Faucist der Furhrer to force jews ..er ..the unvacinated to accept experimental medical procedures

Discussion of current events
User avatar
SteveFoerster
Posts: 2518
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 7:17 pm
Location: Probably DCA, YYJ, or DOM
Contact:

Re: Faucist der Furhrer to force jews ..er ..the unvacinated to accept experimental medical procedures

Post by SteveFoerster » Sat Nov 13, 2021 8:07 am

Apollonius wrote:
Fri Nov 12, 2021 12:02 pm
I don't do "fact-checkers":
I suppose if I wanted to believe that sources biased towards my perspective were objective then I guess I wouldn't either.
Apollonius wrote:
Fri Nov 12, 2021 12:02 pm
What fact checkers get wrong - Gavin Haynes, UnHerd, 12 November 2021
https://unherd.com/2021/11/what-fact-ch ... get-wrong/
"they’re most comprised of sweaty 23-year-olds in graduate jobs rummaging through the usual partisan sources"

The guy who runs MBFC is 51. That sort of obvious falsehood doesn't make me think fact checkers are unreliable, it makes me think Unherd is unreliable.

Besides, I referred only to MBFC, which I've gone through pretty thoroughly and found little with which to disagree. I'm not making any claim about other fact checkers or media watchdogs.

They agree, for example, that sources like NPR, the Washington Post, and the New York Times have left bias. And they refer to MSNBC as left biased and mixed accuracy, which they wouldn't do if they were nefarious leftwing shills trying to discredit heroically unbiased (yet somehow still strongly conservative) sources.
Doc wrote:
Fri Nov 12, 2021 8:44 pm
Like I asked Steve. Show me a new source that you feel is not ideological. Or more to the point that does not have an agenda other than telling the truth and the whole truth.
AFP, AP, and Reuters. I think all three of the major international wire services are still pretty reliable.

I'd also say Asia Times, which I think is supported by how it brought together a group like us with our widely varying views.

FairObserver.org is good too. I find that a few of their writers are centre-left and a few are centre-right, so it works out. There aren't a lot of places with long form journalism that aren't ideologically lopsided, so I appreciate them.
Writer, technologist, educator, gadfly.
President of New World University: https://newworld.ac

User avatar
Doc
Posts: 6258
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 7:09 pm
Location: Cradle To Grave

Re: Faucist der Furhrer to force jews ..er ..the unvacinated to accept experimental medical procedures

Post by Doc » Sat Nov 13, 2021 1:36 pm

SteveFoerster wrote:
Sat Nov 13, 2021 8:07 am
Apollonius wrote:
Fri Nov 12, 2021 12:02 pm
I don't do "fact-checkers":
I suppose if I wanted to believe that sources biased towards my perspective were objective then I guess I wouldn't either.
Apollonius wrote:
Fri Nov 12, 2021 12:02 pm
What fact checkers get wrong - Gavin Haynes, UnHerd, 12 November 2021
https://unherd.com/2021/11/what-fact-ch ... get-wrong/
"they’re most comprised of sweaty 23-year-olds in graduate jobs rummaging through the usual partisan sources"

The guy who runs MBFC is 51. That sort of obvious falsehood doesn't make me think fact checkers are unreliable, it makes me think Unherd is unreliable.

Besides, I referred only to MBFC, which I've gone through pretty thoroughly and found little with which to disagree. I'm not making any claim about other fact checkers or media watchdogs.

They agree, for example, that sources like NPR, the Washington Post, and the New York Times have left bias. And they refer to MSNBC as left biased and mixed accuracy, which they wouldn't do if they were nefarious leftwing shills trying to discredit heroically unbiased (yet somehow still strongly conservative) sources.
Doc wrote:
Fri Nov 12, 2021 8:44 pm
Like I asked Steve. Show me a new source that you feel is not ideological. Or more to the point that does not have an agenda other than telling the truth and the whole truth.
AFP, AP, and Reuters. I think all three of the major international wire services are still pretty reliable.

I'd also say Asia Times, which I think is supported by how it brought together a group like us with our widely varying views.
FairObserver.org is good too. I find that a few of their writers are centre-left and a few are centre-right, so it works out. There aren't a lot of places with long form journalism that aren't ideologically lopsided, so I appreciate them.
[/quote]
AFP:
https://www.camera.org/article/afp-s-timeline-of-bias/


AP:
Image

Rueters:
https://www.outsidethebeltway.com/reute ... _by_blogs/

It is not a matter of Bias it not It is a matter of how biased they are. This has always been the case new reporting entities.

