[hshdhdhj4444]

According to you the only definition of “covering something with multiple points of view” is if you provide different perspectives in the same time period.

But really, you’re arguing the semantics of “covering multiple points of view”. Whether your restrictive opinion about that is right or not, you completely ignored the actual substance of what the person you replied to said. That the Atlantic is not a monolith. It employs different people who bring different viewpoints. And they may write different articles with different perspectives and/or conclusions, often completely opposing ones at the same or different times.

And your final conclusion does not follow from anything you’ve said or any other evidence presented.

We actually know what publications that try to present a single viewpoint look like. The most famous example of this is the Economist, which as a key part of this ethos refuses to have bylines for their articles. The Atlantic, on the other hand, looks nothing like that. Every article is bylined with details on each author’s bio.

[aurareturn]

You’re fooling yourself if you think The Atlantic does not present a united front. They might change that front from time to time when they realize they are wrong.

They were all bearish in 2025. Now they are bullish.

Just because they have different authors doesn’t mean they can’t control the narrative. They can easily choose to only publish bearish articles or videos versa.

[bigbadfeline]

> They were all bearish in 2025. Now they are bullish.

There's noting bullish in "America isn't ready". The technical success of AI can absolutely cannibalize it's economic and political feasibility - which is the opposite of bullish.

Besides, mainstream media's modus operandi has been fixed for along time and the switch in tone is perfectly explainable, but that's not the point here.