When I post an article from outside of my views as questionable sources I use the groups narrative to determine the safety for the group members. Which is clearly outlined on the Welcoming page. My statement at the bottom is just my fair warning to a nature found on many news sites and sources, which can sway between degrees of positive and negative, usually depending on the writer.

From the Welcoming Page----My goal is to share a select trusted alternative independent news sites, political commentators/journalist, sociologist and economist mainly from outside of the main stream media (MSM) with opposing dissenting views on events and issues of today and what's happening around the world you often hear little of. If you do hear it's in fractional parts that are vastly controlled by their enabler billionaire owners. Which often comes with limited information and or information designed to deceive you. Often in repetitive mode by all MSM used to manage your perception leading to conditioning you into believing in it's designed illusion. Take to mind that our MSM was once owned by dozens of different companies. Beginning in the 80's this vastly started to change. By the 90's when Bill Clinton and our great, I say that loosely, 2 party establishment representatives brought forth legislation which lead us to today where 6 companies own approximately 90% of all news you get on TV, radio, and pretty much every major newspaper that has managed to exist. That is a designed measure to control what you see and hear. Only what they want you to see and hear. Conditioning.

As I voiced in that statement Politico is one of the better sources. "while is one of the more revealing sources of crimes and unethical practices in issues of our society" It has also been occasionally exposed as setting a line towards towing establishment conditioning. By no means like the Guardian though. Please see the Pinned pages for more clarification.

@William_Mary "When I post an article from outside of my views as questionable sources"
. . . the very definition of confirmation bias.

@FearlessFly to support the narrative of the group. It's either for you or it isn't. If you haven't taken time to respectfully visit the groups Pinned pages to understand the narrative and goals set here it's likely you're going to be confrontational. Now the issue for the group is, whether you're going to be confrontational for a certain period of time or constantly.

Once one educates themselves to a group respectfully, they have a choice to join in if it's of interest to observe, possibly challenge their developed opinion, or participate within the established group members to help like minded towards their agenda. So, yes, we have a confirmed bias to deliver a dissenting view against the present media and political nature of capitalism. To some degree depending on the breakdown of those issues and others that interact with them.

@William_Mary "yes, we have a confirmed bias to deliver a dissenting view against the present media and political nature of capitalism"

While I consider it refreshingly honest to admit confirmed bias, I also think it is hypocrisy to also claim "Out of the Illusion".

While I consider virtually all media has bias, lumping Politico into your 'fake news' category (without independent evidence) shows the actual 'illusion'. I have little interest in an 'echo chamber'.

@FearlessFly so you wouldn't consider that a delusional reality takes hold of the many people who staunchly support either far right ideology or left ideology information where useless false accusations are regularly manufactured for/from their chosen media and political actors? Those that remain strictly compliant to their party or glorified politician no matter the amount of deceit that is exposed about them aren't in some type of delusional state? If that is the case then Trump is the most honest politician in all of history.

Not all media, journalist, or political commentators operate within a biased agenda if their work is towards exposing the crimes and unethical practices of both sides and the information structure used to support them. Which the sources and those involved within that I use here mainly do as a dissenting means to imperialism. Taking biasness from the information, the delivery of the information, and placing it on an agenda. In which I attempt to share.

I didn't solely place Politico into a fake news category. I gave a warning that it can be questioned at times with a parameter. I have done so even with one of my most trusted sources, Consortium News in this group. Since the death of Robert Parry, late January 2018, the founding editor, the family has handed the editor position to Joe Lauria. Since that time there has been a growing number of people and articles that have risen the amount of conflicted comments from the supporters and visitors to the site. Along with a censorship of the comment boards unlike in Parry's era. If I had chosen to continue to advocate for CN without exposing this seemingly new type of actions at the source, then that would be hypocrisy.

Quite frankly, you're seemingly taking one part of my statement and attempting to lure a false sense of narrative into it in efforts to eliminate my point to support yours. What ever you just might be driving at? I'm not the first person to question Politico. If you think I am than you're actually proving another point or more of mine. And you're doing the same thing with my chosen name to the group. Rather than applying the narratives of the group to it's agenda, you're seemingly on a mission to create a false narrative towards labeling it hypocritical with the erasure of a nature in our political arena that I'm fairly certain a good deal of our citizens already recognize. You brought a keyboard to a gun fight.

This all begs the question of just what your agenda here might be? Right out of the gate all you've done is attack me and the group with a confrontational means by taking some issues out of context. This group already has it set standards. I think I've stated mine and the groups fairly well along with a suggestion to visit it's explanatory pages, seemingly to no avail. If it doesn't fit your desired need to participate accordingly, in this section of society within this site, then I'll suggest you might find a better fitting on the Politics Page where the chaos of all the issues we have been discussing can be easily found. Or create your own group.