>>>>>But how do you know your other sources are any more than opinion pieces.
>>>>
>>>>I guess that takes some time and homework and recognizing one's one biases and actively looking to read/hear the other side of most issues. The MSM issue is not "bolloxs" as suggested. There is no truth in MSM journalism, it is all shills for one agenda or another. But one can still find sources which do not parrot the party line and mainstream narrative and indeed challenge that narrative and the Overton window.
>>>
>>>MSM seems to be typically use by fox and the right leaning media as a term of abuse. I'm not quite clear how fox with their large market share can not recognise they are part of the main media environment.
>>
>>This is just your bias showing through. The term MSM is widely understood - imo - to mean just that, the universe of mainstream media, and does not mean something left or right in particular. No matter how one chooses to use the phrase in a specific context it is in itself referring to all MSM. To hold such an opinion (iro fox) seems to imply you believe that your left-leaning media are somehow unbiased - impossible by definition.
>
> not at all. I'm saying that because MSM is the term used by the right wing media to disparage the media that is not them. i don't see how you got ot me thinking left leaning media is unbiased. Left leaning itself is subjective. in the UK now talk radio (another murdoch baby) refers to sky as left leaning the Financial Times as left leaning etc

OK, I am not seeing that only right wing media use the term MSM. It is a generic term as I explained, imho. All MSM is bought and paid for PR and propaganda. None of them will upset their owners, donors, or advertisers. They all follow an accepted narrative and within the Overton window.