If a person uses a link to a blog as a NEWS SOURCE is it valid?

[Marion Morrison]

Thier are some great independent citizen thinkers out there .
The left are simplistic fools for dismissing them outright

The left doesn't want great thinkers, the left wants indoctrinated drones.

On that note..

I just watched this Twilight Zone..and it shows this family with a couple and 1 son, and it's all good, setting is futuristic...

So he going to take the "government test" today..parents look a little nervous but hide it from him.


They drop him at the government testing facility and leave..So he gets there and the dude makes him drink Sodium Pentathol.

Turns out it's an IQ test..

Cut to much later in the afternoon and the parents are pacing and very nervous..then they get the call on the videophone.

"We have calculated the results of your son's IQ test. We regret to inform you his IQ was too high, what do you want us to do with the body?"

That's half the reason I'm still up, I was like "WTF?!"

The acting was pretty good, they were a loving family and he was a cute, bright little boy.

 

[Kat]

Thier are some great independent citizen thinkers out there .
The left are simplistic fools for dismissing them outright

The left doesn't want great thinkers, the left wants indoctrinated drones.

On that note..

I just watched this Twilight Zone..and it shows this family with a couple and 1 son, and it's all good, setting is futuristic...

So he going to take the "government test" today..parents look a little nervous but hide it from him.


They drop him at the government testing facility and leave..So he gets there and the dude makes him drink Sodium Pentathol.

Turns out it's an IQ test..

Cut to much later in the afternoon and the parents are pacing and very nervous..then they get the call on the videophone.

"We have calculated the results of your son's IQ test. We regret to inform you his IQ was too high, what do you want us to do with the body?"

That's half the reason I'm still up, I was like "WTF?!"

The acting was pretty good, they were a loving family and he was a cute, bright little boy.

Always liked those re-runs. They can be creepy though.

 

[Marion Morrison]

Thier are some great independent citizen thinkers out there .
The left are simplistic fools for dismissing them outright

The left doesn't want great thinkers, the left wants indoctrinated drones.

On that note..

I just watched this Twilight Zone..and it shows this family with a couple and 1 son, and it's all good, setting is futuristic...

So he going to take the "government test" today..parents look a little nervous but hide it from him.


They drop him at the government testing facility and leave..So he gets there and the dude makes him drink Sodium Pentathol.

Turns out it's an IQ test..

Cut to much later in the afternoon and the parents are pacing and very nervous..then they get the call on the videophone.

"We have calculated the results of your son's IQ test. We regret to inform you his IQ was too high, what do you want us to do with the body?"

That's half the reason I'm still up, I was like "WTF?!"

The acting was pretty good, they were a loving family and he was a cute, bright little boy.

Always liked those re-runs. They can be creepy though.

These are the newer ones, so they can get scarier than the older ones. Writers like Wes Craven and Steven King sometimes.

 

[Kat]

The left doesn't want great thinkers, the left wants indoctrinated drones.

On that note..

I just watched this Twilight Zone..and it shows this family with a couple and 1 son, and it's all good, setting is futuristic...

So he going to take the "government test" today..parents look a little nervous but hide it from him.


They drop him at the government testing facility and leave..So he gets there and the dude makes him drink Sodium Pentathol.

Turns out it's an IQ test..

Cut to much later in the afternoon and the parents are pacing and very nervous..then they get the call on the videophone.

"We have calculated the results of your son's IQ test. We regret to inform you his IQ was too high, what do you want us to do with the body?"

That's half the reason I'm still up, I was like "WTF?!"

The acting was pretty good, they were a loving family and he was a cute, bright little boy.

Always liked those re-runs. They can be creepy though.

These are the newer ones, so they can get scarier than the older ones. Writers like Wes Craven and Steven King sometimes.

Oh. No wonder.

 

[Deplorable Yankee]

Thier are some great independent citizen thinkers out there .
The left are simplistic fools for dismissing them outright

The left doesn't want great thinkers, the left wants indoctrinated drones.

indeed they do

 

[Bleipriester]

It takes facts in order to have an opinion on it.

