American Thinker Retracts Lies Against Dominion Voting Systems

playtime

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 18, 2015
Messages
33,812
Reaction score
19,265
Points
2,945
American Thinker



Share:
American Thinker - Questionable Source - Extreme Right Bias - Conservative - Republican - Fake News - Not Credible
Factual Reporting: Low - Not Credible - Not Reliable - Fake News - Bias

QUESTIONABLE SOURCE

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.
Detailed Report
Reasoning: Extreme Right, Conspiracy, Propaganda, Lack of Ownership Transparency
Country: USA
World Press Freedom Rank: USA 45/180
American Thinker - Media Bias Fact Check

^^^ & there ya go ^^^
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."[2]


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?


So, please in the future playtime, try and use less bias sources...
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'.

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?

lol...

is this wrong?


The following are American Thinker’s overall bias and reliability scores according to our Ad Fontes Media ratings methodology.

Reliability: 19.64

Bias: 29.74


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.
The quote from Wiki was actually a direct quote from the Columbia Journal Review, are you saying that they are wrong?

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...
how do you KNOW it's a di-rect quote? 'cause it was in wiki?

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.
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....

"
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."


Now, quit wasting everyones time in here and use a few keystrokes before you get the whole plate of egg thrown at you....
& yet you didn't go there yerself to make sure did ya, until i prompted 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.
 

j-mac

Nuthin' but the truth
Joined
Oct 8, 2013
Messages
5,579
Reaction score
3,007
Points
940
Location
South Carolina
American Thinker



Share:
American Thinker - Questionable Source - Extreme Right Bias - Conservative - Republican - Fake News - Not Credible
Factual Reporting: Low - Not Credible - Not Reliable - Fake News - Bias

QUESTIONABLE SOURCE

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.
Detailed Report
Reasoning: Extreme Right, Conspiracy, Propaganda, Lack of Ownership Transparency
Country: USA
World Press Freedom Rank: USA 45/180
American Thinker - Media Bias Fact Check

^^^ & there ya go ^^^
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."[2]


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?


So, please in the future playtime, try and use less bias sources...
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'.

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?

lol...

is this wrong?


The following are American Thinker’s overall bias and reliability scores according to our Ad Fontes Media ratings methodology.

Reliability: 19.64

Bias: 29.74


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.
The quote from Wiki was actually a direct quote from the Columbia Journal Review, are you saying that they are wrong?

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...
how do you KNOW it's a di-rect quote? 'cause it was in wiki?

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.
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....

"
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."


Now, quit wasting everyones time in here and use a few keystrokes before you get the whole plate of egg thrown at you....
& yet you didn't go there yerself to make sure did ya, until i prompted 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.
American Thinker is a compelation of opinion pieces...nothing more, nothing less...So, you have problems now with opinions?

Oh, and to your "prompting me".... I wouldn't have to look it up if you were not such a lazy POS liar....
 

playtime

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 18, 2015
Messages
33,812
Reaction score
19,265
Points
2,945
American Thinker



Share:
American Thinker - Questionable Source - Extreme Right Bias - Conservative - Republican - Fake News - Not Credible
Factual Reporting: Low - Not Credible - Not Reliable - Fake News - Bias

QUESTIONABLE SOURCE

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.
Detailed Report
Reasoning: Extreme Right, Conspiracy, Propaganda, Lack of Ownership Transparency
Country: USA
World Press Freedom Rank: USA 45/180
American Thinker - Media Bias Fact Check

^^^ & there ya go ^^^
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."[2]


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?


So, please in the future playtime, try and use less bias sources...
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'.

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?

lol...

is this wrong?


The following are American Thinker’s overall bias and reliability scores according to our Ad Fontes Media ratings methodology.

Reliability: 19.64

Bias: 29.74


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.
The quote from Wiki was actually a direct quote from the Columbia Journal Review, are you saying that they are wrong?

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...
how do you KNOW it's a di-rect quote? 'cause it was in wiki?

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.
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....

"
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."


Now, quit wasting everyones time in here and use a few keystrokes before you get the whole plate of egg thrown at you....
& yet you didn't go there yerself to make sure did ya, until i prompted 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.
American Thinker is a compelation of opinion pieces...nothing more, nothing less...So, you have problems now with opinions?

Oh, and to your "prompting me".... I wouldn't have to look it up if you were not such a lazy POS liar....
if it's all just 'opinion' then why retract?

they opine about conspiracies & tin foil hat pablum & pass it off to the poorly educated who think it's fact.

