pol has a general stance towards the war in syria: america needs to GTFO it and let russia and syria deal with it (this stance predated Trump's). The rebels, and whom they are, are seen just as rebels. /sg/ is pro-assad. The fact this 'bias' exist doesn't mean it isn't a good source of information. Many neural parties quote something known as the Syrian human rights observatory, or participate/gain information from networks of dissemination more aligned to western narratives of the war, information that cannot be de-intermediated from those who pass them along. /sg/ is not aligned to that narrative.

Astrodust, I think your understanding of politics and journalism is naive and one that deserves a thorough rehabilitation through a deep deep engagement with pol.

/sg/ teaches anyone who dare engages with it that information, collection, dissemination, acting upon it, appreciating it, comes from collective intentions (not attitudes, reddit cultivates attitudes; 4chan cultivates intentions, the dynamic of the whole raiding culture, the whole you must do to participate instead of merely like/solicit likes aspect) and, if you become acquainted with pol, you will learn viscerally what collective intentions look like, you will see it elsewhere.

Reddit is for the cuck, it is a circle jerk. the lack of identification, liking mechanism, and the culture of anonymity makes it less about affirming attitudes and more about intentions and the lack of moderation on chans is why/how intentions compete.

to repeat: intentions vs attitudes. narratives vs bias.

the differences between these concepts become incredibly illuminated if you engage with pol.