Look at allsides.com's report on AFP And I do grant that AFP as an organization That the sum of it's reporters more balanced towards the center. However the individual reporters do not necessarily balance their individual reports.




What's more with Rueters if you search "Reuters bias" on google Photos the results that come up are ALL FROM REUTERS

https://www.google.com/search?q=reuters+bias&tbm=nws

I did the search looking for the fake photo from Beirut in the article I posted above. Apparently the original photo has been scrubbed from the internet. The one that showed a wide angle of mulitple columns of smoke that were INDENTICAL.

This is the only version I could find
Image

While it does show the digital enhancement of the one column shown in full the original photo has several identical columns of smoke. Making the Israeli bombing look far larger in scope.

Here are two other photos AN "Unbiased" photo:

Image

VS the original photo:

Image




https://www.allsides.com/news-source/af ... media-bias
AFP Fact Check


AllSides Media Bias Rating: Center

agree
disagree

Share this rating:

How we determined this rating:

Not Completed: Editorial Review
Community Feedback: 294 ratings
Not Completed: Blind Survey
Not Completed: Third-Party Analysis
Independent Research
AllSides has low or initial rating confidence in this bias rating.

No Paywall: Content from this outlet is free to access.

AllSides Media Bias RatingsTM are based on multi-partisan, scientific analysis. Unless otherwise noted, this bias rating refers only to online news coverage, not TV, print, or radio content.

"Multi-partisan" directly implies bias unless the article are written on a "Multi-partisam" only basis, they are biased. Intentionally or not. The job of editors it to make sure they are not outrageously biased. But in truth they are closed to 100% biased. Just not always in the same direction.

Here is how All sides rates fact checking sites. Maybe they should be called what they are "counter talking points sites" Then they would be honest.

The attachment counter talking points sites.jpg is no longer available
Notice any bias there? Snopes *Leans* left? :roll:

On every page all sides points out the problem with sites like All Sides
counter talking points sites.jpg
counter talking points sites.jpg (129.09 KiB) Viewed 131 times
They do not set a limit on how much any individual or organization can "donate" to become a member.

This is not to say this has happened in their case but it has happened in many others. What if someone offers them $1 million dollars per year. In many such cases that turns into : "I gave you a million dollars last year" Your annual salary double. So why don't you act on my input, and why should I give you a million dollars this year?"

SO who watches the watchers of the watchers?

There is no such thing as an unbiased source. There are more or less honest sources on any given subject that always have a hidden agenda. If only by whether or not they even cover a given story.


You keep saying that the Epoch Times is "Biased". On the other hand there have been a huge number of stories they published that you can find almost no mention of else where. If no other MSM sources mention the story then where is the bias?

https://www.ntd.com/early-season-snow-b ... 98663.html

Early-Season Snow Blankets Beijing, Northern China
ChinaReuters Nov 7, 2021
Especially given that there is a CCP created coal shortage in China. IE this is not going to end well for a large number of people.

So again where is the bias? With the close to only source of the information or the complete omission of the story by MSM news sources that have taken millions of dollars to literally publish CCP propaganda that have chosen not to cover the story ?
“"I fancied myself as some kind of god....It is a sort of disease when you consider yourself some kind of god, the creator of everything, but I feel comfortable about it now since I began to live it out.” -- George Soros

User avatar
Apollonius
Posts: 162
Joined: Fri Dec 16, 2016 11:20 am

Re: Faucist der Furhrer to force jews ..er ..the unvacinated to accept experimental medical procedures

Post by Apollonius » Sun Nov 14, 2021 9:00 am

SteveFoerster wrote:
Sat Nov 13, 2021 8:07 am
Apollonius wrote:
Fri Nov 12, 2021 12:02 pm
I don't do "fact-checkers":
I suppose if I wanted to believe that sources biased towards my perspective were objective then I guess I wouldn't either.
Apollonius wrote:
Fri Nov 12, 2021 12:02 pm
What fact checkers get wrong - Gavin Haynes, UnHerd, 12 November 2021
https://unherd.com/2021/11/what-fact-ch ... get-wrong/
"they’re most comprised of sweaty 23-year-olds in graduate jobs rummaging through the usual partisan sources"

The guy who runs MBFC is 51. That sort of obvious falsehood doesn't make me think fact checkers are unreliable, it makes me think Unherd is unreliable.

