Also, I think GP question was pretty reasonable. Why are you trying to infer an "agenda"? It makes you look unreasonable. Everyone has their own opinion. It's not a leading question.
Based on your other questions, I don't think it's me coming off as unreasonable. Your mileage will vary, obviously.
And I've asked you a few times for evidence of bias in S&S. I understand that it's your opinion that S&S is biased, but surely that opinion was formed on the basis of evidence.... right?
Difference from whom? Do you think most people do this or were you speaking specifically to the person whose comment you were responding to?
Every article, and in fact every utterance, is inherently biased, if for no other reason than your choice of word of what you leave out to make a point, is itself a choice.
The telegraph and subsequent rise of news bureaux (first Reuter’s, then UPI and AP in the us) lead to a theory of “neutral” news in the hope of increasing the customer base (sell to more newspapers of all leanings) but it’s still inherently biased on its foundations.
1. That man-made climate change is not a real phenomenon, or that, if it is, it is not a threat to humankind?
2. That COVID-19 was deliberately released by the Chinese government, possibly with the help of Bill Gates and other powerful people?