Osodecentx said:
Mothra said:
Osodecentx said:
Mothra said:
Osodecentx said:
Mothra said:
Osodecentx said:
Mothra said:
Osodecentx said:
Mothra said:
I said some semblance of an objective source. I don't think there's any truly objective source at this point. However, I found that the BBC seems to be middle of the road and doesn't interject its opinions for the most part. That's where I get most of my news.
WaPo js propaganda at this point. There's a little difference between it and huff post or the Rolling Stone, Fox, the blaze or Newsmax.
BBC doesn't cover local or state issues. I find the Wall Street Journal does a pretty good job, but nobody is perfect.
The BBC's American branch covers the same issues as WaPo and the Wall Street journal. There's a ton of crossover there. None of them cover local issues unless those issues are national news.
If you're using WaPo as a source of news, you're getting a seriously skewed version of events. I'd suggest your dollars are better spent not supporting such drivel.
I'm surprised BBC covered the Texas Legislature & Big 12 athletics
I subscribe to 6 newspapers & rely on Brett Baier as my "go to " source
I think I can discern the truth on most issues with all of those
I guess count yourself surprised then. BBC often times has stories on the Texas legislature.
As for Big 12 football, is it your position you like the WaPo's sports coverage of the Big 12? If so, interesting. Tell me, what is the WaPo's breakdown of Baylor football this season? I am dying to know.
If you want to pay for liberal propaganda, I guess to each his own. But man does it explain a lot about your takes.
WaPo's sports coverage is not good, terrible unless you're into pro sports
Their coverage of national congress, courts and executive branch is good. They lean left politically, but everything you disagree with is not propaganda
I am surprised that the BBC covers the Texas legislature. I went to their website and searched for "Texas Legislature". Seems like a limited resource for Texas news.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/search?q=Texas+legislature&d=HOMEPAGE_GNL
So now the WaPo doesn't cover Big 12 athletics? Odd you used that as justification for reading WaPo over BBC. I never said it did
If you'll do a search of the BBC and Texas legislature, you'll find numerous articles. There's one regarding the abortion ban passed a few months ago, one regarding the overhaul of voting rights, one on the de-platforming law passed last year, one on Paxton, etc. And that was based on a quick google search. I did the google search above. You can see the results, not good. I'm obviously not looking in the right place. Link, please. Do they have a pay wall? I'll give them a look if it's free.
I likewise could find no section on the WaPo website devoted to the Texas Legislature. I did find a couple of doozies, however, after I performed a google search of the WaPo and Texas Legislature. I never said WaPo was the go to source for the Texas Legislature. I subscribe to many newspapers; each one has a strong suit. DMN & WT do a good job along with Sicem. Here's what I said in prior post: "WaPo's sports coverage is not good, terrible unless you're into pro sports"
There was an opinion piece alleging that the Texas Legislature the "gripped by Christian nationalism." There was a story decrying a proposed bill allowing chaplains in schools. And there was an article decrying a Texas bill that didn't require water breaks for construction workers. And I disagree with those editorials. As I said earlier, I'm not afraid of the written word and can decide for myself. I like multiple sources and can afford it. What did the BBC say about chaplains in schools, no water breaks, and Christian Nationalism in the legislature?.
And of course several articles decrying Paxton I sure agree with those articles. You voted for a crook!
and decrying the state's lack of clean energy legislation. I'd like a link on the articles "decrying our lack of clean energy legislation. I think you made that up. As you should know, Texas leads the nation in clean energy.
Is this the kind of coverage you find invaluable? I value it
I agree things I don't agree with aren't propaganda. And yet, the WaPo remains Democrat propaganda, which you apparently seem to enjoy. It's true I enjoy different points of view and can hear them without being afraid they will convert me.
I don't fear the written word and question whether the BBC covers the Hill Country HS athletic scene
Does the WaPo now cover Texas high school athletics as well??!! Incredible.
So recall you were comparing the WaPo to the BBC. If it doesn't cover the Texas legislature or Big 12 sports or high school football, I'm curious why you're bringing those up? Were you having a hard time remembering what we were discussing? If you will do a little bit better job of reading, you will see I never suggested the BBC was a good replacement for local media reporting on the local sports scene.
Sounds like your google skills are as bad as your reading comprehension. If you get on google and type in the words I suggested, and scroll down a few articles you will see a WaPo article decrying a bill killing the renewable energy sector. I can't read past the first couple of paragraphs because of the paywall (BBC is free btw).
As I said, I'm not scared about reading things that disagree with my worldview. In fact I like see what the other side thinks which is why I read the opposing viewpoint and articles on this board. I simply don't like paying for liberal propaganda like you do. And therein lies the difference between us.
I didn't say WaPo covered HS athletics in Texas; I said BBC didn't. This is one reason I don't think you are really lawyer. Lawyers read and comprehend. You don't.
I subscribe to multiple sources because each one has a strength. As I posted, WaPo is terrible on sports, but my other sources fill in those blanks. Sicem is one of those sources. BBC can't touch it for BU athletics.
I swore I wouldn't engage with you after 5:00 because you are deep into your cups and it isn't productive,
My google skills aren't bad, they are horrible. I hoped you would help but recommending the BBC as a timely source for the Texas legislature just won't do it without a link. You're bluffing. Post your link.
So you DID forget what we were talking about. Of course. Ok let me help you: We were comparing the WaPo as a news source vs the BBC as a news source. I suggested replacing WaPo with the BBC. And then for some reason you complained that the BBC doesn't cover local issues or Big 12 sports. And I pointed out neither does the WaPo. And now here we are with you playing dumb about what we were discussing - your modus operandi when you look foolish.
It doesn't take a pretend law degree to understand basic reading comprehension. My pretend disabled autistic son could run circles around you in that regard, and he's got significant learning disabilities due to his pretend vaccine injury. As I tell my son, slow down and try to paint a picture of what you're reading in your mind. That's helped him immensely. But if that doesn't work, Lindamood Bell did wonders for my pretend disabled son. You might check it out.
With respect to the BBC, I'm not sure what to tell you if you lack basic internet search abilities. This was a story from a few days ago under the US & Canada section of the app. Is today current enough for you?
US-Mexico border: Will a 'floating wall' barrier in the Rio Grande deter migrants?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-66183563Oh and here's that WaPo article you thought I made up:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/energy/2023/05/03/texas-bill-tries-to-fence-in-booming-renewables-sector/8ec99684-e9a4-11ed-869e-986dd5713bc8_story.htmlBut you keep swallowing that propaganda…