LOL. Sure, in a perfect world, and yet, this forum alone is filled with idiots spewing their uninformed opinions.

Mod comment of the year.

 

[playtime]

i only use & accept sources based on university research level criteria. unbiased valid news outlets, & online citations from sources ending in .org or .gov or .edu

blogs, sources ending in .net or .com & (unless it's already 'general knowledge' ) wikipedia is never to be used as a valid source for anything.

That's pretty impressive.. However, you don't understand the role of "non-authoritative" sources... And you OVER-ESTIMATE the scruples and honesty of the sites on your list.. CERTAINLY, there are crappy .ORG sites.. And the 535 .GOV sites assigned to Congress Critters are a WASTELAND deeper in shit than Sunday morning cable news shows.. And OTHER .GOV sites are set-ups for propagandizing the current administration's effort to PUSH certain agenda items.. So it's NOT a fertile field of much other than bullshit and statistics that are TUNED to very WONKY definitions.. Statistics that "normal people" without critical thinking abilities should not be parroting.. ]

And some of the most partisan and spinnable sites on the web hide behind .ORG labels.. As well as some "think tanks" that are nothing but extensions of partisan spin.. I'd REALLY be impressed if I searched your content and found that NEVER have you quoted from "factcheck.org" instead of thinking critically for yourself and doing some research..

If you want to be a purest or what Spiro Agnew back in the days referred to as "an effete corps of impudent snobs" -- you should trudging thru CPAN and Congressional testimony or press conferences for "gems" of wisdom... Mining there is a dirty business..

IMO -- "non-authoritive" sources play an ever increasing VITAL role in public education as the "media" abandons their charters and methods. It's like those "research librarians" you could lean on before the internet matured.. They were skillful in telling you WHERE TO LOOK for information that maybe they didn't fully understand. And MANY times a week, the BEST investigative journalism (maybe the ONLY investigative journalism) comes from sources that you DID NOT list....

ya ya ya.... i know .orgs are not all created equal... did i really hafta spell that out? it's a start & then a media bias fact check usually clears it up. *geez* think tanks are out because they are most likely biased.

 

[playtime]

i only use & accept sources based on university research level criteria. unbiased valid news outlets, & online citations from sources ending in .org or .gov or .edu

blogs, sources ending in .net or .com & (unless it's already 'general knowledge' ) .

lol lol lol sure you do ...

you are free to do any kind of research into any of my posting history & find out. it's allllllllllllllll there & i guarantee you would eat your words.

You mean like you did in this post? lol

blogs are usually opinion.... i'm telling you what i use. & just like i don't use MSNBC, huffpo, or dailykos, i wouldn't accept gateway pundit, breitbart, or american thinker as factual either because of the bias factor, however they aren't conspiratorial like the rw rag mags i just listed.

 

[flacaltenn]

it's a start & then a media bias fact check usually clears it up.

Seriously?? You use a MORE biased and spinnable site to check OTHERS?? No wonder you're so confused as to where to turn for finding real journalism...

Long form journalism is the only safe harbor... If you read ALL SIDES of it.. You might have to wade thru Mother Jones, National Review and Reason Magazine to get it ALL --- but it's there for YOU to assess.. No one journal is the truth of anything.. And your "fact checkers" are the largest frauds of all...

 

[Marion Morrison]

i only use & accept sources based on university research level criteria. unbiased valid news outlets, & online citations from sources ending in .org or .gov or .edu

blogs, sources ending in .net or .com & (unless it's already 'general knowledge' ) wikipedia is never to be used as a valid source for anything.

That's pretty impressive.. However, you don't understand the role of "non-authoritative" sources... And you OVER-ESTIMATE the scruples and honesty of the sites on your list.. CERTAINLY, there are crappy .ORG sites.. And the 535 .GOV sites assigned to Congress Critters are a WASTELAND deeper in shit than Sunday morning cable news shows.. And OTHER .GOV sites are set-ups for propagandizing the current administration's effort to PUSH certain agenda items.. So it's NOT a fertile field of much other than bullshit and statistics that are TUNED to very WONKY definitions.. Statistics that "normal people" without critical thinking abilities should not be parroting.. ]

And some of the most partisan and spinnable sites on the web hide behind .ORG labels.. As well as some "think tanks" that are nothing but extensions of partisan spin.. I'd REALLY be impressed if I searched your content and found that NEVER have you quoted from "factcheck.org" instead of thinking critically for yourself and doing some research..

