Can you spell racism for me?

Western countries support individual companies constantly.

Intel received $8.5 billion in funding under the CHIPS Act

The General Motors bailout forced the US government to write off a $11.2 billion loss

Shell, ExxonMobil, and others have received countless billions in O&G subsidies

Government sales make up $49.2 billion, or 74.6% of Lockheed Martin's total sales

The entire principle of US industrial policy is that the government does nothing and everything should be outsourced to a private contractor. Inherently that must mean supporting some private companies more than others.

Your argument makes literally no sense when considering that Chinese companies consistently and notoriously sell their products in China for a fraction of the cost of the export models. BYD's Atto 3 sells for $20k in China and more than $40k in the EU, for example. Those export prices aren't subsidized. In fact, their margins are absolutely absurd.

The fact is that China has figured out industrial manufacturing and can build the same class of product for half the price... Or less. Of course, there's no reason to pass those savings onto consumers without competition, and export markets are simply less competitive than China.

Economics says that Chinese companies are just more efficient as a whole - through sheer competitive advantage, China can produce more per work-hour than everyone else. In fact, this has been a huge problem for China's labour demographics as there's just simply no more manufacturing jobs - an auto factory that would've employed thousands just a decade ago might employ barely a few hundred today. Instead of outsourcing to other countries, most of those jobs have been literally outsourced to robots

The story not being told is that Chinese factories are absurdly automated compared to the rest of Asia - their competitors are South Korean and Japanese factories, but they're entering markets that are still heavily labour-centric. China is spearheading this new evolution of industrial manufacturing and everyone else is forced to either adapt or die.

Something something this is a sign of a healthy economy and it's actually China that's going to collapse

Improving relations between China and Russia/Eastern Europe is the solution to both countries' demographics problems.

The death of personal privacy happens not with a bang but with a whimper.

Instead of evil Russian fossil fuel producers, you now have very nice very cool very reliable American fossil fuels producers.

Exxon Mobil publicly denied global warming for years but quietly predicted it

‘Worthless’: Chevron’s carbon offsets are mostly junk and some may harm, research says‘Worthless’: Chevron’s carbon offsets are mostly junk and some may harm, research says

They cleaned up BP’s massive oil spill. Now they’re sick – and want justice

Pakistan's democracy was dead the day Imran Khan was couped

The Kharkiv Palace Hotel is a 5-star hotel commonly used by international visitors.

Welcome to Poland

The only thing we know about the authors of Media Bias Fact Check is what they've posted on their website. There's no corroborating source, no evidence of background, and no indication that these people actually exist other than a business registration for a sole prop and a sparsely-populated mortgage for the lead editor. You can feel free to dig deeper (I've focused on the primary author and editor), but this wouldn't pass the sniff test.

Moreover, their methodology, frankly, doesn't hold up to any type of scientific method. It's a perversion of the scientific process. Their methodology is essentially surveying one of the authors and asking them to draw a point on a line. That's not science.

Based on their methodology, Electronic Intifada has never failed a fact check and should be "very factual"... But it's recorded as "mostly factual" because they have biased reporting. Reuters is recorded as "very factual," but they've gotten a number of things wrong without correction... Sort of comes with the territory of being a news wire service. CBC, which has also not failed a fact check, only gets a "highly factual" rating because of their supposed left-leaning bias. Essentially, their subjective analysis conflates factuality with bias.

This also raises a bigger problem: the lead author and editor is clearly American and guides ratings towards an American Overton window. Thus, bias is viewed on the left-to-right scale commonly used in the US, with the center defined as the American center. Normally, this wouldn't be a huge problem for American audiences, but as established MBFC conflates factuality with bias: essentially, any source that deviates from the "center of the American political spectrum" is seen as less factual. Their source for fact checks is a newspaper run out of a school that has received funding from the US state-funded Voice of America.

This is, of course, operating under the assumption that their methodology is actually valid... And that, in itself, is a dangerous assumption to make. There's a lack of transparency in who's doing what evaluation, and the end result of that is that the assessment itself is basically "what does one guy think about this site." Despite them defining what they mean by left and right, they give scant evidence to justify their "quantitative" evaluation of sources - this, itself, makes their evaluation qualitative.

Some of their details also show a lack of understanding of the media landscape. Calling CBC News a "TV station" is a joke. Their website is also, frankly, a mess, which bothers me because it's clear that they aren't following basic modern web development principles and that's really fucking annoying.

Their methodology is bunk, there's very little transparency within their organization to establish credibility, and they conflate factuality with their perception of bias.