigh the pros/cons, and discuss wether or not they should be trusted.
But that's exactly what I'm trying to say. Each issue should be weighed and discussed. That's why sites such as this are important. People should be free to post anything (with legal concerns noted) and openly discussed per issue. I personally wouldn't give any credence to such a list composed by anyone. To illustrate, this whole discussion started by me simply stating 2 facts about RT. So far, I have seen no one disputing them, and now we are discussing Free Speech, censorship, and who might be an authority to declare such matters. I alone have the right to decide for myself what I'll allow to influence my opinions and views and that should apply to each of us.
and who might be an authority to declare such matters.
Anyone could voice their opinions backed up with facts.
(post is archived)