If you want to be a purest or what Spiro Agnew back in the days referred to as "an effete corps of impudent snobs" -- you should trudging thru CPAN and Congressional testimony or press conferences for "gems" of wisdom... Mining there is a dirty business..

IMO -- "non-authoritive" sources play an ever increasing VITAL role in public education as the "media" abandons their charters and methods. It's like those "research librarians" you could lean on before the internet matured.. They were skillful in telling you WHERE TO LOOK for information that maybe they didn't fully understand. And MANY times a week, the BEST investigative journalism (maybe the ONLY investigative journalism) comes from sources that you DID NOT list....

ya ya ya.... i know .orgs are not all created equal... did i really hafta spell that out? it's a start & then a media bias fact check usually clears it up. *geez* think tanks are out because they are most likely biased.

Nm, FCT already said it. Fact checkers are a joke, you have to run it down yourself.

Who told you those fact checkers were acceptable like that?

 

[playtime]

i only use & accept sources based on university research level criteria. unbiased valid news outlets, & online citations from sources ending in .org or .gov or .edu

blogs, sources ending in .net or .com & (unless it's already 'general knowledge' ) wikipedia is never to be used as a valid source for anything.

That's pretty impressive.. However, you don't understand the role of "non-authoritative" sources... And you OVER-ESTIMATE the scruples and honesty of the sites on your list.. CERTAINLY, there are crappy .ORG sites.. And the 535 .GOV sites assigned to Congress Critters are a WASTELAND deeper in shit than Sunday morning cable news shows.. And OTHER .GOV sites are set-ups for propagandizing the current administration's effort to PUSH certain agenda items.. So it's NOT a fertile field of much other than bullshit and statistics that are TUNED to very WONKY definitions.. Statistics that "normal people" without critical thinking abilities should not be parroting.. ]

And some of the most partisan and spinnable sites on the web hide behind .ORG labels.. As well as some "think tanks" that are nothing but extensions of partisan spin.. I'd REALLY be impressed if I searched your content and found that NEVER have you quoted from "factcheck.org" instead of thinking critically for yourself and doing some research..

If you want to be a purest or what Spiro Agnew back in the days referred to as "an effete corps of impudent snobs" -- you should trudging thru CPAN and Congressional testimony or press conferences for "gems" of wisdom... Mining there is a dirty business..

IMO -- "non-authoritive" sources play an ever increasing VITAL role in public education as the "media" abandons their charters and methods. It's like those "research librarians" you could lean on before the internet matured.. They were skillful in telling you WHERE TO LOOK for information that maybe they didn't fully understand. And MANY times a week, the BEST investigative journalism (maybe the ONLY investigative journalism) comes from sources that you DID NOT list....

ya ya ya.... i know .orgs are not all created equal... did i really hafta spell that out? it's a start & then a media bias fact check usually clears it up. *geez* think tanks are out because they are most likely biased.

Nm, FCT already said it. Fact checkers are a joke, you have to run it down yourself.

Who told you those fact checkers were acceptable like that?

IFCN Code of Principles

 

[Marion Morrison]

i only use & accept sources based on university research level criteria. unbiased valid news outlets, & online citations from sources ending in .org or .gov or .edu

blogs, sources ending in .net or .com & (unless it's already 'general knowledge' ) wikipedia is never to be used as a valid source for anything.