#unethical
 

j-mac

Nuthin' but the truth
Joined
Oct 8, 2013
Messages
5,579
Reaction score
3,007
Points
940
Location
South Carolina
American Thinker



Share:
American Thinker - Questionable Source - Extreme Right Bias - Conservative - Republican - Fake News - Not Credible
Factual Reporting: Low - Not Credible - Not Reliable - Fake News - Bias

QUESTIONABLE SOURCE

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.
Detailed Report
Reasoning: Extreme Right, Conspiracy, Propaganda, Lack of Ownership Transparency
Country: USA
World Press Freedom Rank: USA 45/180
American Thinker - Media Bias Fact Check

^^^ & there ya go ^^^
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."[2]


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?


So, please in the future playtime, try and use less bias sources...
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'.

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?

lol...

is this wrong?


The following are American Thinker’s overall bias and reliability scores according to our Ad Fontes Media ratings methodology.

Reliability: 19.64

Bias: 29.74


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.
The quote from Wiki was actually a direct quote from the Columbia Journal Review, are you saying that they are wrong?

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...
how do you KNOW it's a di-rect quote? 'cause it was in wiki?

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.
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....

"
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."


Now, quit wasting everyones time in here and use a few keystrokes before you get the whole plate of egg thrown at you....
& yet you didn't go there yerself to make sure did ya, until i prompted 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.
American Thinker is a compelation of opinion pieces...nothing more, nothing less...So, you have problems now with opinions?

Oh, and to your "prompting me".... I wouldn't have to look it up if you were not such a lazy POS liar....
if it's all just 'opinion' then why retract?

they opine about conspiracies & tin foil hat pablum & pass it off to the poorly educated who think it's fact.

#unethical
Oh please, you want conspiracy? Tune in to CNN, or MSNBC at any given moment, and there's plenty there to amuse you...

Like I said, AT is a compilation of opinion pieces, why they would retract anything is probably up to the individual author of any given opinion...You'd have to ask them...

But, I find it amusing that opinions that don't agree with your notions of ideological outlook scare you so....

In any case, I've made my point about that....
 

22lcidw

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 25, 2018
Messages
17,705
Reaction score
5,836
Points
345
American Thinker



Share:
American Thinker - Questionable Source - Extreme Right Bias - Conservative - Republican - Fake News - Not Credible
Factual Reporting: Low - Not Credible - Not Reliable - Fake News - Bias

QUESTIONABLE SOURCE

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.
Detailed Report
Reasoning: Extreme Right, Conspiracy, Propaganda, Lack of Ownership Transparency
Country: USA
World Press Freedom Rank: USA 45/180
American Thinker - Media Bias Fact Check

^^^ & there ya go ^^^
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."[2]


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?


So, please in the future playtime, try and use less bias sources...
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'.

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?

lol...

is this wrong?


The following are American Thinker’s overall bias and reliability scores according to our Ad Fontes Media ratings methodology.

Reliability: 19.64

Bias: 29.74


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.
The quote from Wiki was actually a direct quote from the Columbia Journal Review, are you saying that they are wrong?

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...
how do you KNOW it's a di-rect quote? 'cause it was in wiki?

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.
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....

"
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."


Now, quit wasting everyones time in here and use a few keystrokes before you get the whole plate of egg thrown at you....
& yet you didn't go there yerself to make sure did ya, until i prompted 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.
American Thinker is a compelation of opinion pieces...nothing more, nothing less...So, you have problems now with opinions?

Oh, and to your "prompting me".... I wouldn't have to look it up if you were not such a lazy POS liar....
Progs stole the election. We may live here, but we can not be patriots for that.
if it's all just 'opinion' then why retract?

they opine about conspiracies & tin foil hat pablum & pass it off to the poorly educated who think it's fact.

#unethical
 

Tom Paine 1949

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 15, 2020
Messages
2,571
Reaction score
2,153
Points
1,918
This is perfect. American”Stinker” has been the most pathetically dishonest “intellectual” journal of the Trumpian right. Now it has been forced to admit that it and three of its writers “rely on discredited sources” “peddled debunked theories,” repeatedly published statements that “are completely false and have no basis in fact” and “apologize to our readers for abandoning 9 journalistic principles.”

Whew, for a moment there I thought they were going to launch into an abstruse explanation of their “9 journalistic principles” !

