I'd hang myself out to dry for a million dollars.

There's no doubt in my mind that Chauvin is a grade-A cunt, even as cops go. But Floyd was a thug and he died of a fentanyl overdose.

Pressing X.

Thank you for making this distinction. I've never heard this before. Especially not thousands of times by the most socially well-adjusted people on the planet.

Evangelicals are, at best, annoying. I say this as a Christian conservative. There are other (and better) ways of fulfilling the Great Commission besides arsing people into your favorite flavor of dogma.

Those laws prevent you from infringing on the rights of others. There are no laws regarding firearms that prevent you from infringing on the rights of others; they merely infringe on yours.

Sure, that's fair enough. That's fact-checking. But refusing to report on something ostensibly "because it wasn't correct" isn't an ethical journalistic practice. That would be propaganda.

Keeping contemporary weapons is not cowardice, it's just smart. Intentionally disarming yourself is colossolly stupid. Pretending that the world isn't dangerous is mental illness.

Not at all. I'm as serious as a heart attack. We've had three generations of people subjected to intense radicalization by feminists who have been in power and influence, particularly over children, for over a century, which is why everybody just accepts it as gospel and few have questioned it for decades.

But the truth is we have been heavily propagandized for generations by feminists who take advantage of the male and societal instinct to protect women in order to inject their doctrine into society and law without proper scrutiny.

People think feminists are the plucky underdogs who popped up in the '60s and finally convinced men to "share some of the power" that only men ever had, but the truth is that feminists (whether in that name) have been around at least since the 1850s and have been spreading radical lies about men and society since then. You can read the "Declaration of Sentiments" of Seneca Falls in, something like 1857 and the criticism of E. Belford Bax if you want to dive further into it. You can also read the crazy blatherings of Charles Fourier, who actually coined the term "feminism." He posited that a society should be judged according to how it treats its women.

It was actually saying that "theists" think that scientists can't appreciate beauty, whether that was intentional or not.

No, when it comes to journalism specifically, it's also when one or more sides are absolutely batshit insane. Actually, even especially when one or more sides is absolutely batshit insane.

If there is someone who says it's dry when it's obviously raining, that is absolutely more newsworthy than the mere fact that it's raining.
It would be fairness-biased to pretend like it could possibly be true that it's not raining, but yes, it is absolutely journalism to present all available sides, every single time. It's not the journalist's job to tell you which one is right — it's their job to show you what is out there.
What you're describing is propaganda or advocacy.