Besides, I referred only to MBFC, which I've gone through pretty thoroughly and found little with which to disagree. I'm not making any claim about other fact checkers or media watchdogs.

They agree, for example, that sources like NPR, the Washington Post, and the New York Times have left bias. And they refer to MSNBC as left biased and mixed accuracy, which they wouldn't do if they were nefarious leftwing shills trying to discredit heroically unbiased (yet somehow still strongly conservative) sources.
Doc wrote:
Fri Nov 12, 2021 8:44 pm
Like I asked Steve. Show me a new source that you feel is not ideological. Or more to the point that does not have an agenda other than telling the truth and the whole truth.
AFP, AP, and Reuters. I think all three of the major international wire services are still pretty reliable.

I'd also say Asia Times, which I think is supported by how it brought together a group like us with our widely varying views.

FairObserver.org is good too. I find that a few of their writers are centre-left and a few are centre-right, so it works out. There aren't a lot of places with long form journalism that aren't ideologically lopsided, so I appreciate them.



I've examined a number of these 'fact-checking' sites before and a few months ago took another close look at Mediabiasfactcheck. They rate publications like the New York Times and Washington Post as good for for facts, when in reality, they are spotty, and quite often spectacularly wrong. Most often, they have the same problem that we see throughout media: they simply do not report news that does not fit their 'liberal' profile. I also have a problem with that description. The NYT and WaPo are not liberal in the classical sense; they are progressive; i.e., woke. What is woke? I think you know: the emphasis is on race, gender, 'equity', and a radically biased and selective reading of history and science as a means of promoting their call for 'redress' and 'progress' (as they see it).

From the results of my search on Mediabiasfactcheck for the BBC World News.

Overall, we rate the BBC Left-Center biased based on story selection that slightly favors the left. We also rate them High for factual reporting due to proper sourcing of information.


Here is their rating for Canada's CBC News

Overall, we rate CBC Left-Center Biased based on editorial positions that lean slightly left and High for factual reporting due to proper sourcing and a clean fact check record.


Slightly left? Come on. This just isn't honest. Both the BBC and the CBC are not slightly left. They are not extreme left in the full Marxist-Leninist sense of the word, but they are by no means just slightly left.



In terms of factual reports, these sites don't rate nearly as high as these news rating sites purport. Many of their reports manage to slip in 'facts' that are not facts. Again, they're not awful; they're just not reliable.



But all of the four 'liberal'/left-leaning news sources I have mentioned here do the same thing that 'right-wing' news sources do: report a highly selective set of stories relating to current events. More than anything you are getting a rating on the gossip that their editorial staff is interested in.


For comparison I looked at Quillette:

Overall, we rate Quillette Questionable based on the promotion of racial pseudoscience and the use of poor sources.



Quillette does not promote 'racial pseudoscience' and its sources of information are absolutely outstanding-- far, far better than either the BBC's or the CBC's. Most of the their writers are actually practicing academics and are experts in their fields. Funny they should even mention race. Quillette occasionally covers this issue. The New York Times has many articles about it every single day, and when it comes to 'racial pseudoscience', it's at the New York Times where you will find it, in spades. I've actually never seen 'pseudoscience' of any kind at Quillette. This is a smear job, plain and simple and a good indicator of just how repulsively ignorant and creepy the people who do these ratings really are.



And here is The Spectator (US):

Overall, we rate the Spectator USA Right-Center biased based on story selection and editorial positions that moderately favor the right. We also rate them mostly factual in reporting due to a failed fact check.

A failed fact check? Even an amateur could find numerous so-called facts published in the NYT and WaPo that are not facts at all. Every single week. In fact, almost certainly every single day. I visit the Manhattan Contrarian website run by Francis Menton. He reads the New York Times cover to cover every day and sometimes devotes whole columns to ripping them apart. They deserve it. Reliable? Sorry. Not even slightly. Everyone knows about the Stalin created famine in the Ukraine reported as non-existent by Pulitzer Prize winning New York Times journalist Walter Duranty. The newspaper's shameless promotion of Castro is less well known. But to report that Poland started World War II by firing on German troops on September 1, 1939? If you've got a subscription you can check out their archives and see for yourself the kind of reporting they do. These are some of the reasons I regard the New York Times as absolute rubbish.


And when the NYT and the WaPo or the BBC or CBC get a story that even they know is wrong, do they publish a retraction? Not likely. Mostly not, and when they do it will be on page D12.