Poor @Politcalchic. If I remember correctly, this is one of her favorite sources ... second only to the Bible.
 

playtime

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 18, 2015
Messages
33,812
Reaction score
19,265
Points
2,945
American Thinker



Share:
American Thinker - Questionable Source - Extreme Right Bias - Conservative - Republican - Fake News - Not Credible
Factual Reporting: Low - Not Credible - Not Reliable - Fake News - Bias

QUESTIONABLE SOURCE

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.
Detailed Report
Reasoning: Extreme Right, Conspiracy, Propaganda, Lack of Ownership Transparency
Country: USA
World Press Freedom Rank: USA 45/180
American Thinker - Media Bias Fact Check

^^^ & there ya go ^^^
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."[2]


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?


So, please in the future playtime, try and use less bias sources...
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'.

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?

lol...

is this wrong?


The following are American Thinker’s overall bias and reliability scores according to our Ad Fontes Media ratings methodology.

Reliability: 19.64

Bias: 29.74


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.
The quote from Wiki was actually a direct quote from the Columbia Journal Review, are you saying that they are wrong?

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...
how do you KNOW it's a di-rect quote? 'cause it was in wiki?

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.
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....

"
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."


Now, quit wasting everyones time in here and use a few keystrokes before you get the whole plate of egg thrown at you....
& yet you didn't go there yerself to make sure did ya, until i prompted 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.
American Thinker is a compelation of opinion pieces...nothing more, nothing less...So, you have problems now with opinions?

Oh, and to your "prompting me".... I wouldn't have to look it up if you were not such a lazy POS liar....
if it's all just 'opinion' then why retract?

they opine about conspiracies & tin foil hat pablum & pass it off to the poorly educated who think it's fact.

#unethical
Oh please, you want conspiracy? Tune in to CNN, or MSNBC at any given moment, and there's plenty there to amuse you...

Like I said, AT is a compilation of opinion pieces, why they would retract anything is probably up to the individual author of any given opinion...You'd have to ask them...

But, I find it amusing that opinions that don't agree with your notions of ideological outlook scare you so....

In any case, I've made my point about that....
i don't watch CNN nor MSNBC - i do not have cable. but i also don't believe what i see or hear in neat little sound bites or edited video.... i look things up & research on my own. & i sure as shit wouldn't take any OPINION / blog / or rw spin machine such as fox, newmax or AONN.
 

j-mac

Nuthin' but the truth
Joined
Oct 8, 2013
Messages
5,579
Reaction score
3,007
Points
940
Location
South Carolina
American Thinker



Share:
American Thinker - Questionable Source - Extreme Right Bias - Conservative - Republican - Fake News - Not Credible
Factual Reporting: Low - Not Credible - Not Reliable - Fake News - Bias

QUESTIONABLE SOURCE

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.
Detailed Report
Reasoning: Extreme Right, Conspiracy, Propaganda, Lack of Ownership Transparency
Country: USA
World Press Freedom Rank: USA 45/180
American Thinker - Media Bias Fact Check

^^^ & there ya go ^^^
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."[2]


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?


So, please in the future playtime, try and use less bias sources...
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'.

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?

lol...

is this wrong?


The following are American Thinker’s overall bias and reliability scores according to our Ad Fontes Media ratings methodology.

Reliability: 19.64

Bias: 29.74


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.
The quote from Wiki was actually a direct quote from the Columbia Journal Review, are you saying that they are wrong?

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...
how do you KNOW it's a di-rect quote? 'cause it was in wiki?

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.
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....

"
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."


Now, quit wasting everyones time in here and use a few keystrokes before you get the whole plate of egg thrown at you....
& yet you didn't go there yerself to make sure did ya, until i prompted 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.
American Thinker is a compelation of opinion pieces...nothing more, nothing less...So, you have problems now with opinions?

Oh, and to your "prompting me".... I wouldn't have to look it up if you were not such a lazy POS liar....
if it's all just 'opinion' then why retract?

they opine about conspiracies & tin foil hat pablum & pass it off to the poorly educated who think it's fact.

#unethical
Oh please, you want conspiracy? Tune in to CNN, or MSNBC at any given moment, and there's plenty there to amuse you...

Like I said, AT is a compilation of opinion pieces, why they would retract anything is probably up to the individual author of any given opinion...You'd have to ask them...

But, I find it amusing that opinions that don't agree with your notions of ideological outlook scare you so....

