I told you why your assumptions were false. And please don't use philosophical and logical concepts you clearly don't understand.
> To give an example, if news A presents a factual statement, and news B presents a lie that contradicts A, you are no better off by watching both news sources.
Actually you are better off since you can then verify the "factual statement".
You are assuming "news A" is pushing "factual statements". That is itself a logical fallacy. I'll let you furiously google a list of logical fallacies to find out which.
You aren't addressing any "fallacy" because you built up false assumptions and are now arguing against your incorrect assumptions. That is also another logical fallacy.
You have a very "journalist" way of thinking. Illogical, agenda driven and misleading.
> To give an example, if news A presents a factual statement, and news B presents a lie that contradicts A, you are no better off by watching both news sources.
Actually you are better off since you can then verify the "factual statement".
You are assuming "news A" is pushing "factual statements". That is itself a logical fallacy. I'll let you furiously google a list of logical fallacies to find out which.
You aren't addressing any "fallacy" because you built up false assumptions and are now arguing against your incorrect assumptions. That is also another logical fallacy.
You have a very "journalist" way of thinking. Illogical, agenda driven and misleading.