Media Criticism (3 Viewers)

[BladeRunner]

Makes more sense to me than your approaches, because then nothing would get fixed, so I will stick with that or something similar.  I don't agree with all his thoughts, but that idea seemed to put a voice to what I was thinking.  

So it's race hustlers and no one else you can listen to?  Then you're not trying hard enough.

At what point do you believe your being deceived into believing something isn't true?  I would argue that, in fact, they have more opportunities now than whites in general.

 

[Boston]

I think I found your problem.  Stop listening to the race hustlers and it might open your eyes.

Just keep quiet and don't forget to pay Robin Diangelo $10,000 if you know what's good for you...

 

[KarmaPolice]

So it's race hustlers and no one else you can listen to?  Then you're not trying hard enough.

At what point do you believe your being deceived into believing something isn't true?  I would argue that, in fact, they have more opportunities now than whites in general.

..and I thought we could have a decent conversation this am.  

 

[BladeRunner]

..and I thought we could have a decent conversation this am.  

We are. 

I'm just saying that if Kendi is all you'll listen too then that's a problem. 

 

[KarmaPolice]

We are. 

I'm just saying that if Kendi is all you'll listen too then that's a problem. 

Where in our back and forths give you the impression that I "only" listen to one person?    I am beyond tired of those accusations from people around here.   

 

[unckeyherb]

Speaking of pods, I started on the Rogan/Taibbi episode this am, and damn - is it me or are there a ton more ads in this thing?     I thought he used to do more ads at the start, then the interview was undisturbed - or am I remembering incorrectly? 

No you are right, there are more ads.  The good news is you can skip to the end of them-unlike many streaming tv shows.  It’s a little annoying but they usually hit in two chunks over the course of the 3+ hour podcast so not too intrusive. 

 

[BladeRunner]

Where in our back and forths give you the impression that I "only" listen to one person?    I am beyond tired of those accusations from people around here.   

In your previous posts you literally said that you subscribe to what Kendi writes about racism. 

 

[KarmaPolice]

No you are right, there are more ads.  The good news is you can skip to the end of them-unlike many streaming tv shows.  It’s a little annoying but they usually hit in two chunks over the course of the 3+ hour podcast so not too intrusive. 

I think I was just more annoyed because I am paying for Spotify premium, so I was surprised there were ads at all.  I like that I can skip them easily, that's for sure.  

Anyway, good interview - I am about 1/2 way through now.  

 

[KarmaPolice]

In your previous posts you literally said that you subscribe to what Kendi writes about racism. 

Yep, and I also said that I don't agree with everything he said, and I that his definition of racism put a voice to what was swirling in my head anyway.    0 of that suggests that I only listen to him or "race hustlers".   

 

[Summer Wheat]

squistion is on safari in the non-FBG desert. 

What did Squid get banned for this time?

 

[BladeRunner]

What did Squid get banned for this time?

Sounds like derailing yet another thread.  And that one wasn't even in the PSF.

 

[rockaction]

What did Squid get banned for this time?

I don't want to derail this thread, so I'll say it one time only and you can check the thread if you want details. He was in a music draft we did and he got contentious about certain things and insulted someone and got placed on suspension (we think, or, are pretty darn sure as the FBG Moderator showed up and said his infamous "If you come back, be cooler..."). It was a weird music draft with everyone fighting. Not good. They're usually a bunch of good-timers and friends who have each other's backs about a bunch of stuff. squistion was not promoting harmony nor good times. It was squis's political persona in a fun format, and it didn't mesh. 

I don't mind writing that, either. He was extraordinarily difficult, and some to most of the drafters weren't happy with him. At all. 

 

[IvanKaramazov]

It was squis's political persona in a fun format, and it didn't mesh. 

This sentence should win some kind of award for understated euphemism.

 

[Sparky Big Time]

The ongoing struggles of CNN are a welcomed diversion from the norm.

Cuomo out, and hopefully Lemon as well, but the simple truth is that until they return to true journalism and stop trying to be a leftist mouthpiece it will be difficult to be credible.  I hope the Rittenhouse kid takens them for millions and millions.

