Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
All of the Fake News, Liberal, Pro-Biden/Sanders/Warren websites (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter TripItUp
- Start date
- Status
Terminalxylem
Footballguy
I think you’re proving Tim’s point. Look at where those fall on Joe’s link of media bias, compared to the conservative sites mentioned.
There’s certainly biased garbage on both sides, but the extreme liberal sites haven’t achieved the same level of popularity as their conservative counterparts.
Henry Ford
Footballguy
That’s really what it comes down to, I think.
Sure there are liberal insane sites, they just don’t have the same reach.
By the same token, if you believe the things the staunch right believes these days (America is and has always been a Christian nation, abortion is murder, climate change isn’t real, etc.) there really is nowhere else to go to read news with a perspective you agree with. I would argue that suggests one should change one’s perspective, but that’s not everyone’s way of looking at the world.
TripItUp
Footballguy
The Times and Post have been caught red handed posting fake news on multiple occasions. Is that up for debate?
Here are a few examples.
NY Times Apologizes
Washington Post Apology
Last edited by a moderator:
![[scooter]](/data/avatars/m/22/22287.jpg?1659477690){kind=avatar}
[scooter]
Footballguy
By definition, that wasn't fake news.
The Times was reporting a claim by Kavanaugh's accuser.
They apologized for the vulgar nature of the tweet, not for the veracity of the allegation.
TripItUp
Footballguy
Terminalxylem
Footballguy
[scooter]
Footballguy
TripItUp
Footballguy
I think this article provides a fair summary.
Least Biased News Outlets
As you can see, almost all of the outlets I listed have negative scores.
Last edited by a moderator:
TripItUp
Footballguy
squistion
Footballguy
With the WAPO, the reporter, Dave Weigel made a mistake and jumped to a conclusion from a photo he saw on Twitter. It was not intentional on his part to mislead. And this was his private Twitter account, it was not published in the WAPO or on their website. He deleted the tweet and then later apologized to Trump. The WAPO itself, did not apologize because there was no need to and did not discipline Weigel.
Details from Wiki:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Weigel
On December 8, 2017, Weigel tweeted a photo of the crowd at President Donald Trump's rally at the Pensacola Bay Center in Florida that showed many empty seats. He quickly deleted the tweet after it was pointed out that the photo was taken before the venue filled up. Trump addressed the incident the next day on his Twitter account and demanded that Weigel be fired. Weigel replied and apologized, writing "Was confused by the image of you walking in the bottom right corner."[41]
TripItUp
Footballguy
TripItUp
Footballguy
Perhaps Maurile is distinguishing between fake news and biased news, but that seems to be an awfully slippery slope.
timschochet
Footballguy
@TripItUp before I comment I just want to clarify something: In my OP I listed World Net Daily, Breitbart, Gateway Pundit and InfoWars. I described each as dishonest and disreputable right wing news sources. In your OP, meant to imitate mine, you listed Politico, the New York Times, the Washington Post, among others. Do you truly believe that these news sources, in terms of honesty and reputation, are the left wing equivalent of the right wing sources I mentioned?
timschochet
Footballguy
For the record I don’t think it is. I am a very biased person. I try not to be a dishonest person. I trust that would describe you as well and most people here.
TripItUp
Footballguy
To be honest, I don’t read most these sites with frequency so I couldn’t pretend to know or compare their honesty and reputation.
Last edited by a moderator:
timschochet
Footballguy
TripItUp
Footballguy
No, I don’t troll.
The purpose was to post sites that are objectively considered to have reported fake news and/or are biased.
The yin to your yang to help balance this incredibly left leaning forum.
Last edited by a moderator:
Henry Ford
Footballguy
I think the unique page views for InfoWars were shown to dwarf any of the other truly insane sites for either side on a regular basis at one point. That may have changed since Alex Jones admitted under oath that it’s all an act.
timschochet
Footballguy
You just wrote that you have no idea about their honesty or reputation. How can you then call them “objectively fake news/biased”?
