- Aug 18, 2015
- Reaction score
& yet you didn't go there yerself to make sure did ya, until i prompted you.Jesus H. Fricken Christ! Liberals really are a lazy bunch of lying sacks of shit! This took me all of 30 seconds to pull up, you feckless POS....how do you KNOW it's a di-rect quote? 'cause it was in wiki?The quote from Wiki was actually a direct quote from the Columbia Journal Review, are you saying that they are wrong?uh-huh. you do realize that wiki cannot be used as a reliable source in university research papers because the 'info' contained within can be edited/revised/altered to reflect a biased view & offers 'alternative facts'.The Columbia Journalism Review describes Media Bias/Fact Check as an amateur attempt at categorizing media bias and Van Zandt as an "armchair media analyst."American Thinker
A questionable source exhibits one or more of the following: extreme bias, consistent promotion of propaganda/conspiracies, poor or no sourcing to credible information, a complete lack of transparency and/or is fake news. Fake News is the deliberate attempt to publish hoaxes and/or disinformation for the purpose of profit or influence (Learn More). Sources listed in the Questionable Category may be very untrustworthy and should be fact checked on a per article basis. Please note sources on this list are not considered fake news unless specifically written in the reasoning section for that source. See all Questionable sources.
- Overall, we rate the American Thinker, Questionable based on extreme right-wing bias, promotion of conspiracy theories/pseudoscience, use of poor sources, and several failed fact checks.
Reasoning: Extreme Right, Conspiracy, Propaganda, Lack of Ownership Transparency
World Press Freedom Rank: USA 45/180
American Thinker - Media Bias Fact Check
^^^ & there ya go ^^^
On top of that MBFC is just plain dishonest in its criticisms as pointed out in this article entitled:
Media Bias Fact Check: Incompetent or Dishonest?
“Media Bias Fact Check,” a media outlet that claims to be “dedicated to educating the public on media bias and deceptive news practices,” is either inept or dishonest.www.justfactsdaily.com
So, please in the future playtime, try and use less bias sources...
lol - remember sarah palin's tale of paul revere? yaaaaaaaaaaaa............ that ended up in wiki just as she said!
<psssst> so when MBFC reports that MSNBC is liberal, they are wrong?
when they report that the WSJ leans right - - - they are wrong?
is this wrong?
The following are American Thinker’s overall bias and reliability scores according to our Ad Fontes Media ratings methodology.
Reliability scores for articles and shows are on a scale of 0-64. Scores above 24 are generally acceptable; scores above 32 are generally good.
Bias scores for articles and shows are on a scale of -42 to + 42, with higher negative scores being more left, higher positive scores being more right, and scores closer to zero being the most neutral and/or balanced.
I am not a big fan of supposed fact checkers, or bias measures....I think we all come to this world with our bias, and that can't be seperated from what we do...
MBFC is no different...
now - if you can find that there di-rect quote from the CJ own website, that would carry weight. did you click on the CJ link from wiki? cause it doesn't bring you to CJ's site - only their own (wiki's) write up on CJ.
The armchair academics
Amateur attempts at such tools already exist, and have found plenty of fans. Google “media bias,” and you’ll find Media Bias/Fact Check, run by armchair media analyst Dave Van Zandt. The site’s methodology is simple: Van Zandt and his team rate each outlet from 0 to 10 on the categories of biased wording and headlines, factuality and sourcing, story choices (“does the source report news from both sides”), and political affiliation.
A similar effort is “The Media Bias Chart,” or simply, “The Chart.” Created by Colorado patent attorney Vanessa Otero, the chart has gone through several methodological iterations, but currently is based on her evaluation of outlets’ stories on dimensions of veracity, fairness, and expression.
Both efforts suffer from the very problem they’re trying to address: Their subjective assessments leave room for human biases, or even simple inconsistencies, to creep in. Compared to Gentzkow and Shapiro, the five to 20 stories typically judged on these sites represent but a drop of mainstream news outlets’ production."
<p>Twitter is excellent at capturing a moment in time—and that’s part of its problem. On the day Special Counsel Robert Mueller announced charges against Paul Manafort in the Trump-Russia investigation, some people on Twitter took perverse glee in sharing the story Fox & Friends previewed at...www.cjr.org
Now, quit wasting everyones time in here and use a few keystrokes before you get the whole plate of egg thrown at you....
well - the day that media bias check claims that MSNBC is centrist or the WSJ is, then i will not given them any more credence.
but you think that 'american thinker' isn't conspiratorial.
stellar on yer part.... just stellar.