Yes, it is. I have shown the sources, and thus quite demonstrably refuted diggan's claim of Uncertainty at the end of his post. The other parts of his post are very much emotional appeal, trying to get a HN reader to feel Fear and Doubt.

You seem to want to join in into same self-deception and denial of reality. Don't do this any more, it just brings suffering.

It is a good thing that we all have the freedom to check the veracity, and do not have trust gatekeepers and do not have to short-circuit by taking anyone's word.

>You seem to want to join in into same self-deception and denial of reality.

No, I just avoid "journalism" from people who only post with wildly emotionally charged language. If the reporting speaks for itself, you don't need to prime my feelings with your headlines or interpretations.

>Don't do this any more, it just brings suffering.

Your moralizing is tiring to read.

> Yes, it is.

No it isn’t

fine, but applying that method to journalism will essentially run you out of trustworthy sources to gather news and information from the very same day.

Not at all.

For one, it's a continuum, not a binary thing.

Second, for topics I care about, I look at multiple outlets and/or their reported sources so that I can hopefully isolate the facts and form my own opinion.

And yes, for each outlet I weigh their reporting by how much emotionally charged language they use. Or in this case, whether they shoehorn something about trans people into an article about RAM in addition to the other emotionally charged language.