LurkerJ said:
I know,CNN and MSNBC, and Fox are perfect examples of that as I clearly mentioned in my post. And you think some irrelevant youtuber is more dangerous than these channels? Don't make me laugh. As for your respect, or lack of, doesn't mean much when you haven't told us what pieces of news you read or watch. It's easy to be dismissive but in the end, one way or another, what you watch or read is just as easy to dismiss. |
I don't think I said that I feel Candace Owens is more dangerous than CNN/MSNBC/FOX. I would appreciate if you didn't put words in my mouth. That would be great.
As for what pieces of news I read/watch, I typically don't listen to any opinion pundits. This type of punditry is only valuable when an individual demonstrates consistently that they speak in good faith and their opinions are supported by evidence that they are fairly portraying. Of the individuals listed who I am familiar with, none of them have sufficiently demonstrated this. As such, I try to form my own opinions based not on the opinions of others, but on the evidence itself. Depending on the specific subject we are talking about, I will often seek out scientific studies which provide empirical evidence regarding this subject as opposed to listening to someone's anecdotal, half-formed opinions which have been filtered through the lens of whatever ideology they are trying to sell.
But I think that is all largely besides the point. An individual's idiotic and dangerous takes can be criticized without holding up another individual whose takes are better. Even in a world where everyone is wrong, reality does not change. Even in a world where everyone is wrong, Candace Owens does not suddenly gain merit.