I'm a little disturbed that you trust the national inquirer more than, say, the Associated Press or Reuters. You can still ask why is a particular point of view being presented while absorbing the facts, which many publications still very much take seriously, bias or no.
It's also interesting that you lump collusion in with WMDs even though we don't have the full story on at least one of those topics. I feel like you've drawn a conclusion on it, but if not for the media, where are you informing your world view on the matter?
>I'm a little disturbed that you trust the national inquirer more than, say, the Associated Press or Reuters.
A frivolous way to say I don't care if a story about an alien found or an actor having an illegitimate child are wrong, but I do care about major stories with global implications being distorted in subtle ways, or presented based on the values and interests of this or that country (or political elite in the country).
>It's also interesting that you lump collusion in with WMDs even though we don't have the full story on at least one of those topics. I feel like you've drawn a conclusion on it, but if not for the media, where are you informing your world view on the matter?
30+ years of following world affairs (and not just from mainstream sources), the actual 20th/21st century history of my own country (not a country imposing upon others, but one with actual involvement of others in it, including some dictatorships for us to enjoy), tons of readings on world politics, and 20th and 21st century political and diplomatic plays and ploys, asking "who benefits", judging relative power in the world stage, and so on.
It's also interesting that you lump collusion in with WMDs even though we don't have the full story on at least one of those topics. I feel like you've drawn a conclusion on it, but if not for the media, where are you informing your world view on the matter?