In any case, I've made my point about that....
i don't watch CNN nor MSNBC - i do not have cable. but i also don't believe what i see or hear in neat little sound bites or edited video.... i look things up & research on my own. & i sure as shit wouldn't take any OPINION / blog / or rw spin machine such as fox, newmax or AONN.

So, where do you get your news?
 

playtime

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 18, 2015
Messages
33,812
Reaction score
19,265
Points
2,945
American Thinker



Share:
American Thinker - Questionable Source - Extreme Right Bias - Conservative - Republican - Fake News - Not Credible
Factual Reporting: Low - Not Credible - Not Reliable - Fake News - Bias

QUESTIONABLE SOURCE

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.
Detailed Report
Reasoning: Extreme Right, Conspiracy, Propaganda, Lack of Ownership Transparency
Country: USA
World Press Freedom Rank: USA 45/180
American Thinker - Media Bias Fact Check

^^^ & there ya go ^^^
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."[2]


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?


So, please in the future playtime, try and use less bias sources...
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'.

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?

lol...

is this wrong?


The following are American Thinker’s overall bias and reliability scores according to our Ad Fontes Media ratings methodology.

Reliability: 19.64

Bias: 29.74


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.
The quote from Wiki was actually a direct quote from the Columbia Journal Review, are you saying that they are wrong?

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...
how do you KNOW it's a di-rect quote? 'cause it was in wiki?

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.
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....

"
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."


Now, quit wasting everyones time in here and use a few keystrokes before you get the whole plate of egg thrown at you....
& yet you didn't go there yerself to make sure did ya, until i prompted 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.
American Thinker is a compelation of opinion pieces...nothing more, nothing less...So, you have problems now with opinions?

Oh, and to your "prompting me".... I wouldn't have to look it up if you were not such a lazy POS liar....
if it's all just 'opinion' then why retract?

they opine about conspiracies & tin foil hat pablum & pass it off to the poorly educated who think it's fact.

#unethical
Oh please, you want conspiracy? Tune in to CNN, or MSNBC at any given moment, and there's plenty there to amuse you...

Like I said, AT is a compilation of opinion pieces, why they would retract anything is probably up to the individual author of any given opinion...You'd have to ask them...

But, I find it amusing that opinions that don't agree with your notions of ideological outlook scare you so....

In any case, I've made my point about that....
i don't watch CNN nor MSNBC - i do not have cable. but i also don't believe what i see or hear in neat little sound bites or edited video.... i look things up & research on my own. & i sure as shit wouldn't take any OPINION / blog / or rw spin machine such as fox, newmax or AONN.

So, where do you get your news?
i watch PBSnews hour & i read. i also youtube news stories & expand from there. i watch the nightly news ... NBC on occasion... & i listen to some progressive talk shows but i also listen to rush limbaugh AND like i said - i research what i see & hear to make sure it's not slanted.
 

j-mac

Nuthin' but the truth
Joined
Oct 8, 2013
Messages
5,579
Reaction score
3,007
Points
940
Location
South Carolina
American Thinker



Share:
American Thinker - Questionable Source - Extreme Right Bias - Conservative - Republican - Fake News - Not Credible
Factual Reporting: Low - Not Credible - Not Reliable - Fake News - Bias

QUESTIONABLE SOURCE

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.
Detailed Report
Reasoning: Extreme Right, Conspiracy, Propaganda, Lack of Ownership Transparency
Country: USA
World Press Freedom Rank: USA 45/180
American Thinker - Media Bias Fact Check

^^^ & there ya go ^^^
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."[2]


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?


So, please in the future playtime, try and use less bias sources...
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'.

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?

lol...

is this wrong?


The following are American Thinker’s overall bias and reliability scores according to our Ad Fontes Media ratings methodology.

Reliability: 19.64

Bias: 29.74


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.
The quote from Wiki was actually a direct quote from the Columbia Journal Review, are you saying that they are wrong?

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...
how do you KNOW it's a di-rect quote? 'cause it was in wiki?

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.
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....

"
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."


Now, quit wasting everyones time in here and use a few keystrokes before you get the whole plate of egg thrown at you....
& yet you didn't go there yerself to make sure did ya, until i prompted 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.
American Thinker is a compelation of opinion pieces...nothing more, nothing less...So, you have problems now with opinions?

Oh, and to your "prompting me".... I wouldn't have to look it up if you were not such a lazy POS liar....
if it's all just 'opinion' then why retract?

they opine about conspiracies & tin foil hat pablum & pass it off to the poorly educated who think it's fact.

