They definitely don't do this. It seems like you have a significant misunderstanding of the literature being discussed.
>Look mate I'm not interested in arguing who is more wrong.
No, it's about who is wrong _more often_ and who reports fake stories _more often_. When the standard for one set of sources is consistently absurdly low then you can't just
pretend all sources are equal. Again, it's a false equivalency.
They definitely don't do this. It seems like you have a significant misunderstanding of the literature being discussed.
>Look mate I'm not interested in arguing who is more wrong.
No, it's about who is wrong _more often_ and who reports fake stories _more often_. When the standard for one set of sources is consistently absurdly low then you can't just pretend all sources are equal. Again, it's a false equivalency.