This is a question more directed towards our comrades here outside the US. There’s something I’ve always noticed about American liberals (though plenty of conservatives and others are not immune). They seem to have this extreme confidence in their opinions about broader global affairs and what is happening in the world, despite them being incorrect or having only a superficial understanding of the situation. Obvious examples would be how they are sure Ukraine is winning and Putin is just an irrational comic book villain, how Kim Jong Un insists everyone gets the same haircut as him (or no one), believing anything Zenz says about Xinjiang, or really any story at all that involves the global south.
Is this just phenomenon of US American liberals? Or is it rampant across the global north? My interactions with fellow Americans in general on anything geopolitical makes feel like they have this truly unearned sense that they really know what’s going on, when all they do is listening to and ardently defend State Dept propaganda. But I have never really interacted with liberals outside the US so idk.
ask them why they think Time Warner or whoever owns CNN now has more to gain from "news advertising money" than "manufacturing public opinion for politics advantageous to the owner company"
ask them why they think Fox News does this but like, Comcast has no ulterior motive in owning MSNBC. Disney has no ulterior motive in owning ABC. Ask them how profitable they think "the news" is compared to these company's other holdings. Like, is a pulitzer prize winning article going to give Disney more money than Mickey Mouse? Is it like, a coincidence when you see ABC "opinion" pieces about how extending copyright law is Good, Actually?
Ask them if they'd trust a news organization if Donald Trump bought it and then when they knee jerk say no ask them why they fucking trust one owned by Jeff Bezos any more. because he's polite in his vampiricism??
Did that too. They didn't think the owner would matter, because if journalists were not able to do their ethical journalism for an owner like Bezos or Trump or anyone else, then the journalist would just participate in the free market and find a new job. And once all the journalists have refused to work for unethical people like Bezos, that news outlet would be forced to shut down.
There is really no arguing with a lib that has swallowed the entire boot
So they implicitly think every journalist is ethical because they wouldn't be able to replace them with unethical journalists who say things for money, lol