#unethical
Oh please, you want conspiracy? Tune in to CNN, or MSNBC at any given moment, and there's plenty there to amuse you...

Like I said, AT is a compilation of opinion pieces, why they would retract anything is probably up to the individual author of any given opinion...You'd have to ask them...

But, I find it amusing that opinions that don't agree with your notions of ideological outlook scare you so....

In any case, I've made my point about that....
i don't watch CNN nor MSNBC - i do not have cable. but i also don't believe what i see or hear in neat little sound bites or edited video.... i look things up & research on my own. & i sure as shit wouldn't take any OPINION / blog / or rw spin machine such as fox, newmax or AONN.

So, where do you get your news?
i watch PBSnews hour & i read. i also youtube news stories & expand from there. i watch the nightly news ... NBC on occasion... & i listen to some progressive talk shows but i also listen to rush limbaugh AND like i said - i research what i see & hear to make sure it's not slanted.
ok, that’s fair enough...Look, I really have no problem with liberals, as long as they aren’t batshit crazy progressives....Youd probably be surprised if the board would drop all this insult and rancor and actually debate. Problem is it won’t so here we are...You insult, then I insult, and the shit show continues.
 

playtime

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 18, 2015
Messages
33,812
Reaction score
19,265
Points
2,945
American Thinker



Share:
American Thinker - Questionable Source - Extreme Right Bias - Conservative - Republican - Fake News - Not Credible
Factual Reporting: Low - Not Credible - Not Reliable - Fake News - Bias

QUESTIONABLE SOURCE

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.
Detailed Report
Reasoning: Extreme Right, Conspiracy, Propaganda, Lack of Ownership Transparency
Country: USA
World Press Freedom Rank: USA 45/180
American Thinker - Media Bias Fact Check

^^^ & there ya go ^^^
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."[2]


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?


So, please in the future playtime, try and use less bias sources...
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'.

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?

lol...

is this wrong?


The following are American Thinker’s overall bias and reliability scores according to our Ad Fontes Media ratings methodology.

Reliability: 19.64

Bias: 29.74


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.
The quote from Wiki was actually a direct quote from the Columbia Journal Review, are you saying that they are wrong?

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...
how do you KNOW it's a di-rect quote? 'cause it was in wiki?

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.
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....

"
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."


Now, quit wasting everyones time in here and use a few keystrokes before you get the whole plate of egg thrown at you....
& yet you didn't go there yerself to make sure did ya, until i prompted 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.
American Thinker is a compelation of opinion pieces...nothing more, nothing less...So, you have problems now with opinions?

Oh, and to your "prompting me".... I wouldn't have to look it up if you were not such a lazy POS liar....
if it's all just 'opinion' then why retract?

they opine about conspiracies & tin foil hat pablum & pass it off to the poorly educated who think it's fact.

#unethical
Oh please, you want conspiracy? Tune in to CNN, or MSNBC at any given moment, and there's plenty there to amuse you...

Like I said, AT is a compilation of opinion pieces, why they would retract anything is probably up to the individual author of any given opinion...You'd have to ask them...

But, I find it amusing that opinions that don't agree with your notions of ideological outlook scare you so....

In any case, I've made my point about that....
i don't watch CNN nor MSNBC - i do not have cable. but i also don't believe what i see or hear in neat little sound bites or edited video.... i look things up & research on my own. & i sure as shit wouldn't take any OPINION / blog / or rw spin machine such as fox, newmax or AONN.

So, where do you get your news?
i watch PBSnews hour & i read. i also youtube news stories & expand from there. i watch the nightly news ... NBC on occasion... & i listen to some progressive talk shows but i also listen to rush limbaugh AND like i said - i research what i see & hear to make sure it's not slanted.
ok, that’s fair enough...Look, I really have no problem with liberals, as long as they aren’t batshit crazy progressives....Youd probably be surprised if the board would drop all this insult and rancor and actually debate. Problem is it won’t so here we are...You insult, then I insult, and the shit show continues.
i sure lean left - but i'm probably not as liberal as you might think. also, i don't believe i insulted you even after YOU called ME a POS. at least you abbreviated it.... hopefully, in time - some of the vitriol will simmer down - but it's not gonna be overnight given the toxicity of the past 4 years.
 

j-mac

Nuthin' but the truth
Joined
Oct 8, 2013
Messages
5,579
Reaction score
3,007
Points
940
Location
South Carolina
American Thinker



Share:
American Thinker - Questionable Source - Extreme Right Bias - Conservative - Republican - Fake News - Not Credible
Factual Reporting: Low - Not Credible - Not Reliable - Fake News - Bias

QUESTIONABLE SOURCE

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.
Detailed Report
Reasoning: Extreme Right, Conspiracy, Propaganda, Lack of Ownership Transparency
Country: USA
World Press Freedom Rank: USA 45/180
American Thinker - Media Bias Fact Check

^^^ & there ya go ^^^
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."[2]


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?