Maybe through the pain of paying out they will start being what they should be.

 

[Summer Wheat]

I don't want to derail this thread, so I'll say it one time only and you can check the thread if you want details. He was in a music draft we did and he got contentious about certain things and insulted someone and got placed on suspension (we think, or, are pretty darn sure as the FBG Moderator showed up and said his infamous "If you come back, be cooler..."). It was a weird music draft with everyone fighting. Not good. They're usually a bunch of good-timers and friends who have each other's backs about a bunch of stuff. squistion was not promoting harmony nor good times. It was squis's political persona in a fun format, and it didn't mesh. 

I don't mind writing that, either. He was extraordinarily difficult, and some to most of the drafters weren't happy with him. At all. 

That is the Squid..he is as obstinate as they come

 

[dkp993]

I don't want to derail this thread, so I'll say it one time only and you can check the thread if you want details. He was in a music draft we did and he got contentious about certain things and insulted someone and got placed on suspension (we think, or, are pretty darn sure as the FBG Moderator showed up and said his infamous "If you come back, be cooler..."). It was a weird music draft with everyone fighting. Not good. They're usually a bunch of good-timers and friends who have each other's backs about a bunch of stuff. squistion was not promoting harmony nor good times. It was squis's political persona in a fun format, and it didn't mesh. 

I don't mind writing that, either. He was extraordinarily difficult, and some to most of the drafters weren't happy with him. At all. 

Music drafts will do it every time.  Wars have been started over less.  

 

[urbanhack]

https://news.yahoo.com/mark-meadows-used-own-cell-171337739.html

I assume this is front page news on the New York Times just like they did with Hillary?

https://www.vox.com/2017/12/7/16747712/study-media-2016-election-clintons-emails

 

[Sinn Fein]

Media Bias Chart 9.0

More sites added

 

[TripItUp]

Media Bias Chart 9.0

More sites added

CNN graded way too favorably here.  Total BS.

 

[Sinn Fein]

CNN graded way too favorably here.  Totals BS.

 Probably not as BS as you might imagine - they break out the website - which is mostly news reporting, from the TV channel, which has a lot of opinionated shows.

 

[TripItUp]

 Probably not as BS as you might imagine - they break out the website - which is mostly news reporting, from the TV channel, which has a lot of opinionated shows.

A media outlet that has admitted it lied to sway votes.  

 

[Pickle Rody]

A media outlet that has admitted it lied to sway votes.  

As opposed to a media outlet that refuses to admit that it lied in an attempt to sway votes.

 

[Chaz McNulty]

Media Bias Chart 9.0

More sites added

This is a decent chart, and I would say fairly accurate.

 

[KarmaPolice]

 Probably not as BS as you might imagine - they break out the website - which is mostly news reporting, from the TV channel, which has a lot of opinionated shows.

Didn't they also recently get new ownership that was trying to trim off the spin a bit too?   Or am I thinking of a different outlet.  

 

[KarmaPolice]

Not surprised at the usual replies - right leaning posters seem to think those charts are crap, and the left leaning think they are fairly accurate.  

My take away is usually that there needs to be better outlets for right leaning people to consume.   I've posted about my attempts to find decent info on that front, but as you see most of the popular ones start dipping below that green line of good factual reliability.    Why is this the case, and why isn't there a market for it? 

 

[lazyike]

Looks about right. Seeing OAN, Newsmax, Hannity and Carlson the far away from facts with their election stolen nonsense. 

 

[TripItUp]

Not surprised at the usual replies - right leaning posters seem to think those charts are crap, and the left leaning think they are fairly accurate.  

There are accurate charts out there, this isn't one of them.

 

[TripItUp]

As opposed to a media outlet that refuses to admit that it lied in an attempt to sway votes.

CNN significantly more egregious IMHO.  

 

[Pickle Rody]

CNN significantly more egregious IMHO.  

Really?