That's pretty impressive.. However, you don't understand the role of "non-authoritative" sources... And you OVER-ESTIMATE the scruples and honesty of the sites on your list.. CERTAINLY, there are crappy .ORG sites.. And the 535 .GOV sites assigned to Congress Critters are a WASTELAND deeper in shit than Sunday morning cable news shows.. And OTHER .GOV sites are set-ups for propagandizing the current administration's effort to PUSH certain agenda items.. So it's NOT a fertile field of much other than bullshit and statistics that are TUNED to very WONKY definitions.. Statistics that "normal people" without critical thinking abilities should not be parroting.. ]

And some of the most partisan and spinnable sites on the web hide behind .ORG labels.. As well as some "think tanks" that are nothing but extensions of partisan spin.. I'd REALLY be impressed if I searched your content and found that NEVER have you quoted from "factcheck.org" instead of thinking critically for yourself and doing some research..

If you want to be a purest or what Spiro Agnew back in the days referred to as "an effete corps of impudent snobs" -- you should trudging thru CPAN and Congressional testimony or press conferences for "gems" of wisdom... Mining there is a dirty business..

IMO -- "non-authoritive" sources play an ever increasing VITAL role in public education as the "media" abandons their charters and methods. It's like those "research librarians" you could lean on before the internet matured.. They were skillful in telling you WHERE TO LOOK for information that maybe they didn't fully understand. And MANY times a week, the BEST investigative journalism (maybe the ONLY investigative journalism) comes from sources that you DID NOT list....

ya ya ya.... i know .orgs are not all created equal... did i really hafta spell that out? it's a start & then a media bias fact check usually clears it up. *geez* think tanks are out because they are most likely biased.

Nm, FCT already said it. Fact checkers are a joke, you have to run it down yourself.

Who told you those fact checkers were acceptable like that?

IFCN Code of Principles

Da fuq is that?

Look, I go by the English 102 method, ok? Or was it 202? Hmm..Derp!

Anyway, it's where they teach you how to support your assertions for various types of papers.

 

[playtime]

i only use & accept sources based on university research level criteria. unbiased valid news outlets, & online citations from sources ending in .org or .gov or .edu

blogs, sources ending in .net or .com & (unless it's already 'general knowledge' ) wikipedia is never to be used as a valid source for anything.

That's pretty impressive.. However, you don't understand the role of "non-authoritative" sources... And you OVER-ESTIMATE the scruples and honesty of the sites on your list.. CERTAINLY, there are crappy .ORG sites.. And the 535 .GOV sites assigned to Congress Critters are a WASTELAND deeper in shit than Sunday morning cable news shows.. And OTHER .GOV sites are set-ups for propagandizing the current administration's effort to PUSH certain agenda items.. So it's NOT a fertile field of much other than bullshit and statistics that are TUNED to very WONKY definitions.. Statistics that "normal people" without critical thinking abilities should not be parroting.. ]

And some of the most partisan and spinnable sites on the web hide behind .ORG labels.. As well as some "think tanks" that are nothing but extensions of partisan spin.. I'd REALLY be impressed if I searched your content and found that NEVER have you quoted from "factcheck.org" instead of thinking critically for yourself and doing some research..

If you want to be a purest or what Spiro Agnew back in the days referred to as "an effete corps of impudent snobs" -- you should trudging thru CPAN and Congressional testimony or press conferences for "gems" of wisdom... Mining there is a dirty business..

IMO -- "non-authoritive" sources play an ever increasing VITAL role in public education as the "media" abandons their charters and methods. It's like those "research librarians" you could lean on before the internet matured.. They were skillful in telling you WHERE TO LOOK for information that maybe they didn't fully understand. And MANY times a week, the BEST investigative journalism (maybe the ONLY investigative journalism) comes from sources that you DID NOT list....

ya ya ya.... i know .orgs are not all created equal... did i really hafta spell that out? it's a start & then a media bias fact check usually clears it up. *geez* think tanks are out because they are most likely biased.

Nm, FCT already said it. Fact checkers are a joke, you have to run it down yourself.

Who told you those fact checkers were acceptable like that?

IFCN Code of Principles

Da fuq is that?

Look, I go by the English 102 method, ok? Or was it 202? Hmm..Derp!