So, please in the future playtime, try and use less bias sources...
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'.

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?

lol...

is this wrong?


The following are American Thinker’s overall bias and reliability scores according to our Ad Fontes Media ratings methodology.

Reliability: 19.64

Bias: 29.74


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.
The quote from Wiki was actually a direct quote from the Columbia Journal Review, are you saying that they are wrong?

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...
how do you KNOW it's a di-rect quote? 'cause it was in wiki?

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.
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....

"
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."


Now, quit wasting everyones time in here and use a few keystrokes before you get the whole plate of egg thrown at you....
& yet you didn't go there yerself to make sure did ya, until i prompted 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.
American Thinker is a compelation of opinion pieces...nothing more, nothing less...So, you have problems now with opinions?

Oh, and to your "prompting me".... I wouldn't have to look it up if you were not such a lazy POS liar....
if it's all just 'opinion' then why retract?

they opine about conspiracies & tin foil hat pablum & pass it off to the poorly educated who think it's fact.

#unethical
Oh please, you want conspiracy? Tune in to CNN, or MSNBC at any given moment, and there's plenty there to amuse you...

Like I said, AT is a compilation of opinion pieces, why they would retract anything is probably up to the individual author of any given opinion...You'd have to ask them...

But, I find it amusing that opinions that don't agree with your notions of ideological outlook scare you so....

In any case, I've made my point about that....
i don't watch CNN nor MSNBC - i do not have cable. but i also don't believe what i see or hear in neat little sound bites or edited video.... i look things up & research on my own. & i sure as shit wouldn't take any OPINION / blog / or rw spin machine such as fox, newmax or AONN.

So, where do you get your news?
i watch PBSnews hour & i read. i also youtube news stories & expand from there. i watch the nightly news ... NBC on occasion... & i listen to some progressive talk shows but i also listen to rush limbaugh AND like i said - i research what i see & hear to make sure it's not slanted.
ok, that’s fair enough...Look, I really have no problem with liberals, as long as they aren’t batshit crazy progressives....Youd probably be surprised if the board would drop all this insult and rancor and actually debate. Problem is it won’t so here we are...You insult, then I insult, and the shit show continues.
i sure lean left - but i'm probably not as liberal as you might think. also, i don't believe i insulted you even after YOU called ME a POS. at least you abbreviated it.... hopefully, in time - some of the vitriol will simmer down - but it's not gonna be overnight given the toxicity of the past 4 years.
Why not? That's what Joe is going to call you to do today.
 

playtime

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 18, 2015
Messages
33,812
Reaction score
19,265
Points
2,945
American Thinker



Share:
American Thinker - Questionable Source - Extreme Right Bias - Conservative - Republican - Fake News - Not Credible
Factual Reporting: Low - Not Credible - Not Reliable - Fake News - Bias

QUESTIONABLE SOURCE

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.
Detailed Report
Reasoning: Extreme Right, Conspiracy, Propaganda, Lack of Ownership Transparency
Country: USA
World Press Freedom Rank: USA 45/180
American Thinker - Media Bias Fact Check

^^^ & there ya go ^^^
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."[2]


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?


So, please in the future playtime, try and use less bias sources...
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'.

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?

lol...

is this wrong?


The following are American Thinker’s overall bias and reliability scores according to our Ad Fontes Media ratings methodology.

Reliability: 19.64

Bias: 29.74


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.
The quote from Wiki was actually a direct quote from the Columbia Journal Review, are you saying that they are wrong?

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...
how do you KNOW it's a di-rect quote? 'cause it was in wiki?

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.
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....

"
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."


Now, quit wasting everyones time in here and use a few keystrokes before you get the whole plate of egg thrown at you....
& yet you didn't go there yerself to make sure did ya, until i prompted 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.
American Thinker is a compelation of opinion pieces...nothing more, nothing less...So, you have problems now with opinions?