I'm different. I give more credit to those who admit their lies, mistakes and poor choices. I give considerably less, in fact, no credit whatsoever, to those who don't and then double down on those lies, mistakes and poor choices. But hey, that's just me.

(Also, please don't respond with a snarky post about how I'm a lefty or I only listen to CNN or whatever else you want to claim about me. I watch zero television news or opinion outlets. I read zero websites that are biased or have an agenda. I've always been an independent with no party affiliation. I've always been willing to vote for a republican, in fact I have in the past, if I believe that person is the better choice. I haven't felt a republican was the better choice for many, many years.)

 

[TripItUp]

Also, please don't respond with a snarky post about how I'm a lefty or I only listen to CNN or whatever else you want to claim about me. I watch zero television news or opinion outlets. I read zero websites that are biased or have an agenda. I've always been an independent with no party affiliation. I've always been willing to vote for a republican, in fact I have in the past, if I believe that person is the better choice. I haven't felt a republican was the better choice for many, many years.)

Well, at the end of the Biden term Democrats will have had the Presidency for 20 of the last 32 years, and GW wasn't exactly far right.  

So you have been getting your way in terms of the Presidency...I assume you are pleased with the results as a result of your support.

 

[TripItUp]

(Also, please don't respond with a snarky post about how I'm a lefty or I only listen to CNN or whatever else you want to claim about me. I watch zero television news or opinion outlets. I read zero websites that are biased or have an agenda. I've always been an independent with no party affiliation. I've always been willing to vote for a republican, in fact I have in the past, if I believe that person is the better choice. I haven't felt a republican was the better choice for many, many years.)

I too am an Independent.  Voted for Bill twice and Obama once.   I watch all the shows because I believe hearing different opinions is a part of truly understanding the diverse, complex country we live in.

 

[Pickle Rody]

Well, at the end of the Biden term Democrats will have had the Presidency for 20 of the last 32 years, and GW wasn't exactly far right.  

So you have been getting your way in terms of the Presidency...I assume you are pleased with the results as a result of your support.

You should never assume anything about anyone. I believe Joe has a thread about just that right now. No, I'm not pleased. Not by a long shot.

 

[KarmaPolice]

There are accurate charts out there, this isn't one of them.

So what chart do you think is more accurate?

 

[Sinn Fein]

Well, at the end of the Biden term Democrats will have had the Presidency for 20 of the last 32 years, and GW wasn't exactly far right.  

So you have been getting your way in terms of the Presidency...I assume you are pleased with the results as a result of your support.

Did the US become a monarchy, and I missed it? 

How long has there been a conservative majority on the SC in the last 32 years?

20 of the last 26 years the House has been led by the GOP.

16 of the last 24 years the Senate has been led by the GOP

5 of the last 6 unified governments - control of congress and presidency - have been Republicans.

If your life is not what you want it to be, or this country is not what you want it to be, the GOP has done more to shape the country than the Dems.

 

[massraider]

Laura Inghram clapping with joy at the general catching COVID might not be a new low for Fox, but it's close.

Tough to whataboutism that one. 

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Laura Inghram clapping with joy at the general catching COVID might not be a new low for Fox, but it's close.

Tough to whataboutism that one. 

Really?  That seems like the easiest whatabout of all time.

(It should go without saying that this is bad regardless of who's doing it, not that it is good regardless of who is doing it.)

 

[BladeRunner]

Laura Inghram clapping with joy at the general catching COVID might not be a new low for Fox, but it's close.

Tough to whataboutism that one. 

Really?  That seems like the easiest whatabout of all time.

(It should go without saying that this is bad regardless of who's doing it, not that it is good regardless of who is doing it.)

Yeah, this is too easy even a caveman could take raider down:

LOOK!  In this very forum: https://forums.footballguys.com/topic/802550-my-friendlocal-politician-passed-from-covid-facebook-and-twitter-keyboard-warriors-going-crazy/

 

[massraider]

OAN begins their alive to YouTube and Patreon begging:

https://twitter.com/justinbaragona/status/1484574834344570887?t=CMp7vP5mIAF1HfD93smTww&s=19

 

[massraider]

Really?  That seems like the easiest whatabout of all time.

