They are sea-lioning. They are going to constantly ask for "evidence", and then when provided for it, act as if it's biased/false/non-existant and then restate the question. The goal is to put all the labor of the conversation and gathering of sources onto you while they just get to reply: "I don't believe that, the MSM is biased, show me another source".

Are you claiming MSM isn't biased?

Are you claiming specifically biased-right-wing <insert journal name> isn't biased? MSM (CNN, CNBC, MSNBC) is 10% as biased (to the left), Fox (probably 50% biased to the right), etc. Least biased is probably Reuters, AP, and PBS, and maybe NPR.

Local news is usually not so biased either.

But Washington Times, Breitbart, Random Youtube Vlogger, etc...none of those can be trusted. That's why they're never linked to on Hackernews, except maybe in comments, I'd imagine.

They're basically tabloids. Good to cross-reference with Snopes or Politifact if you are curious what's true. Personally, I like to read multiple sources and google a topic to get a better picture to see other 'takes'. Only way to not get bubble/group think.

x86_64Ubuntu forgot to add "or they'll change the topic".