Oh, and to your "prompting me".... I wouldn't have to look it up if you were not such a lazy POS liar....
if it's all just 'opinion' then why retract?

they opine about conspiracies & tin foil hat pablum & pass it off to the poorly educated who think it's fact.

#unethical
Oh please, you want conspiracy? Tune in to CNN, or MSNBC at any given moment, and there's plenty there to amuse you...

Like I said, AT is a compilation of opinion pieces, why they would retract anything is probably up to the individual author of any given opinion...You'd have to ask them...

But, I find it amusing that opinions that don't agree with your notions of ideological outlook scare you so....

In any case, I've made my point about that....
i don't watch CNN nor MSNBC - i do not have cable. but i also don't believe what i see or hear in neat little sound bites or edited video.... i look things up & research on my own. & i sure as shit wouldn't take any OPINION / blog / or rw spin machine such as fox, newmax or AONN.

So, where do you get your news?
i watch PBSnews hour & i read. i also youtube news stories & expand from there. i watch the nightly news ... NBC on occasion... & i listen to some progressive talk shows but i also listen to rush limbaugh AND like i said - i research what i see & hear to make sure it's not slanted.
ok, that’s fair enough...Look, I really have no problem with liberals, as long as they aren’t batshit crazy progressives....Youd probably be surprised if the board would drop all this insult and rancor and actually debate. Problem is it won’t so here we are...You insult, then I insult, and the shit show continues.
i sure lean left - but i'm probably not as liberal as you might think. also, i don't believe i insulted you even after YOU called ME a POS. at least you abbreviated it.... hopefully, in time - some of the vitriol will simmer down - but it's not gonna be overnight given the toxicity of the past 4 years.
Why not? That's what Joe is going to call you to do today.
all in due time. know what will go a long way? when donny is held accountable; thru a senate trial & cy vance, & letitia james, & e jean caroll & summer zervos ... to start.

remember how america felt when bin laden was shot? & then his body became fish bait?

ya, that's when america will heal.
 

j-mac

Nuthin' but the truth
Joined
Oct 8, 2013
Messages
5,579
Reaction score
3,007
Points
940
Location
South Carolina
American Thinker



Share:
American Thinker - Questionable Source - Extreme Right Bias - Conservative - Republican - Fake News - Not Credible
Factual Reporting: Low - Not Credible - Not Reliable - Fake News - Bias

QUESTIONABLE SOURCE

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.
Detailed Report
Reasoning: Extreme Right, Conspiracy, Propaganda, Lack of Ownership Transparency
Country: USA
World Press Freedom Rank: USA 45/180
American Thinker - Media Bias Fact Check

^^^ & there ya go ^^^
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."[2]


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?


So, please in the future playtime, try and use less bias sources...
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'.

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?

lol...

is this wrong?


The following are American Thinker’s overall bias and reliability scores according to our Ad Fontes Media ratings methodology.

Reliability: 19.64

Bias: 29.74


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.
The quote from Wiki was actually a direct quote from the Columbia Journal Review, are you saying that they are wrong?

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...
how do you KNOW it's a di-rect quote? 'cause it was in wiki?

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.
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....

"
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."


Now, quit wasting everyones time in here and use a few keystrokes before you get the whole plate of egg thrown at you....
& yet you didn't go there yerself to make sure did ya, until i prompted 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.
American Thinker is a compelation of opinion pieces...nothing more, nothing less...So, you have problems now with opinions?

Oh, and to your "prompting me".... I wouldn't have to look it up if you were not such a lazy POS liar....
if it's all just 'opinion' then why retract?

they opine about conspiracies & tin foil hat pablum & pass it off to the poorly educated who think it's fact.

#unethical
Oh please, you want conspiracy? Tune in to CNN, or MSNBC at any given moment, and there's plenty there to amuse you...

Like I said, AT is a compilation of opinion pieces, why they would retract anything is probably up to the individual author of any given opinion...You'd have to ask them...

But, I find it amusing that opinions that don't agree with your notions of ideological outlook scare you so....

In any case, I've made my point about that....
i don't watch CNN nor MSNBC - i do not have cable. but i also don't believe what i see or hear in neat little sound bites or edited video.... i look things up & research on my own. & i sure as shit wouldn't take any OPINION / blog / or rw spin machine such as fox, newmax or AONN.

