> It defined disinformation as “adversarial narratives, which are intentionally misleading; ..."
All right, let's talk about misleading narratives. The title says the blacklist is accused of bias.
1. _Is_ it biased? We don't know, and no evidence is presented one way or another, but it was accused, so there's that.
2. Who's accusing it of bias? They don't attempt to answer that question, so apparently it's this article. Literally, they seem to be the ones with the accusation. That's some creative use of passive voice there.
I would note that I would expect some correlations between specific ideologies and news outlets putting forth these misleading narratives, and those correlations don't in and of themselves prove bias. (That said, the blacklist _could_ be biased, but we have no way of knowing based on this article.)
> It defined disinformation as “adversarial narratives, which are intentionally misleading; ..."
All right, let's talk about misleading narratives. The title says the blacklist is accused of bias.
1. _Is_ it biased? We don't know, and no evidence is presented one way or another, but it was accused, so there's that.
2. Who's accusing it of bias? They don't attempt to answer that question, so apparently it's this article. Literally, they seem to be the ones with the accusation. That's some creative use of passive voice there.
I would note that I would expect some correlations between specific ideologies and news outlets putting forth these misleading narratives, and those correlations don't in and of themselves prove bias. (That said, the blacklist _could_ be biased, but we have no way of knowing based on this article.)