TripItUp
Footballguy
Research such as the article I provided a link to and what I have read.
Probably similar to your process.
Last edited by a moderator:
timschochet
Footballguy
No it really isn’t. I don’t think your comparison holds up at all, and the fact that you and so many others believe some of the the sources you listed can’t be trusted is a real problem in our society.
Dickies
Footballguy
TripItUp
Footballguy
So you don’t trust the business insider link I provided?
What process did you use to identify your websites?
[scooter]
Footballguy
:rollingsmileydeleted:
First off, that's not so much an "article" as it is a reprint of this Gallup poll.
Second, the fact that liberals rated Fox lower than Breitbart (and the fact that conservatives rated CNN lower than Mother Jones) tells you that this poll was, at least in part, a reverse popularity contest.
Third, please note that even conservatives recognize how awful Fox and Breitbart are.
Fourth, this article actually illustrates one reason why so many conservatives are prone to relying on fake news sites. They don't trust Breitbart, and their trust of Fox isn't even outside of the margin of error. That leaves an information void in their lives, which they fill by seeking out sites that validate their feelings.
[scooter]
Footballguy
That's a link to a story about a jogger slapping a reporter's butt.
Are you talking about this apology? It's an apology for the offensive language in the tweet, not an apology for the veracity of the story.
Do you understand what "fake news" even is? Maybe we need to have that conversation before moving forward.
Terminalxylem
Footballguy
Hmmm...not sure I agree that a poll should determine degree of bias. While there are certainly different ways to report (or fail to report) the news, objective truth should be the standard.
With that in mind, where do you think news is reported the most accurately? How did you conclude they were the best?
ETA I just read your link completely. Looks like the Wall Street Journal is the only source both “sides” trust.
Last edited by a moderator:
sho nuff
Footballguy
I don't think basing it just on public polling is a very good way to determine which news outlets are more biased than others.
And again...comparing WashPost and NYT to places like Gateway Pundit and PJMedia will not turn out very well for anyone interested in really making comparisons. Those two "liberal" news sources blow away GP and PJ for factual content and not being nearly as biased.
sho nuff
Footballguy
Places like the chart Joe has often linked to...
Media Bias Chart
Or links like these which will discuss not only the bias, but how well they report factual content.
Allsides
and
Media Bias Fact Check\
Usually, you can just type in a search for "______ bias" inserting what source you want to check out...one of those sites will usually be one of the first links. Click it and read.
You would then see adding places like the Guardian, Washington Post, and the NY Times ...which is seen as left center with a good record on fact checking...would be a poor addition to a list meaning to mimic the list created with places like Breitbart and Gateway Pundit. Just because Trump calls them fake news, does not make it so.
In fact...its selection for the NYT
Last edited by a moderator:
squistion
Footballguy
Wow. I thought this thread was a serious response to Tim's thread but you just admitted you aren't familiar with these sites you point to as fake news.
Last edited by a moderator:
I think it changed since he was kicked off of YouTube and the other major platforms.Henry Ford said:
Last edited by a moderator:
Henry Ford
Footballguy
The most similar "left wing bias" site (which is weird given that it's Louise Mensch) on the media bias chart is patribotics.blog.
Infowars, in the last 60 days, is one of the top 11,000 sites in the world, top 2,100 in the country, for page views.
Patribotics, by contrast, is not in the top 2 million in the world or top 400,000 in the country, and has insufficient data to provide number of page views (that generally means just too low to provide an accurate traffic number.)
To put that in context, Infowars had almost seven times the number of views in the last two months that Footballguys.com had. During football season.
Last edited by a moderator:
Henry Ford
Footballguy
Closest I can find in the extreme left category is Palmer Report at 4.45 million views. Still over 3 million less than Infowars.
