Biased Reporting Forces New York Times D.C. Bureau to Add Fact-Checker

[Weatherman2020]

Understatement of the Year: “It’s probably long overdue.” — Peter Baker, chief White House correspondent for The New York Times.

“He’s clearly willing to and eager to pounce on any mistakes,” Baker said.

When the "mistakes" all run in the same direction, when they all favor a preferred ideological viewpoint, then they're not mistakes any longer, they're propaganda.

 

[depotoo]

Understatement of the Year: “It’s probably long overdue.” — Peter Baker, chief White House correspondent for The New York Times.

“He’s clearly willing to and eager to pounce on any mistakes,” Baker said.

When the "mistakes" all run in the same direction, when they all favor a preferred ideological viewpoint, then they're not mistakes any longer, they're propaganda.

And who is that fact checker? Someone with the same biases, like fact-check?

 

[Mac1958]

Being incorrect factually is really a relatively small part of the problem when it comes to bias.

A larger, and far more pervasive issue, is when a "reporter" purposely avoids and ignores facts that run counter to the biased point they're trying to make in their "news" article. This is very easily done, it's very difficult to trace or prove, and probably does at LEAST as much damage as anything else in the big picture.

We see precisely the same tactic used in your average partisan rhetoric.
.

 

[Weatherman2020]

Understatement of the Year: “It’s probably long overdue.” — Peter Baker, chief White House correspondent for The New York Times.

“He’s clearly willing to and eager to pounce on any mistakes,” Baker said.

When the "mistakes" all run in the same direction, when they all favor a preferred ideological viewpoint, then they're not mistakes any longer, they're propaganda.

And who is that fact checker? Someone with the same biases, like fact-check?

You know it.

 

[Weatherman2020]

Being incorrect factually is really a relatively small part of the problem when it comes to bias.

A larger, and far more pervasive issue, is when a "reporter" purposely avoids and ignores facts that run counter to the biased point they're trying to make in their "news" article. This is very easily done, it's very difficult to trace or prove, and probably does at LEAST as much damage as anything else in the big picture.

We see precisely the same tactic used in your average partisan rhetoric.
.

Yeah, but the average partisan rhetoric is not from a multi billion dollar propaganda machine spewing lies to the general public.

 

[Mac1958]

Being incorrect factually is really a relatively small part of the problem when it comes to bias.

A larger, and far more pervasive issue, is when a "reporter" purposely avoids and ignores facts that run counter to the biased point they're trying to make in their "news" article. This is very easily done, it's very difficult to trace or prove, and probably does at LEAST as much damage as anything else in the big picture.

We see precisely the same tactic used in your average partisan rhetoric.
.

Yeah, but the average partisan rhetoric is not from a multi billion dollar propaganda machine spewing lies to the general public.

Well, sure, they have huge advantage in sheer volume.

The point is, that behavior is very difficult to control.
.

 

[Weatherman2020]

Being incorrect factually is really a relatively small part of the problem when it comes to bias.

A larger, and far more pervasive issue, is when a "reporter" purposely avoids and ignores facts that run counter to the biased point they're trying to make in their "news" article. This is very easily done, it's very difficult to trace or prove, and probably does at LEAST as much damage as anything else in the big picture.

We see precisely the same tactic used in your average partisan rhetoric.
.

Yeah, but the average partisan rhetoric is not from a multi billion dollar propaganda machine spewing lies to the general public.

Well, sure, they have huge advantage in sheer volume.

The point is, that behavior is very difficult to control.
.

I think lawsuits should start being filed. That'll stop it.

 

[Mac1958]

Being incorrect factually is really a relatively small part of the problem when it comes to bias.

A larger, and far more pervasive issue, is when a "reporter" purposely avoids and ignores facts that run counter to the biased point they're trying to make in their "news" article. This is very easily done, it's very difficult to trace or prove, and probably does at LEAST as much damage as anything else in the big picture.

We see precisely the same tactic used in your average partisan rhetoric.
.

Yeah, but the average partisan rhetoric is not from a multi billion dollar propaganda machine spewing lies to the general public.

Well, sure, they have huge advantage in sheer volume.

The point is, that behavior is very difficult to control.
.

I think lawsuits should start being filed. That'll stop it.

I honestly don't know. I understand that argument, but that's one hell of a slippery slope when it comes to Freedom of the Press. There is no doubt that freedom is being abused, but we can't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

On the other hand, you may be right - theoretically, it might only take a few lawsuits to make these organizations start flying right.
.