Anyway, it's where they teach you how to support your assertions for various types of papers.

did you even bother to see what it was? lazy you.... i'll give you a hint: it's a site where real standards for real journalism integrity resides & it is used for international platforms... where the main mediabias check site i use relies on to inform those who question sources ie

what sources are left, center, right leaning, to the conspiratorial & pseudo science rag mags. it's quite a handy dandy tool for those who want to know if another poster is using real (not fake) news sites or something that is pure bullshit.

 

[Marion Morrison]

That's pretty impressive.. However, you don't understand the role of "non-authoritative" sources... And you OVER-ESTIMATE the scruples and honesty of the sites on your list.. CERTAINLY, there are crappy .ORG sites.. And the 535 .GOV sites assigned to Congress Critters are a WASTELAND deeper in shit than Sunday morning cable news shows.. And OTHER .GOV sites are set-ups for propagandizing the current administration's effort to PUSH certain agenda items.. So it's NOT a fertile field of much other than bullshit and statistics that are TUNED to very WONKY definitions.. Statistics that "normal people" without critical thinking abilities should not be parroting.. ]

And some of the most partisan and spinnable sites on the web hide behind .ORG labels.. As well as some "think tanks" that are nothing but extensions of partisan spin.. I'd REALLY be impressed if I searched your content and found that NEVER have you quoted from "factcheck.org" instead of thinking critically for yourself and doing some research..

If you want to be a purest or what Spiro Agnew back in the days referred to as "an effete corps of impudent snobs" -- you should trudging thru CPAN and Congressional testimony or press conferences for "gems" of wisdom... Mining there is a dirty business..

IMO -- "non-authoritive" sources play an ever increasing VITAL role in public education as the "media" abandons their charters and methods. It's like those "research librarians" you could lean on before the internet matured.. They were skillful in telling you WHERE TO LOOK for information that maybe they didn't fully understand. And MANY times a week, the BEST investigative journalism (maybe the ONLY investigative journalism) comes from sources that you DID NOT list....

ya ya ya.... i know .orgs are not all created equal... did i really hafta spell that out? it's a start & then a media bias fact check usually clears it up. *geez* think tanks are out because they are most likely biased.

Nm, FCT already said it. Fact checkers are a joke, you have to run it down yourself.

Who told you those fact checkers were acceptable like that?

IFCN Code of Principles

Da fuq is that?

Look, I go by the English 102 method, ok? Or was it 202? Hmm..Derp!

Anyway, it's where they teach you how to support your assertions for various types of papers.

did you even bother to see what it was? lazy you.... i'll give you a hint: it's a site where real standards for real journalism integrity resides & it is used for international platforms... where the main mediabias check site i use relies on to inform those who question sources ie

what sources are left, center, right leaning, to the conspiratorial & pseudo science rag mags. it's quite a handy dandy tool for those who want to know if another poster is using real (not fake) news sites or something that is pure bullshit.

Holdup..stop right there. Allow me to bold the relevant part of your last post. Okay, I'm done.

 

[flacaltenn]

i only use & accept sources based on university research level criteria. unbiased valid news outlets, & online citations from sources ending in .org or .gov or .edu

blogs, sources ending in .net or .com & (unless it's already 'general knowledge' ) wikipedia is never to be used as a valid source for anything.

That's pretty impressive.. However, you don't understand the role of "non-authoritative" sources... And you OVER-ESTIMATE the scruples and honesty of the sites on your list.. CERTAINLY, there are crappy .ORG sites.. And the 535 .GOV sites assigned to Congress Critters are a WASTELAND deeper in shit than Sunday morning cable news shows.. And OTHER .GOV sites are set-ups for propagandizing the current administration's effort to PUSH certain agenda items.. So it's NOT a fertile field of much other than bullshit and statistics that are TUNED to very WONKY definitions.. Statistics that "normal people" without critical thinking abilities should not be parroting.. ]

And some of the most partisan and spinnable sites on the web hide behind .ORG labels.. As well as some "think tanks" that are nothing but extensions of partisan spin.. I'd REALLY be impressed if I searched your content and found that NEVER have you quoted from "factcheck.org" instead of thinking critically for yourself and doing some research..