Captain Cranks
Footballguy
So your obviously unbiased views are coming from PBS and NPR, correct?TripItUp said:
roadkill1292
Footballguy
It would be interesting to find out if conservative news outlets put as much proportional resources into news gathering as WaPo, NYT, CBS, etc. does, would they find their products changing and would their audiences be happy with them? It appears that our conservative friends believe that the sole differences between right-leaning news and what they consider left-leaning news is one of bias when it's probably more accurate to say that one side pours money into digging up news and one side doesn't.
Captain Cranks
Footballguy
Reality and objectivity are becoming increasingly irrelevant. All you need is some tribalism served with a side of false equivalence and confirmation bias and Wa-la, Joe Biden is now as crooked as Bernie Madoff.
TobiasFunke
Footballguy
It's all about gaming the system. Everyone prefers the comfort of "balance" and "both sides" to the difficult work of discerning the truth and pursuing justice and equality. Republicans have figured that out in the age of Trump and are working it to their benefit with overwhelming success. If you compare the Times to Infowars, the Times will respond by ... moving to the right.
One need only look at the framing of this preposterously pro-Trump feature article on impeachment in today's NY Times to see the fruits of their efforts:
I'm no philosopher but I'm pretty sure the concept of impeachment does not have agency. It can't devolve all by itself. So who is devolving it? Seems like the White House's absence is a contributing factor- so why is the White House absent, and how does that decision comport with the Constitution, the law, historical practices and American's shared understanding of the responsibilities of the branches of government over the history of our republic? What other factors are producing all this devolving?
I think the answers to these questions are pretty obvious, and I bet the Times knows them too. But they can't say them up front the way the media did back when we all had a shared reality, because they would be accused of being biased. But sometimes the truth is biased. It's biased most of the time, in fact, in one way or another. And their job is to tell their readers the truth, not to try to end up in the right section of a chart or avoid being held up by Sean Hannity as an example of left wing media run amok. And they are failing- not because of political bias, but because of institutional cowardice.
Last edited by a moderator:
roadkill1292
Footballguy
Tobias kind of buried it but he is the only one who has said it so far -- the truth is often biased. And since the Kennedy years the truth has frequently been things that traditionalists don't like, things like learning that the nation's electorate had been frequently ugly and hateful throughout our brief history.
Woodward and Bernstein didn't follow the trail leading from the Watergate break-in because they were liberals. They followed it because the most powerful people in the country were running roughshod over American ideals. Same with the whistleblower. If Breitbart and Fox were really on "our" side, they would've been pursuing this story as avidly as anyone at the WaPo or NYT, not making excuses and calling it a "different perspective."
Woodward and Bernstein didn't follow the trail leading from the Watergate break-in because they were liberals. They followed it because the most powerful people in the country were running roughshod over American ideals. Same with the whistleblower. If Breitbart and Fox were really on "our" side, they would've been pursuing this story as avidly as anyone at the WaPo or NYT, not making excuses and calling it a "different perspective."
General Malaise
Footballguy
Good post.
Infowarts reported that Hillary had Parkinson's before the election. That's the level of repugnant dishonesty that should be spotlighted for its wrongness.
[scooter]
Footballguy
I blame Tim. It's his fault for starting a thread which asked (paraphrasing) "Do liberal fake news sites even exist?", rather than asking a more specific and pertinent question, such as "Are there any liberal sites that compare to InfoWars or Gateway Pundit that also have similar levels of bias, reliability, distribution AND influence?"
That opened the door for people to play the bothsides game and to shift the topic.
He really should have been more careful with his phrasing.
(Note: I am of course being sarcastic but there is an underlying current of truth to my words.)
Sheriff Bart
Footballguy
IvanKaramazov
Footballguy
Just to chime in as a right-winger, I have had my occasional issues with NYT. It is not even in the same universe as Breitbart or Gateway Pundit or any of the other sites that Tim brought up. You can't even see that universe from NYT's universe.
TripItUp
Footballguy
- Status
Similar threads
