[flagged]
> That included staff who are stationed at facilities where the weapons are built, according to CNN.
Which may be true, but being true doesn’t make the headline true (I.e. the people fired at the facility could be secretaries and other support staff).
This sentence in the article is referring to who was fired, not who the source was.
At the time this exchange began, that was the only reference to CNN in the article. As I recall most of the rest was attributed to NBC.
That’s already enough to conclude that your attempt to “do your own research” fell at the first hurdle.
But it’s kind of an irrelevant point when the mainstream media got important things dead wrong. And not only dead wrong but also so poorly backed up I hesitate to even call them “journalists”. More like “gossip columnists”.
For all the minor flaws they had, they were massively better then the replacement. The replacement just had an ideological goal that required them to destroy truth.
The mass media has been caught in massive lies that exposed not only incompetence but a willingness to be the mouthpiece of the government when it’s convenient.
What is worse is unlike the “alternative media” (I still don’t know what you mean exactly) the mass media had the trust of Americans and the means to actually do investigative work to back up their stories. But they failed on both - they parroted lies without checking and in some cases repeated talking points knowing they likely weren’t true.
The Iraq War, Covid origins, Russiagate, Hunter Biden’s laptop just to name a few egregious lies that has big impacts on Americans and the world. Impacts that include the deaths of hundreds of thousands.
If you can name a few doozies like that from the “alternative media” I’d be interested to hear about it.
And the “alternative media” doesn’t have either the means nor the trust to do those sorts of things. What they mostly do is call BS on the mass media, and sure don’t always get it right, but even that track record I’d argue is better than the mass media.