I'm glad you have the freedom to choose your own news sources, but some of your listed sources are just as bad or worse information quality than CNN (e.g. Jimmy Dore, Viva Frei, Tucker Carlson). It's fine for all of us to have our own opinions about which news sources are reliable, but just because someone isn't on cable news doesn't mean they are reliable or free from the influence from "corrupt donors and establishment organizations".
I said Carlson on war issues. Show me where Jimmy Dore or Viva Frei have been wrong. Dore had one major mistake in years of coverage, that I’m aware of, and he posted an apology for it. In the same time span that he exposed dozens of unretracted flat-out lies and falsehoods from major media organizations.
Carlson is a corporate establishment media host, yet you're willing to cherry-pick particular news items you find reliable from him, yet your framing doesn't offer other corporate establishment media figures the same benefit of the doubt.
I prefer not to get into the weeds on the particulars about who is exposing or responsible for "flat-out lies and falsehoods" - we won't agree, and that's ok, I'm not trying to dissuade you on that front, I am just pushing back against the rhetoric of your comment which suggests your news sources are inherently superior to those you malign, rather than they simply being a reflection of your political biases like everyone else.
If there is a corporate media figure who is reporting with integrity on even a single issue, I would be happy to hear any recommendations, and follow them if only to hear them on that issue.
At this point my standard is way below finding people I agree with. My standard is that I have some level of trust that they’re reporting things they believe to be true. Versus the opportunists we have throughout government and media who apparently have no personal beliefs or values and are willing to say or do anything to get ahead and appease the people signing their multimillion dollar checks.
why shouldn't you cherry pick the best coverage from all of them? I fail to see how that's a bad thing. A reflection of diverse and opposing political voices across and around the spectrum sounds pretty healthy, yet here you spit because of some pompous notion that the sources are worse than mainstream propaganda outlets? You are a silly person with silly opinions.
One should seek out the best coverage, my point is that the "mainstream propaganda outlet" framing is selectively applied with respect to one's political bias, not with regard to any consistent meaning for the description "mainstream propaganda".
>yet here you spit because of some pompous notion that the sources are worse than mainstream propaganda outlets? You are a silly person with silly opinions
I won't deign to judge the silliness of your opinions and I didn't attack any of the sources, just compared them to others. Ironically, your "mainstream propaganda" key phrase is actually a popular propaganda tactic meant to poison the well rather than encourage critical thinking.
"[The] Panel recommends against the use of ivermectin for the treatment of COVID-19, except in a clinical trial (AIIa). Additional adequately powered, well-designed, and well-conducted trials are needed to evaluate the effect of ivermectin on COVID-19"
So in other words, it has been approved for clinical trials, which are ongoing. So how does believing in its efficacy make him a "quack"? That characterization is more inline with the highly misleading, and in some cases outright false, stories about ivermectin being "horse dewormer".
All of the properly done trials have already shown no effect. That statement is them saying "It's not dangerous, so we won't recommend against trials, but you would need to do more studies to prove it's effective, because the current data shows that it's not."
I have no idea who half the people you're talking about above are, but anyone who says Ivermectin works is either being lied to or lying to you.
