Russia bans cussing in films, books, music.

As reported by Zak. 

Exactly!

I'm perfectly well aware that InfoWars is biased.
Are you claiming that the BBC and CNN aren't biased?

You're citing Wikipedia to support your belief that Alex Jones is an unreliable source. Which is funny, because Wikipedia itself is no more reliable than Jones - ie, not reliable at all.

Some of my best friends work at the BBC. I argue with them all the time. They can certainly distinguish between opinion and fact. But that isn't the issue, is it? The issue is whether the facts they choose to report are the most relevant facts, and whether, in reporting them, they give those facts a particular "spin". The issue is also whether the BBC disseminates information - or, in some cases, suppresses information - at the request of the government or the Home Office. And of course the BBC is notoriously selective of the facts it chooses to broadcast, it does give news items an Establishment "spin", and it does cooperate with the government and the Home Office in reporting or suppressing certain facts.

Just because BBC journalists can distinguish between opinion and fact, it doesn't mean they do distinguish between opinion and fact. As Humbert Wolf pointed out in his famous epigram:

You cannot hope to bribe or twist
(thank God!) the British journalist.
But, seeing what the man will do
unbribed, there’s no occasion to.

That the BBC is biased is hardly a secret.

biasedbbc.org/
www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/mar/17/bbc-leftwing-bias-non-existent-myth
www.globalresearch.ca/bbc-s-pro-israeli-bias/9307

You're also wrong to suggest that Alex Jones can't distinguish between fact and opinion. Whether he does or not is another thing.

I don't know why you think I believe that the BBC is not biased.

There is a difference between bias (which is a necessary component of journalism) and reliability (or facticity if you will). The BBC has political motives, sure, but they also tend to check their sources - and there are enough people working there that a single person's bias isn't significantly going to affect a large body of the news.

By comparison, InfoWars and similar blog sites are aggregates for whatever snippet of info the author finds interesting or relevant - but whether any such information is factual is entirely down to a single person's bias, beliefs, and attitude.

I'd rather trust a site like Wikipedia, which is being edited by hundreds of random strangers, over the blog of a single guy whom I can't trust to report the facts.

You've posted InfoWars links several times in the past. And it's common practice among bloggers to copy-and-paste articles from related sites, "carried on thousands of other websites" says absolutely nothing about the reliability when the only websites that carry the info are crank blogs and conspiracy sites.


But you don't know when that is, unless you have another clock that works.

If you already knew how reliable Alex Jones is as a source for facts, then why did you post the InfoWars link in the first place?

Especially after going on a rant how mainstream news is all completely unreliable?