There are no truly neutral parties and there is no such thing as unbiased. If a source or a media tells you they are unbiased and/or perfectly neutral, they are either lying to you or don’t properly understand what biases are and how they work.
However, some sources are more biased than others on different things.
Take the American election observers who endorsed the election results mentioned by the article for example.
Like I’ve mentioned, they aren’t truly unbiased or neutral as that’s not possible.
BUT
At the very least, they don’t have a money trail linking them the international terrorist organization that tried to overthrow Venezuela’s government multiple times (CIA and it’s ecosystem of right wing think-tanks), unlike the one you’ve cited.
I’d like to hear how the heck you can possibly think that this ☝️ isn’t a VERY OBVIOUS bias.
There are no truly neutral parties and there is no such thing as unbiased. If a source or a media tells you they are unbiased and/or perfectly neutral, they are either lying to you or don’t properly understand what biases are and how they work.
However, some sources are more biased than others on different things.
Take the American election observers who endorsed the election results mentioned by the article for example.
Like I’ve mentioned, they aren’t truly unbiased or neutral as that’s not possible.
BUT
At the very least, they don’t have a money trail linking them the international terrorist organization that tried to overthrow Venezuela’s government multiple times (CIA and it’s ecosystem of right wing think-tanks), unlike the one you’ve cited.
I’d like to hear how the heck you can possibly think that this ☝️ isn’t a VERY OBVIOUS bias.