So to repeat: Anyone who relies on these two news source checking sites is fooling themselves. I have to admit that I was surprised that each time I check these 'fact-checking' sites out they turn out to be more horribly wrong and out of it than I had remembered. They are useless. Utterly and completely useless. And now it seems that even Associated Press has ceased becoming a news reporting agency and is transforming itself into an political advocacy organization.

User avatar
Doc
Posts: 6258
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 7:09 pm
Location: Cradle To Grave

Re: Faucist der Furhrer to force jews ..er ..the unvacinated to accept experimental medical procedures

Post by Doc » Sun Nov 14, 2021 7:25 pm

Apollonius wrote:
Sun Nov 14, 2021 9:00 am
SteveFoerster wrote:
Sat Nov 13, 2021 8:07 am
Apollonius wrote:
Fri Nov 12, 2021 12:02 pm
I don't do "fact-checkers":
I suppose if I wanted to believe that sources biased towards my perspective were objective then I guess I wouldn't either.
Apollonius wrote:
Fri Nov 12, 2021 12:02 pm
What fact checkers get wrong - Gavin Haynes, UnHerd, 12 November 2021
https://unherd.com/2021/11/what-fact-ch ... get-wrong/
"they’re most comprised of sweaty 23-year-olds in graduate jobs rummaging through the usual partisan sources"

The guy who runs MBFC is 51. That sort of obvious falsehood doesn't make me think fact checkers are unreliable, it makes me think Unherd is unreliable.

Besides, I referred only to MBFC, which I've gone through pretty thoroughly and found little with which to disagree. I'm not making any claim about other fact checkers or media watchdogs.

They agree, for example, that sources like NPR, the Washington Post, and the New York Times have left bias. And they refer to MSNBC as left biased and mixed accuracy, which they wouldn't do if they were nefarious leftwing shills trying to discredit heroically unbiased (yet somehow still strongly conservative) sources.
Doc wrote:
Fri Nov 12, 2021 8:44 pm
Like I asked Steve. Show me a new source that you feel is not ideological. Or more to the point that does not have an agenda other than telling the truth and the whole truth.
AFP, AP, and Reuters. I think all three of the major international wire services are still pretty reliable.

I'd also say Asia Times, which I think is supported by how it brought together a group like us with our widely varying views.

FairObserver.org is good too. I find that a few of their writers are centre-left and a few are centre-right, so it works out. There aren't a lot of places with long form journalism that aren't ideologically lopsided, so I appreciate them.



I've examined a number of these 'fact-checking' sites before and a few months ago took another close look at Mediabiasfactcheck. They rate publications like the New York Times and Washington Post as good for for facts, when in reality, they are spotty, and quite often spectacularly wrong. Most often, they have the same problem that we see throughout media: they simply do not report news that does not fit their 'liberal' profile. I also have a problem with that description. The NYT and WaPo are not liberal in the classical sense; they are progressive; i.e., woke. What is woke? I think you know: the emphasis is on race, gender, 'equity', and a radically biased and selective reading of history and science as a means of promoting their call for 'redress' and 'progress' (as they see it).

From the results of my search on Mediabiasfactcheck for the BBC World News.

Overall, we rate the BBC Left-Center biased based on story selection that slightly favors the left. We also rate them High for factual reporting due to proper sourcing of information.


Here is their rating for Canada's CBC News

Overall, we rate CBC Left-Center Biased based on editorial positions that lean slightly left and High for factual reporting due to proper sourcing and a clean fact check record.


Slightly left? Come on. This just isn't honest. Both the BBC and the CBC are not slightly left. They are not extreme left in the full Marxist-Leninist sense of the word, but they are by no means just slightly left.



In terms of factual reports, these sites don't rate nearly as high as these news rating sites purport. Many of their reports manage to slip in 'facts' that are not facts. Again, they're not awful; they're just not reliable.



But all of the four 'liberal'/left-leaning news sources I have mentioned here do the same thing that 'right-wing' news sources do: report a highly selective set of stories relating to current events. More than anything you are getting a rating on the gossip that their editorial staff is interested in.


For comparison I looked at Quillette:

Overall, we rate Quillette Questionable based on the promotion of racial pseudoscience and the use of poor sources.



