So, for example, on that website, I found this: A 2014 Pew Research Survey found that 41% of the Wall Street Journal’s audience is consistently or mostly liberal, 24% Mixed and 35% consistently or mostly conservative. This indicates that they are slightly preferred by a more liberal audience.
Liberals love it!
And there was this:In review, the NYT utilizes emotionally loaded language in their headlines such as “Trump Again Falsely Blames Democrats for His Separation Tactic” and “A Financier’s Profit-Minded Mission to Open a Channel Between Kushner and North Korea”, however, they use credible sources such as law.cornell.edu, Financial Times, and The Washington Post. Story selection is typically balanced, however, wording tends to lean left in most cases.
Like the old joke, "it's all in the delivery".
So, the WSJ gets rated as Right center bias and the NYT gets Left Center Bias, Which is like I said---the WSJ is no more nor less biased than its competitors----which is not the same as saying they are equally biased.
Both papers were judged to use "loaded words" to favor their causes.
So, pedantic one, I proved my original point, which you argued wasn't valid.
The question of whether or not it is smart to read biased material to know the other side of an argument is immaterial to the original discussion.. No, not immaterial at all. It's related to it, and it allows for further exploration of biased media to people whose minds are open.
Yours is not. This is why you don't wish to discuss it.
Because you think you're smarter than all the media, no matter the source.
And you've presented no facts here, but you have proved that you are indeed a real flaming asshole.
And the trouble with a real flaming asshole, such as yourself, is that no one can ever make a real flaming asshole feel like what he truly is.
Game. Set. Match.
Thanks for playing, loser.
Poll
5 (45.5%)