Reports and news articles shouldn't open the door for an argument about that very article. It should make you want to shape and have an opinion OF YOUR OWN based on the FACTS reported in thus article.
In direct contrast, it's much more easy to distinct the factual article meant to inform you, apart from the suggestively written or emotionally manipulative articles, meant to influence and shape your opinion before you've even read it half-way.
"China Mobile and Huawei switch on first piece of 5G network"
"Huawei launches 1st 5G mobile phone for commercial use "
or
"What are the main security risks of using Huawei for 5G"
"Why are security experts worried about Huawei building 5G networks?"
"The Threat Isn’t Coming, It’s Here: Security Dangers Imminent If China Controls 5G"
Both different versions of the articles above, mention the first stages of Huawei's 5G rollout and the US attempts to hinder Huawei from the int. market, yet if you put them side by side, in one instance, you fully understand the difference between an actual article meant to inform you, and manipulative "news"articles meant to persuade you into taking a certain stance.
I remember reading an article many years ago in Europe, about how "advanced" and "sophisticated" tech companies in the United States were and we should "not be afraid" of going more digital. "Facebook is where the world connects" and that regional or national equivalents to Facebook were "outdated and somewhat childish".
In that very same country, from that same media, I coincidentally came across a headline and intro last year, which read "Chinese tech is on the rise and it's scary how they connect and integrate everything with one and other. How secure is your data?"
Virtually a complete 180 in terms of the style and set atmosphere. Oh, and that Facebook thingy sure worked out well huh? ;)
https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/7xyenz/internal-documents-show-facebook-has-never-deserved-our-trust-or-our-data
That same country joined the illegal invasion against Iraq in 2003. At the time, you could find info about the war in every paper and every tv channel. Oh wait, did I say info, I meant of course " suggestively written or emotionally manipulative articles".
Yes, because that's what the bulk of them in fact were. The headlines, intros and written/approved speech reporters in Iraq gave were all like "We are a part of Nato, so it's not wrong of us to help defend our ally.....The US spends billions of Dollars a year on smart bombs and sophisticated weaponry, so warfare and fighting can be done as humanely and damage/casualty be minimized as much as possible....that is why our alliance in Nato and support to the US is important"
The reality of course, was much different
https://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/special-reports/article24696685.html
https://collateralmurder.wikileaks.org/
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-iraq-deaths-survey/iraq-conflict-has-killed-a-million-iraqis-survey-idUSL3048857920080130
Noticed the 2 crucial WikiLeaks sources up there ;) THAT is factual reporting, you can now read, verify and make up YOUR OWN OPINION about the war.
Now that doesn't mean the manipulation doesn't take place on both sides. Many anti-US/Nato or pro-Arab/Muslim reports will probably come up with their own suggestively written or emotionally manipulative articles based on the war. We can not be left jumping from one media to the next in terms of what to trust or who to agree with. News and reporting are by no means a race or "battle" to be won as some might think.
https://www.voanews.com/europe/nato-warns-west-losing-information-war-against-russia
WikiLeaks should be supported and protected at all cost, in order for us to have access to full FACTS on which WE can then base our OWN opinion on.
#FreeAssange