[Jallal]

This is an oversimplification of things, but I'll gladly explain.

First, behind the term "newspaper", you have journalists. Not all of them are equal. Some are professionals, some have connections, and some are not good enough. Like every human. Yo also hae some journalist that specialize in some areas, when you better have solid arguments to avoid a lawsuit when publishing (and usually, only part of it is published to be able to react). I know the ones that I consider to be good. To drop a few names, Kevin Arfi, Laurent Mauduit, Martine Orange, etc. I mean, their career and their work speak for themselves, their papers are detailed, well structured, they provide facts and proofs, etc.

Then, sometimes, facts speak for themselves. You have so many evidences on a scandal that there is no point arguing. You may object that some other facts are deliberately hidden, but more often than not, the accused people never answer on the substance, always on the form. It speaks volume. I mean, Mediapart is not a young newspaper anymore, and they have their track record.

Also, in any case, you're free to form your own opinion based on the facts provided. I have sometimes - as I said on the "woke things" a different interpretation of the facts that the journalist. But to be able to do that, you still need the facts, and they are provided. I "just" read the things differently.

I take everything I read with a grain of salt, whether I like or not the newspaper, whether I pay for it or not.

But let's go. Tell me some cases when Mediapart was wrong ? It should not be difficult for an "unreliable" source. Oh and tell me also what are your reliable sources, especially on the subject of investigations. I'm curious. Because apart from the "Canard enchainé", I don't find any.

Because it will always be easier to discredit a newspaper like Mediapart, than to provide alternatives and fact. And if you want me to give some examples when scandals published in Mediapart proved to be true, I have many.