(It should go without saying that this is bad regardless of who's doing it, not that it is good regardless of who is doing it.)

People on a subreddit not the same as someone with a show on a news channel. This seems obvious. 

 

[IvanKaramazov]

People on a subreddit not the same as someone with a show on a news channel. This seems obvious. 

I know -- it's cute when you guys do it.  

 

[dozer]

I take issue with this comment a poster responded to me with, when a poor source was called out.

"....this is the same Salon.con that just characterized the Republican Party an “evil, terrorist organization”. 

-

I like to check the media bias when I consider a source of information.

The quickest way I know of is to google “Source + Media + Bias”

Within the first few links in the search results are a bias rating from allsides.com and mediabiasfactcheck.com

I usually choose the second one (MBFC) because of the easily-copied analysis that can be pasted in this forum.

The MBFC site also has a range meter with the following parameters:

Extreme>Left>Left Center>Least Biased>Right Center>Right>Extreme

This Range Meter is represented in the analysis as the Bias Rating.

For example, Fox News:

Bias Rating: RIGHT
Factual Reporting: MIXED
Country: USA (44/180 Press Freedom)
Media Type: TV Station
Traffic/Popularity: High Traffic
MBFC Credibility Rating: MEDIUM CREDIBILITY

And CNN…

Bias Rating: LEFT
Factual Reporting: MIXED
Country: USA
Press Freedom Rating: MOSTLY FREE
Media Type: TV Station
Traffic/Popularity: High Traffic
MBFC Credibility Rating: MEDIUM CREDIBILITY

It is important to note that there are many sites out there that both, lean Left or Right on the range scale, AND are Mostly Factual and have High Credibility.

The user and consumer of information has a responsibility to have their own inner filter to understand the bias of what they are reading. If someone posts a Fox or CNN article, I automatically start my inner-bias filter in an attempt to remain closer to the truth.

When someone posts from one of the “Extreme” news sites I don’t attempt to read the article even while using my inner-bias filter. It’s just not worth the time. However, I do like to post the bias analysis from MBFC because I believe these literal fake news sites need to be called out for the benefit of genuine discourse.

I’ve been asked to stop doing this. I will not stop, unless management asks me to.

Recently, A fellow poster has called out the use of the site I like to use, noting how a website called salon.com once had an article that…

“…just characterized the Republican Party an “evil, terrorist organization”.

And also had a “mostly factual” MBFC Bias Rating.

I responded by simply saying “Story checks out”, which was probably a little snarky, so I apologize for that.

Here is what you find when you use MBFC to check salon.com bias.

(google- Salon.com+media+bias)

Bias Rating: LEFT
Factual Reporting: MOSTLY FACTUAL
Country: USA (45/180 Press Freedom)
Media Type: Website
Traffic/Popularity: High Traffic
MBFC Credibility Rating: HIGH CREDIBILITY

I don’t believe I ever use salon.com. The site is certainly a way-left source, but appears to use mostly factual reporting.

I went to salon.com and searched for “evil, terrorist organization”.

The search results revealed no such article, but I have no doubt that this obviously Left leaning site would use this type of language.

The results did show these article titles:

"Evil" Josh Hawley hit with bipartisan pushback after call to drop U.S. support for Ukraine NATO bid

Ted Cruz apologizes for Jan. 6 "terrorist attack" comment after enduring Tucker Carlson's wrath

Ted Cruz blasted by Tucker Carlson, right-wing Twitter for calling Jan. 6 a "terrorist attack"

The poster who called out MBFC, also claimed the site is some kind of liberal hack organization.

I ask the poster, if they care to, to post the article he is referring to from Salon.com, and also any evidence he has that the site I use, MBFC, is a liberal organization.

