Both media are inherently flawed at a base level in their decision to sacrifice an actually clearly defined methodological approach for unarticulated bias, masked by a pretension neutrality under the name of open-access. The disregard for the structures of power and domination behind their supposed absence of bias is signified even at the level of their names, in the combination of a misappropriated loan word, repeated to the point of loss of the original sense, with commonplace morphemes from the globally imperial language of the age.

[why did dave ask this?]