If you want to be a purest or what Spiro Agnew back in the days referred to as "an effete corps of impudent snobs" -- you should trudging thru CPAN and Congressional testimony or press conferences for "gems" of wisdom... Mining there is a dirty business..

IMO -- "non-authoritive" sources play an ever increasing VITAL role in public education as the "media" abandons their charters and methods. It's like those "research librarians" you could lean on before the internet matured.. They were skillful in telling you WHERE TO LOOK for information that maybe they didn't fully understand. And MANY times a week, the BEST investigative journalism (maybe the ONLY investigative journalism) comes from sources that you DID NOT list....

ya ya ya.... i know .orgs are not all created equal... did i really hafta spell that out? it's a start & then a media bias fact check usually clears it up. *geez* think tanks are out because they are most likely biased.

Nm, FCT already said it. Fact checkers are a joke, you have to run it down yourself.

Who told you those fact checkers were acceptable like that?

IFCN Code of Principles

You are SO DAMN GULLIBLE... No wonder you get your ass whipped regularly.. I got a code of Ethics from Batman by sending in enough cereal box tops back in the 80s...

You aware that you're claiming something WORSE than just needing a fact-checker to CHECK the fucking fact-checkers???

DID YOU READ AND RESEARCH WHO "the Poynter Institute REALLY IS???

It was started by the guy who OWNS and operated the St Pete Times.. The SAME newspaper that started and OWNS "factcheck.org"... So they are CHECKING OTHER fact-checkers in competition with them..

You really need to stop defending this.. Before I crack a rib laughing...

 

[Marion Morrison]

playtime You have to do your due diligence research to decide if something is reliable or not, like FCT just did.

Pull back the green curtain!

Would "The Poyntner Institute" have a vested interest in steering people away from rival media outlets, or no?

Of course they would.

PS: It's just "The Tampa Bay Times" now. The Tampa Tribune went down and St. Pete Times bought them out.

Here's FCT's "proof" he didn't show, and an opposing view.

Nolte: Poynter Wants 515 Outlets Blacklisted, Including Breitbart News

The Poynter Institute - Ballotpedia

 

[flacaltenn]

playtime You have to do your due diligence research to decide if something is reliable or not, like FCT just did.

Pull back the green curtain!

Would "The Poyntner Institute" have a vested interest in steering people away from rival media outlets, or no?

Of course they would.

PS: It's just "The Tampa Bay Times" now. The Tampa Tribune went down and St. Pete Times bought them out.

Here's FCT's "proof" he didn't show, and an opposing view.

Nolte: Poynter Wants 515 Outlets Blacklisted, Including Breitbart News

The Poynter Institute - Ballotpedia

I only pressed this to get "factchecking" concept in its rightful place of derision and scorn.. Tired of seeing lefties I like get their asses whooped by depending on them.. Really hard to believe -- but I'm TRYING to help.... LOL...

 

[playtime]

i only use & accept sources based on university research level criteria. unbiased valid news outlets, & online citations from sources ending in .org or .gov or .edu

blogs, sources ending in .net or .com & (unless it's already 'general knowledge' ) wikipedia is never to be used as a valid source for anything.

That's pretty impressive.. However, you don't understand the role of "non-authoritative" sources... And you OVER-ESTIMATE the scruples and honesty of the sites on your list.. CERTAINLY, there are crappy .ORG sites.. And the 535 .GOV sites assigned to Congress Critters are a WASTELAND deeper in shit than Sunday morning cable news shows.. And OTHER .GOV sites are set-ups for propagandizing the current administration's effort to PUSH certain agenda items.. So it's NOT a fertile field of much other than bullshit and statistics that are TUNED to very WONKY definitions.. Statistics that "normal people" without critical thinking abilities should not be parroting.. ]

And some of the most partisan and spinnable sites on the web hide behind .ORG labels.. As well as some "think tanks" that are nothing but extensions of partisan spin.. I'd REALLY be impressed if I searched your content and found that NEVER have you quoted from "factcheck.org" instead of thinking critically for yourself and doing some research..