Using the Adfontesmedia.com bias chart, here are some of analysis results from MBFC:

Reuters

Bias Rating: LEAST BIASED
Factual Reporting: VERY HIGH
Country: United Kingdom (34/180 Press Freedom)
Media Type: News Agency
Traffic/Popularity: High Traffic
MBFC Credibility Rating: HIGH CREDIBILITY

Occupy Democrats

Reasoning: Propaganda, Conspiracies, Failed Fact Checks
Bias Rating: FAR LEFT
Factual Reporting: LOW
Country: USA (44/180 Press Freedom)
Media Type: Organization/Foundation
Traffic/Popularity: High Traffic
MBFC Credibility Rating: LOW CREDIBILITY

One America News Network

Questionable Reasoning: Poor Sourcing, Conspiracy Theories, Propaganda, Numerous Failed Fact Checks
Bias Rating: FAR RIGHT
Factual Reporting: LOW
Country: USA (44/180 Press Freedom)
Media Type: TV Station
Traffic/Popularity: High Traffic
MBFC Credibility Rating: LOW CREDIBILITY

 

[Sabertooth]

YOU MUST BE VERY AFRAID!!!

Headline:  Parenting a child under 12 in the age of delta: ‘It’s like a fire alarm every day’

Really, I have a child under 12, outside of the poor kid having to wear a mask all day its pretty normal.  Fear sells.

Yeah mine really enjoy active shooter drills too.  You should move to the UP.  I haven’t seen a mask in months.  

 

[dozer]

I take issue with this comment a poster responded to me with, when a poor source was called out.

"....this is the same Salon.con that just characterized the Republican Party an “evil, terrorist organization”. 

-

I like to check the media bias when I consider a source of information.

The quickest way I know of is to google “Source + Media + Bias”

Within the first few links in the search results are a bias rating from allsides.com and mediabiasfactcheck.com

I usually choose the second one (MBFC) because of the easily-copied analysis that can be pasted in this forum.

The MBFC site also has a range meter with the following parameters:

Extreme>Left>Left Center>Least Biased>Right Center>Right>Extreme

This Range Meter is represented in the analysis as the Bias Rating.

For example, Fox News:

Bias Rating: RIGHT
Factual Reporting: MIXED
Country: USA (44/180 Press Freedom)
Media Type: TV Station
Traffic/Popularity: High Traffic
MBFC Credibility Rating: MEDIUM CREDIBILITY

And CNN…

Bias Rating: LEFT
Factual Reporting: MIXED
Country: USA
Press Freedom Rating: MOSTLY FREE
Media Type: TV Station
Traffic/Popularity: High Traffic
MBFC Credibility Rating: MEDIUM CREDIBILITY

It is important to note that there are many sites out there that both, lean Left or Right on the range scale, AND are Mostly Factual and have High Credibility.

The user and consumer of information has a responsibility to have their own inner filter to understand the bias of what they are reading. If someone posts a Fox or CNN article, I automatically start my inner-bias filter in an attempt to remain closer to the truth.

When someone posts from one of the “Extreme” news sites I don’t attempt to read the article even while using my inner-bias filter. It’s just not worth the time. However, I do like to post the bias analysis from MBFC because I believe these literal fake news sites need to be called out for the benefit of genuine discourse.

I’ve been asked to stop doing this. I will not stop, unless management asks me to.

Recently, A fellow poster has called out the use of the site I like to use, noting how a website called salon.com once had an article that…

“…just characterized the Republican Party an “evil, terrorist organization”.

And also had a “mostly factual” MBFC Bias Rating.

I responded by simply saying “Story checks out”, which was probably a little snarky, so I apologize for that.

Here is what you find when you use MBFC to check salon.com bias.

(google- Salon.com+media+bias)

Bias Rating: LEFT
Factual Reporting: MOSTLY FACTUAL
Country: USA (45/180 Press Freedom)
Media Type: Website
Traffic/Popularity: High Traffic
MBFC Credibility Rating: HIGH CREDIBILITY

I don’t believe I ever use salon.com. The site is certainly a way-left source, but appears to use mostly factual reporting.

I went to salon.com and searched for “evil, terrorist organization”.

