One issue I have is that they tend to take an isolated fact, and then make unwarranted conclusions. The out of context part makes them inaccurate. That is precisely the problem I have with them, their inaccuracy.
I will say that you are at least arguing the point on a reasonable basis. I'd need to see some examples and how much of a pattern they have of it. But my opinion of your criticism has gone up a notch, it's not at the 'they're left-wing so they're all smelly liars' level I usually see.
So, I'll even do a 'spot check' for you. I'll glance at the current page and see how good or bad it looks on accuracy.
Noam Chomsky saying trump is a sociopathic megalomaniac who harmed our country's preparedness for the virus - good.
"How Rudy Giuliani went from ‘America’s mayor’ to self-serving Trump sycophant" - appears accurate
"Husband of Reopen NC leader ‘willing to kill people’ in resistance to emergency orders" - appears accurate, quoting the person's comments.
"Bill Barr parroted the cliché that ‘history is written by the winners.’ A professor of history explains why he’s wrong" - it's a commentary on who writes history, an opinion piece, not unreasonable
"A historian explains why the anti-Trump ‘Mourning in America’ ad could seal Trump’s fate in November" - An opinion article about the possible effectiveness of an ad, not unreasonable
"Video of Trumpian anti-mask jerks goes viral" - it's a video.
"Lindsey Graham’s own words get thrown back in his face in devastating attack ad" - About an add accurately quoting Graham's earlier attacks on trump
"Reporter slams Kayleigh McEnany for turning press briefing into a ‘malicious’ Obamagate ‘propaganda’ session" - looks accurate.
"Fox News host masterfully debunks Trump’s baseless claims about mail-in voting" - looks accurate. Are you defending trump's false attacks on mail voting, or trying to attack the correct reporting on it?
A series of political pieces - this seems to be an aggregation site, pulling pieces from other sources, such as "The History New Network".
"‘Fear and aggression — dogmatism and intolerance’: These psychological motives have shaped right-wing conservatism in America ever since the Civil War"
"Why rebuilding America’s manufacturing muscle is essential"
"Trump demanded churches re-open after polls found ‘staggering decline’ in support from Christian conservatives"
"https://www.alternet.org/2020/05/trump-implores-forensic-geniuses-to-investigate-former-gop-congressman-for-murder/"
I could go on, but as appearing to just be an aggregator of reasonable, left-wing stories, there's not a lot to say - the criticisms might well be fair that sometimes they link a questionable story, stories mentioning unproven claims of harm from cell phones were mentioned, but they seem generally accurate.
Which leads to the story this thread was about: "The next death wave from COVID-19 will be the poor, rural and white"
The issue of alternet's accuracy, which is the issue you raised, isn't even relevant here; the story is simply a link from Thom Hartmann.
Hartmann is the leading progressive talk radio host, and an author of many books. He's generally very credible; you might find the occasional mistake or weak spot.
This calls for a better response, one more evidence based, than a snark comment about Alternet.
I just skimmed the article, and it looks like an accurate summary of facts, and opinion about the racial politics of the virus and how its shift toward more white people will affect that.
Your snark one liner has no basis, and demands one. You should retract it and either not comment or comment with some substance, or you will be the inaccurate person here, not alternet or Hartmann.