If you want to be a purest or what Spiro Agnew back in the days referred to as "an effete corps of impudent snobs" -- you should trudging thru CPAN and Congressional testimony or press conferences for "gems" of wisdom... Mining there is a dirty business..

IMO -- "non-authoritive" sources play an ever increasing VITAL role in public education as the "media" abandons their charters and methods. It's like those "research librarians" you could lean on before the internet matured.. They were skillful in telling you WHERE TO LOOK for information that maybe they didn't fully understand. And MANY times a week, the BEST investigative journalism (maybe the ONLY investigative journalism) comes from sources that you DID NOT list....

ya ya ya.... i know .orgs are not all created equal... did i really hafta spell that out? it's a start & then a media bias fact check usually clears it up. *geez* think tanks are out because they are most likely biased.

Nm, FCT already said it. Fact checkers are a joke, you have to run it down yourself.

Who told you those fact checkers were acceptable like that?

IFCN Code of Principles

You are SO DAMN GULLIBLE... No wonder you get your ass whipped regularly.. I got a code of Ethics from Batman by sending in enough cereal box tops back in the 80s...

You aware that you're claiming something WORSE than just needing a fact-checker to CHECK the fucking fact-checkers???

DID YOU READ AND RESEARCH WHO "the Poynter Institute REALLY IS???

It was started by the guy who OWNS and operated the St Pete Times.. The SAME newspaper that started and OWNS "factcheck.org"... So they are CHECKING OTHER fact-checkers in competition with them..

You really need to stop defending this.. Before I crack a rib laughing...

lol... guess what? the WSJ is owned by rupert murdoch but they are straight up factual & news worthy... it's only their OP/ED that is right leaning. so basically then you would be saying they are 'fake news' too? hey - do you still believe trump was exonerated? or that he didn't obstruct justice either? that he wouldn't be charged if he were a private citizen?

how about seth rich? how'd he become worm bait?

mmmm btw.... the mediabiascheck that i mentioned & use 75% of the time & NOT factcheck.org which you seem to think is what i wrote & you scorned - has rated ballotpedia....

Ballotpedia - Media Bias/Fact Check

tell me they aren't correct in that.

 

[flacaltenn]

lol... guess what? the WSJ is owned by rupert murdoch but they are straight up factual & news worthy.

That's because ole Rupert is SMART enough to serve many markets and segments of the population... So what does that have to do with a SINGLE "hometown paper" trying to be the Supreme Ct of all truth in America?

Some truths are easier to establish than others. You picked a VERY weak ONE example.. I've debunked or shown the bias and "facts intentionally left out" of DOZENS of "flackcheck" truth-o-meters"...

I've seen and tasted enough of their bad sushi to know where they're coming from...

The one that comes to mind was the question of whether "Trump lied about lowering CO2 emissions".. It was EVEN PHRASED in a biased way...

And what those jerks attempted to do to "fact -check" that was to attempt to GIVE OBAMA CREDIT for the MASSIVE reductions in CO2 since about 2005 in America.. Said Trump has very little to do with it...

TRUTH IS -- the REAL TRUTH -- that the massive CO2 reduction was due to increased use and lower cost of Nat gas... And this was a PRIVATE ENTERPRISE movement that Obama and Dems fought against viciously.. Blocking fracking and pipelines with high pitch squeals...

IT WAS DONE DESPITE all attempts by Obama and Dems to block the opening of the new Dakota, Penn, NY reserves and build pipelines and other infrastructure...

They lie WORSE than Trump by keeping you gullible folks agitated.. And you end up getting rolled in discussions because THE KEEPERS OF TRUTH -- screwed you....

 

[Justin Richardson]

If someone starts a thread in Politics or another place on the forum, and they use a link to a blog, is that a valid link to proclaim it as a proper news source? Doesn't the forum require a news link in the OP related to the title and purpose of the thread?

I read a lot of blogs....and most are either snips from news sources. Or snips of other blogs that have related news sources.
I would not consider them as reliable "news" sources. I have always questioned them to being used as legit links. IMO