The search results revealed no such article, but I have no doubt that this obviously Left leaning site would use this type of language.

The results did show these article titles:

"Evil" Josh Hawley hit with bipartisan pushback after call to drop U.S. support for Ukraine NATO bid

Ted Cruz apologizes for Jan. 6 "terrorist attack" comment after enduring Tucker Carlson's wrath

Ted Cruz blasted by Tucker Carlson, right-wing Twitter for calling Jan. 6 a "terrorist attack"

The poster who called out MBFC, also claimed the site is some kind of liberal hack organization.

I ask the poster, if they care to, to post the article he is referring to from Salon.com, and also any evidence he has that the site I use, MBFC, is a liberal organization.

Using the Adfontesmedia.com bias chart, here are some of analysis results from MBFC:

Reuters

Bias Rating: LEAST BIASED
Factual Reporting: VERY HIGH
Country: United Kingdom (34/180 Press Freedom)
Media Type: News Agency
Traffic/Popularity: High Traffic
MBFC Credibility Rating: HIGH CREDIBILITY

Occupy Democrats

Reasoning: Propaganda, Conspiracies, Failed Fact Checks
Bias Rating: FAR LEFT
Factual Reporting: LOW
Country: USA (44/180 Press Freedom)
Media Type: Organization/Foundation
Traffic/Popularity: High Traffic
MBFC Credibility Rating: LOW CREDIBILITY

One America News Network

Questionable Reasoning: Poor Sourcing, Conspiracy Theories, Propaganda, Numerous Failed Fact Checks
Bias Rating: FAR RIGHT
Factual Reporting: LOW
Country: USA (44/180 Press Freedom)
Media Type: TV Station
Traffic/Popularity: High Traffic
MBFC Credibility Rating: LOW CREDIBILITY

Bump. The bogus salon.com article has come up again…

 

[dozer]

I take issue with this comment a poster responded to me with, when a poor source was called out.

"....this is the same Salon.con that just characterized the Republican Party an “evil, terrorist organization”. 

-

I like to check the media bias when I consider a source of information.

The quickest way I know of is to google “Source + Media + Bias”

Within the first few links in the search results are a bias rating from allsides.com and mediabiasfactcheck.com

I usually choose the second one (MBFC) because of the easily-copied analysis that can be pasted in this forum.

The MBFC site also has a range meter with the following parameters:

Extreme>Left>Left Center>Least Biased>Right Center>Right>Extreme

This Range Meter is represented in the analysis as the Bias Rating.

For example, Fox News:

Bias Rating: RIGHT
Factual Reporting: MIXED
Country: USA (44/180 Press Freedom)
Media Type: TV Station
Traffic/Popularity: High Traffic
MBFC Credibility Rating: MEDIUM CREDIBILITY

And CNN…

Bias Rating: LEFT
Factual Reporting: MIXED
Country: USA
Press Freedom Rating: MOSTLY FREE
Media Type: TV Station
Traffic/Popularity: High Traffic
MBFC Credibility Rating: MEDIUM CREDIBILITY

It is important to note that there are many sites out there that both, lean Left or Right on the range scale, AND are Mostly Factual and have High Credibility.

The user and consumer of information has a responsibility to have their own inner filter to understand the bias of what they are reading. If someone posts a Fox or CNN article, I automatically start my inner-bias filter in an attempt to remain closer to the truth.

When someone posts from one of the “Extreme” news sites I don’t attempt to read the article even while using my inner-bias filter. It’s just not worth the time. However, I do like to post the bias analysis from MBFC because I believe these literal fake news sites need to be called out for the benefit of genuine discourse.

I’ve been asked to stop doing this. I will not stop, unless management asks me to.

Recently, A fellow poster has called out the use of the site I like to use, noting how a website called salon.com once had an article that…

“…just characterized the Republican Party an “evil, terrorist organization”.

And also had a “mostly factual” MBFC Bias Rating.

I responded by simply saying “Story checks out”, which was probably a little snarky, so I apologize for that.

