Twist again

I wonder if I should point out which of these links came with a Recommendation mark and which ones didn't?

- I enjoy (...) these (N) articles (R) that make light of a bit of mistaken identity. Not a search warrant (N), but still kinda funny. However, this (R) isn't nearly as amusing.

I could view that clip as a slight against one or several news networks, or as another reason to keep to my preference of deliberately seeking sources that aren't cherry-picking storytellers who have to be monitored in order to ensure some form of objectivity. (The vid rather supports the title here (R), really.) I'd rephrase one of the statements in the video by saying, people who want the lies stay with the one network instead of cross-checking with other sources to look out for any steamers. (But I don't want to talk about what he just finished talking about at 2:20-ish.) This much I can agree with, though, that “there is no authoritative source of information these days… that everybody goes to,” though I'd like to think this (R) comes close because of how it vets its information. (Good thing I checked the vid for the material in the ellipsis, 2:40-ish.)

Based on that clip, the guest is a better example of non-partisanship than the host, and if no one has a claim to being an authoritative source, most certainly the network they're on does not. Along that line, the question of bias in the media, here's something I ran across (N) while looking for these other articles - people who are asking the same question and offering, at least in one case, an answer I can support. (By the way, an apology loses its power (R) when there is no (R) accompanying (R way back) change (N). Or do you not read your own stories, sickles?)

- And how dare a corporation with the capacity to control the speech of so many demand the same rights as a local bakery, when they have the capacity to do such harm on a global scale? This article (R) speaks of what these large companies are capable of, yet it relies on the possibility that those in control of these companies will act in a manner that would counter their bottom line, knowing they haven't (R). (Wrong side of the force, that name is.) I agreed more with this article (R - repeat, I know) from the same publication, but I've yet to see if that one is enough to balance the scale.

Don't tell me something isn't censorship (R) when it is (R). (Did I include this guy (R) in the international reactions earlier? Meh, as you've seen, I don't mind doubling up.)

- The most striking part about this (R) to me is the statement about humanity being about "paleolithic emotions and medieval institutions like banks and religions, and god-like technology... a mixed up and, in many ways, still archaic species in transition." I tend to connect that sort of thought to this video (so N, entirely N, great-look-but-never-going-near-a-perm-again N). It's why I laughed at this story (N, but from related R), even as I entirely agree - humans are not ready yet.

The Cable Opinion Network is proof of that. (N, but from related R, and SASOASCBTIACTDTTARC.)

- Hello again, tentacle (R) beast (R).

- Keeping an (R) eye out (R) for 敌害 (R). （Still there, 微软; and 不是你的 - still more than one in that aisle.) By the way, what sort of love language is silence (R. S.) when it becomes complicit in (R) enabling atrocities (R), politician in a cassock?