Lot's of assumptions in this here reply that I would be happy to report back to you are incorrect (such as the one that I or others who feel this way subscribe to a certain particular "bubble", or that I am suggesting in any way shape or form you ignore anything)

And since you brought up feelings, this reply to my post feels like I may have struck a nerve with one of the aforementioned "establishment media companies" that you may hold near and dear to your heart. Is this how constructive conversation works?

How about this: let's talk about the situation I alluded to in my original comment, something called the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect. Something that has countless documented occurrences in (sorry to use this word again) establishment media companies. Does this meet your criteria for providing value to the community?

Claiming someone is responding to you is "triggered" is tiresome. Another red flag, and yes, you're fitting a particular profile. A constructive conversation can still be had, but I'm not particularly interested in Gell-Mann Amnesia which you alluded to in your last post because I [don't] think a focus on "newspapers" is very accurate or interesting.

Newspapers are no different than anything else. Errors are found in all writing.

My only points are: Evaluating truth based on the identity of the source instead of the content in question is not a good approach. Journals, thesis can and are all written with errors and misleading information.

I stand by original comment that this thread and the content was put here to cause injury to the a persons confidence that they can know what is happening in the world from reading the news. Which is a very particular viewpoint.

> More dangerous are the people who would implore you to ignore all sources from what they perceive are enemies and pay attention only to their (or your own) bubble and prejudices.

Okay.

> Posts with catch phrases like "establishment media companies" are usually a red flag.

Wait. Aren't you doing what you say is the "more dangerous"?

> This submissions feels more like launching point for arguing, little value to community.

So lets nip it in the bud and prevent discussion? Your comment feels like an attempt to curtail an interesting discussion before it happens because it threatens your own bubble and prejudices.

I'm labeling specific content based on reason, not using weakly defined identity as a flag for concern.

So, similar concerns, different approaches that yield very different results.

Ah yes, the "I'm really the one being reasonable here" deflection.

Best to look at raw data and original sources whenever possible. The media is an unreliable middleman.

on finding primary sources and analysing secondary: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23897577

> Posts with catch phrases like "establishment media companies" are usually a red flag.

That's pretty flimsy evidence to accuse somebody of wrongthink.

It's an ill defined phrase. I didn't accuse anyone of "wrongthink", whatever that means.

By 'wrongthink' I'm refering to the insinuation that people who use such a phrase might be suspected of being 'dangerous'. Dangerous as in "More dangerous are the people who would [...]"

Use of the phrase "establishment media companies" seems like poor evidence for accusing somebody of being dangerous. But perhaps I misread your comment and the remark about red flags had nothing to do with your previous remark about dangerous people?