Quillette does not promote 'racial pseudoscience' and its sources of information are absolutely outstanding-- far, far better than either the BBC's or the CBC's. Most of the their writers are actually practicing academics and are experts in their fields. Funny they should even mention race. Quillette occasionally covers this issue. The New York Times has many articles about it every single day, and when it comes to 'racial pseudoscience', it's at the New York Times where you will find it, in spades. I've actually never seen 'pseudoscience' of any kind at Quillette. This is a smear job, plain and simple and a good indicator of just how repulsively ignorant and creepy the people who do these ratings really are.



And here is The Spectator (US):

Overall, we rate the Spectator USA Right-Center biased based on story selection and editorial positions that moderately favor the right. We also rate them mostly factual in reporting due to a failed fact check.

A failed fact check? Even an amateur could find numerous so-called facts published in the NYT and WaPo that are not facts at all. Every single week. In fact, almost certainly every single day. I visit the Manhattan Contrarian website run by Francis Menton. He reads the New York Times cover to cover every day and sometimes devotes whole columns to ripping them apart. They deserve it. Reliable? Sorry. Not even slightly. Everyone knows about the Stalin created famine in the Ukraine reported as non-existent by Pulitzer Prize winning New York Times journalist Walter Duranty. The newspaper's shameless promotion of Castro is less well known. But to report that Poland started World War II by firing on German troops on September 1, 1939? If you've got a subscription you can check out their archives and see for yourself the kind of reporting they do. These are some of the reasons I regard the New York Times as absolute rubbish.


And when the NYT and the WaPo or the BBC or CBC get a story that even they know is wrong, do they publish a retraction? Not likely. Mostly not, and when they do it will be on page D12.


So to repeat: Anyone who relies on these two news source checking sites is fooling themselves. I have to admit that I was surprised that each time I check these 'fact-checking' sites out they turn out to be more horribly wrong and out of it than I had remembered. They are useless. Utterly and completely useless. And now it seems that even Associated Press has ceased becoming a news reporting agency and is transforming itself into an political advocacy organization.
Fact checking sites are largely semantics. Mostly biased towards the left. (I suppose they tailor their fact checking to their audience)

Again:
https://www.allsides.com/media-bias/fac ... bias-chart

AllSides Fact Check Bias Chart & Ratings
The AllSides Fact Check Bias Chart™ reveals the bias of top fact checkers, such as Snopes, Politifact, FactCheck.org and more.

The AllSides Fact Check Bias Chart™ is a companion to the AllSides Media Bias Chart™, which helps you to easily identify different perspectives so you can get the full picture and think for yourself.

Fact check websites like Snopes and Politifact reveal their bias numerous ways. Often, fact checkers will analyze information for the reader and draw a conclusion about the meaning of the facts, which is subjective in nature. Other times, they’ll display bias based on what facts they choose to downplay or to highlight. They also show bias based on story choice — for example, primarily fact checking left-wing politicians, or only fact checking right-wing claims.AllSides Fact Check Bias Chart & Ratings
The AllSides Fact Check Bias Chart™ reveals the bias of top fact checkers, such as Snopes, Politifact, FactCheck.org and more.
Image
“"I fancied myself as some kind of god....It is a sort of disease when you consider yourself some kind of god, the creator of everything, but I feel comfortable about it now since I began to live it out.” -- George Soros

User avatar
SteveFoerster
Posts: 2518
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 7:17 pm
Location: Probably DCA, YYJ, or DOM
Contact:

Re: Faucist der Furhrer to force jews ..er ..the unvacinated to accept experimental medical procedures

Post by SteveFoerster » Mon Nov 15, 2021 11:18 am

Doc wrote:
Sun Nov 14, 2021 7:25 pm
Again:
https://www.allsides.com/media-bias/fac ... bias-chart
But who fact checks the fact check checkers?
Writer, technologist, educator, gadfly.
President of New World University: https://newworld.ac

User avatar
Doc
Posts: 6258
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 7:09 pm
Location: Cradle To Grave

Re: Faucist der Furhrer to force jews ..er ..the unvacinated to accept experimental medical procedures

Post by Doc » Mon Nov 15, 2021 4:26 pm

SteveFoerster wrote:
Mon Nov 15, 2021 11:18 am
Doc wrote:
Sun Nov 14, 2021 7:25 pm
Again:
https://www.allsides.com/media-bias/fac ... bias-chart
But who fact checks the fact check checkers?
Like elephants Steve, Its fact checkers all the way down. :P
“"I fancied myself as some kind of god....It is a sort of disease when you consider yourself some kind of god, the creator of everything, but I feel comfortable about it now since I began to live it out.” -- George Soros

Post Reply