So, where do you get your news?
i watch PBSnews hour & i read. i also youtube news stories & expand from there. i watch the nightly news ... NBC on occasion... & i listen to some progressive talk shows but i also listen to rush limbaugh AND like i said - i research what i see & hear to make sure it's not slanted.
ok, that’s fair enough...Look, I really have no problem with liberals, as long as they aren’t batshit crazy progressives....Youd probably be surprised if the board would drop all this insult and rancor and actually debate. Problem is it won’t so here we are...You insult, then I insult, and the shit show continues.
i sure lean left - but i'm probably not as liberal as you might think. also, i don't believe i insulted you even after YOU called ME a POS. at least you abbreviated it.... hopefully, in time - some of the vitriol will simmer down - but it's not gonna be overnight given the toxicity of the past 4 years.
Why not? That's what Joe is going to call you to do today.
all in due time. know what will go a long way? when donny is held accountable; thru a senate trial & cy vance, & letitia james, & e jean caroll & summer zervos ... to start.

remember how america felt when bin laden was shot? & then his body became fish bait?

ya, that's when america will heal.
Well, be sure and let me know when you’re ready to stop being toxic.
 

playtime

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 18, 2015
Messages
33,812
Reaction score
19,265
Points
2,945
American Thinker



Share:
American Thinker - Questionable Source - Extreme Right Bias - Conservative - Republican - Fake News - Not Credible
Factual Reporting: Low - Not Credible - Not Reliable - Fake News - Bias

QUESTIONABLE SOURCE

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.
Detailed Report
Reasoning: Extreme Right, Conspiracy, Propaganda, Lack of Ownership Transparency
Country: USA
World Press Freedom Rank: USA 45/180
American Thinker - Media Bias Fact Check

^^^ & there ya go ^^^
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."[2]


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?


So, please in the future playtime, try and use less bias sources...
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'.

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?

lol...

is this wrong?


The following are American Thinker’s overall bias and reliability scores according to our Ad Fontes Media ratings methodology.

Reliability: 19.64

Bias: 29.74


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.
The quote from Wiki was actually a direct quote from the Columbia Journal Review, are you saying that they are wrong?

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...
how do you KNOW it's a di-rect quote? 'cause it was in wiki?

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.
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....

"
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."


Now, quit wasting everyones time in here and use a few keystrokes before you get the whole plate of egg thrown at you....
& yet you didn't go there yerself to make sure did ya, until i prompted 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.
American Thinker is a compelation of opinion pieces...nothing more, nothing less...So, you have problems now with opinions?

Oh, and to your "prompting me".... I wouldn't have to look it up if you were not such a lazy POS liar....
if it's all just 'opinion' then why retract?

they opine about conspiracies & tin foil hat pablum & pass it off to the poorly educated who think it's fact.

#unethical
Oh please, you want conspiracy? Tune in to CNN, or MSNBC at any given moment, and there's plenty there to amuse you...

Like I said, AT is a compilation of opinion pieces, why they would retract anything is probably up to the individual author of any given opinion...You'd have to ask them...

But, I find it amusing that opinions that don't agree with your notions of ideological outlook scare you so....

In any case, I've made my point about that....
i don't watch CNN nor MSNBC - i do not have cable. but i also don't believe what i see or hear in neat little sound bites or edited video.... i look things up & research on my own. & i sure as shit wouldn't take any OPINION / blog / or rw spin machine such as fox, newmax or AONN.

So, where do you get your news?
i watch PBSnews hour & i read. i also youtube news stories & expand from there. i watch the nightly news ... NBC on occasion... & i listen to some progressive talk shows but i also listen to rush limbaugh AND like i said - i research what i see & hear to make sure it's not slanted.
ok, that’s fair enough...Look, I really have no problem with liberals, as long as they aren’t batshit crazy progressives....Youd probably be surprised if the board would drop all this insult and rancor and actually debate. Problem is it won’t so here we are...You insult, then I insult, and the shit show continues.
i sure lean left - but i'm probably not as liberal as you might think. also, i don't believe i insulted you even after YOU called ME a POS. at least you abbreviated it.... hopefully, in time - some of the vitriol will simmer down - but it's not gonna be overnight given the toxicity of the past 4 years.
Why not? That's what Joe is going to call you to do today.
all in due time. know what will go a long way? when donny is held accountable; thru a senate trial & cy vance, & letitia james, & e jean caroll & summer zervos ... to start.

remember how america felt when bin laden was shot? & then his body became fish bait?

ya, that's when america will heal.
Well, be sure and let me know when you’re ready to stop being toxic.
you let me know how you feel after the truth about yer chosen one comes out.
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List