Here is what you find when you use MBFC to check salon.com bias.

(google- Salon.com+media+bias)

Bias Rating: LEFT
Factual Reporting: MOSTLY FACTUAL
Country: USA (45/180 Press Freedom)
Media Type: Website
Traffic/Popularity: High Traffic
MBFC Credibility Rating: HIGH CREDIBILITY

I don’t believe I ever use salon.com. The site is certainly a way-left source, but appears to use mostly factual reporting.

I went to salon.com and searched for “evil, terrorist organization”.

The search results revealed no such article, but I have no doubt that this obviously Left leaning site would use this type of language.

The results did show these article titles:

"Evil" Josh Hawley hit with bipartisan pushback after call to drop U.S. support for Ukraine NATO bid

Ted Cruz apologizes for Jan. 6 "terrorist attack" comment after enduring Tucker Carlson's wrath

Ted Cruz blasted by Tucker Carlson, right-wing Twitter for calling Jan. 6 a "terrorist attack"

The poster who called out MBFC, also claimed the site is some kind of liberal hack organization.

I ask the poster, if they care to, to post the article he is referring to from Salon.com, and also any evidence he has that the site I use, MBFC, is a liberal organization.

Using the Adfontesmedia.com bias chart, here are some of analysis results from MBFC:

Reuters

Bias Rating: LEAST BIASED
Factual Reporting: VERY HIGH
Country: United Kingdom (34/180 Press Freedom)
Media Type: News Agency
Traffic/Popularity: High Traffic
MBFC Credibility Rating: HIGH CREDIBILITY

Occupy Democrats

Reasoning: Propaganda, Conspiracies, Failed Fact Checks
Bias Rating: FAR LEFT
Factual Reporting: LOW
Country: USA (44/180 Press Freedom)
Media Type: Organization/Foundation
Traffic/Popularity: High Traffic
MBFC Credibility Rating: LOW CREDIBILITY

One America News Network

Questionable Reasoning: Poor Sourcing, Conspiracy Theories, Propaganda, Numerous Failed Fact Checks
Bias Rating: FAR RIGHT
Factual Reporting: LOW
Country: USA (44/180 Press Freedom)
Media Type: TV Station
Traffic/Popularity: High Traffic
MBFC Credibility Rating: LOW CREDIBILITY

@LawFitz

@ekbeats

Tagging Fitz because we were talking about this topic in another thread.

Tagging Ek because he keeps claiming the bias checking site I use is bad because of a single salon.com article calls Republicans evil.

 

[dozer]

“Fact Checking sites are run by liberal media. They give their own sites good marks and give right wing sources bad marks.”

The above thought is what I question.
 

Does anyone have proof of this?

Or is it a case of having to face the fact that the sites you rely on, while they tell you what you want to hear, they are giving you propaganda and play fast and loose with the facts?

 

[dozer]

I googled: "fact checking sites are run by liberal media"

While I didn't find any evidence that liberal biased media has somehow organized all the fact checking and bias checking sites to unfairly flag far-right wing sites as unreliable, I did find a few interesting articles, and some good sources for fact checking.

Political Fact-Checking Under Fire

A transcript of an interview on NPR.

Reliable Sources for Fact Checking (league of women voters)

Misinformation and Disinformation: Thinking Critically about Information Sources College of Staten Island, Library

 

[dozer]

Fact Check: So who's checking the fact-finders? We are

POLITIFACT.COM

PolitiFact.com is a fact-finding project of the Tampa Bay Times (formerly The St. Petersburg Times) and has been assailed as a partisan member of the "liberal media."

PolitiFact.com, which was awarded a Pulitzer Prize, examines statements by politicians and pundits and rates what they say on its Truth-O-Meter. The website also tracks promises by Obama and Republican leaders.

It is true that some of its reporters work for the Tampa Bay Times, a fact not lost on a website called PolitiFactbias.com, which exposes what it calls liberal bias by PolitiFact.com.

But PolitiFact.com uses strict journalistic standards, according to its mandate. Its reporters and researchers use original reports rather than news stories. When possible, PolitiFact.com uses original sources to verify the claims and interviews impartial experts.

 

[dozer]

10+ Best Conservative News Sites In 2022

National Review

Bias Rating: RIGHT
Factual Reporting: MOSTLY FACTUAL
Country: USA (44/180 Press Freedom)
Media Type: Magazine
Traffic/Popularity: High Traffic
MBFC Credibility Rating: HIGH CREDIBILITY

Washington’s free beacon

Bias Rating: RIGHT
Factual Reporting: MIXED
Country: USA
Press Freedom Rating: MOSTLY FREE
Media Type: Website
Traffic/Popularity: Medium Traffic
MBFC Credibility Rating: MEDIUM CREDIBILITY

The Federalist

Questionable Reasoning: Conspiracy Theories, Propaganda, Failed Fact Checks
Bias Rating: RIGHT
Factual Reporting: MIXED
Country: USA (44/180 Press Freedom)
Media Type: Website
Traffic/Popularity: High Traffic
MBFC Credibility Rating: LOW CREDIBILITY

The Washington Times

Reasoning: Numerous Failed Fact Checks, Poor Sourcing, Lack of Transparency
Bias Rating: RIGHT-CENTER
Factual Reporting: MIXED
Country: USA
Press Freedom Rating: MOSTLY FREE
Media Type: Newspaper
Traffic/Popularity: High Traffic
MBFC Credibility Rating: LOW CREDIBILITY

The Washington Examiner

Bias Rating: RIGHT
Factual Reporting: MIXED
Country: USA (45/180 Press Freedom)
Media Type: Newspaper
Traffic/Popularity: Medium Traffic
MBFC Credibility Rating: MEDIUM CREDIBILITY

The American Thinker

Reasoning: Conspiracy, Propaganda, Lack of Ownership Transparency, Failed Fact Checks
Bias Rating: EXTREME RIGHT
Factual Reporting: LOW
Country: USA
Press Freedom Rating: MOSTLY FREE
Media Type: Website
Traffic/Popularity: High Traffic
MBFC Credibility Rating: LOW CREDIBILITY

TheBlaze

Questionable Reasoning: Conspiracy Theories, Propaganda, Failed Fact Checks
Bias Rating: RIGHT
Factual Reporting: MIXED
Country: USA
Press Freedom Rating: MOSTLY FREE
Media Type: TV Station
Traffic/Popularity: High Traffic
MBFC Credibility Rating: LOW CREDIBILITY

RedState

Bias Rating: RIGHT
Factual Reporting: MIXED
Country: USA (44/180 Press Freedom)
Media Type: Website
Traffic/Popularity: High Traffic
MBFC Credibility Rating: MEDIUM CREDIBILITY

PJ Media

Questionable Reasoning: Extreme Right, Propaganda, Conspiracy, Poor Sourcing, Failed Fact Checks
Bias Rating: RIGHT
Factual Reporting: MIXED
Country: USA (45/180 Press Freedom)
Media Type: Website
Traffic/Popularity: High Traffic
MBFC Credibility Rating: LOW CREDIBILITY

Twitchy

Factual Reporting: MIXED
Country: USA
World Press Freedom Rank: USA 45/180

Research is incomplete for Twitchy...

LifeSiteNews

Questionable Reasoning: Conspiracy Theories, Pseudoscience, Failed Fact Checks
Bias Rating: RIGHT
Factual Reporting: LOW
Country: Canada (14/180 Press Freedom)
Media Type: Website
Traffic/Popularity: Medium Traffic
MBFC Credibility Rating: LOW CREDIBILITY

 

[ekbeats]

I ask the poster, if they care to, to post the article he is referring to from Salon.com, and also any evidence he has that the site I use, MBFC, is a liberal organization.

I cited the salon article in my post.  

Here’s an article on MBFC’s methodology.

 

[ekbeats]

Bump. The bogus salon.com article has come up again…

Bogus?  Who is fact checking you?