OldBrownsFan Posted November 13, 2018 Report Share Posted November 13, 2018 Democrats often make claims 'without evidence,' but you'll rarely see it mentioned in the headline In the past couple of years, newsrooms have relied increasingly on the phrase “without evidence” for headlines regarding something false or misleading said by President Trump or someone in his circle. On Nov. 11, for example, NBC News published a story titled, “Republicans claim, without evidence, Florida seats being stolen as top Democrat pushes back.” One day earlier, on Nov. 10, NPR published a report titled, “Key Races Still Undecided; Trump Calls Fraud Without Evidence.” It has actually become quite trendy to do this: CNN: GOP leader Kevin McCarthy suggests without evidencemigrant caravan 'could be' politically motivated CNBC: Trump declares without evidence that 'Criminals and unknown Middle Easterners are mixed in' with migrant caravan making its way from Honduras The Associated Press: Trump says without evidence that Dems are behind 'caravan' The Tampa Bay Times: Florida officials respond to Trump’s claim, without evidence, that Puerto Rico deaths are made up Miami Herald: Trump claims without evidence that Democrats distorted Hurricane Maria death toll New York Times: Trump Claims, Without Evidence, That Kavanaugh Protesters Were Paid Washington Post: In new ad, Stewart doubles down on suggestion of sexual harassment claim against Kaine without evidence It’s great that newsrooms are so eager to correct the record on Trump that they tell the readers upfront what's wrong, but this level of scrutiny must be applied equally. Otherwise, it’s just partisan hackery. Unfortunately, newsrooms aren't giving equal treatment to those in power. Not even close. The “without evidence” trend seems to favor Republican and conservative officials exclusively. In fact, for all of 2017 and 2018, there’s only one instance of a news organization noting in a headline that a Democratic official had alleged something without offering any proof, according to Lexis-Nexis. It’s strange that this is the sole example from the last two years of a "without evidence" headline aimed at Democrats, considering 2017 also featured members of the opposition party claiming the GOP tax reform bill would be “ the end of the world," that the "debate on health care is life/death," and that the legislation was "the worst bill in the history of the United States Congress." There were no headlines from the Post, the New York Times, or CNN noting that there was no evidence to support these ludicrous claims. Similarly, during the net neutrality fight earlier this year, the Senate Democrats’ Twitter account claimed, “If we don’t save net neutrality, you’ll get the Internet one word at a time.” There's no evidence for that. Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., also warned, “Without net neutrality, the internet as we know it ends.” Again, there were no “without evidence” headlines correcting these varying hyperbolic and false statements issued by Democrats. When Democrats claimed without evidence during the recent midterm elections that Republican Georgia Gov.-elect Brian Kemp was secretly behind Democratic county governments' plans to go cheapskate and consolidate their polling places, there were no accompanying "without evidence" headlines. Newsrooms didn't pounce with these headlines last week when Rep. Gerry Connolly, D-Va., claimed without evidence that CNN’s Jim Acosta is the victim of a conspiracy to have his White House credentials suspended. Looking back even further, you’ll see there’s not a single "without evidence" headline seeking to correct the multiple conspiracy-mongering claims by Democrats that Russia " hacked" the 2016 election. Likewise, there were no "without evidence" headlines for former Sen. Harry Reid's lie that 2012 GOP nominee Mitt Romney cheated on his taxes, a claim that the retired Nevada lawmaker all but admitted to fabricating from thin air. And of course, when former President Barack Obama claimed, "You can keep your healthcare plan" — a claim about Obamacare that he never had any basis for making — it took more than three years, until late 2013, before anyone in the press pointed out that this had been a very big lie, even the lie of the year. If only we'd been warned three years earlier that Obama was making that claim, "without evidence." The one-sided nature of this fact-checking trend really sticks out when you consider there were no such headlines written for the Democrat-backed women who claimed, without evidence, that they were sexually abused by Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh. There were no “without evidence” headlines for the Democrats who promoted Christine Blasey Ford before and after her testimony, even though there is still no evidence for what she said outside of her own word. And there were no “without evidence” headlines for Democrats who stood behind allegations that Kavanaugh exposed himself during a drinking game when he was a student at Yale. I’m all for aggressive fact-checking. But let's apply the standard equally, eh? https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/democrats-often-make-claims-without-evidence-but-youll-rarely-see-it-mentioned-in-the-headline Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cccjwh Posted November 13, 2018 Report Share Posted November 13, 2018 40 minutes ago, OldBrownsFan said: Democrats often make claims 'without evidence,' but you'll rarely see it mentioned in the headline In the past couple of years, newsrooms have relied increasingly on the phrase “without evidence” for headlines regarding something false or misleading said by President Trump or someone in his circle. On Nov. 11, for example, NBC News published a story titled, “Republicans claim, without evidence, Florida seats being stolen as top Democrat pushes back.” One day earlier, on Nov. 10, NPR published a report titled, “Key Races Still Undecided; Trump Calls Fraud Without Evidence.” It has actually become quite trendy to do this: CNN: GOP leader Kevin McCarthy suggests without evidencemigrant caravan 'could be' politically motivated CNBC: Trump declares without evidence that 'Criminals and unknown Middle Easterners are mixed in' with migrant caravan making its way from Honduras The Associated Press: Trump says without evidence that Dems are behind 'caravan' The Tampa Bay Times: Florida officials respond to Trump’s claim, without evidence, that Puerto Rico deaths are made up Miami Herald: Trump claims without evidence that Democrats distorted Hurricane Maria death toll New York Times: Trump Claims, Without Evidence, That Kavanaugh Protesters Were Paid Washington Post: In new ad, Stewart doubles down on suggestion of sexual harassment claim against Kaine without evidence It’s great that newsrooms are so eager to correct the record on Trump that they tell the readers upfront what's wrong, but this level of scrutiny must be applied equally. Otherwise, it’s just partisan hackery. Unfortunately, newsrooms aren't giving equal treatment to those in power. Not even close. The “without evidence” trend seems to favor Republican and conservative officials exclusively. In fact, for all of 2017 and 2018, there’s only one instance of a news organization noting in a headline that a Democratic official had alleged something without offering any proof, according to Lexis-Nexis. It’s strange that this is the sole example from the last two years of a "without evidence" headline aimed at Democrats, considering 2017 also featured members of the opposition party claiming the GOP tax reform bill would be “ the end of the world," that the "debate on health care is life/death," and that the legislation was "the worst bill in the history of the United States Congress." There were no headlines from the Post, the New York Times, or CNN noting that there was no evidence to support these ludicrous claims. Hyperbole - exaggerated statements or claims not meant to be taken literally. Does this author think that they really believed it was going to "end of the world". Health Care is life/death for a lot of people. I agree with the "worst ever " garage I hate that Sheet. Similarly, during the net neutrality fight earlier this year, the Senate Democrats’ Twitter account claimed, “If we don’t save net neutrality, you’ll get the Internet one word at a time.” There's no evidence for that. Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., also warned, “Without net neutrality, the internet as we know it ends.” Again, there were no “without evidence” headlines correcting these varying hyperbolic and false statements issued by Democrats. Does this author really think they literally meant "you’ll get the Internet one word at a time.”. There is plenty of evidence of the ISPs limiting/slowing down speeds while Net-Neuturality was still in effect. 40 minutes ago, OldBrownsFan said: When Democrats claimed without evidence during the recent midterm elections that Republican Georgia Gov.-elect Brian Kemp was secretly behind Democratic county governments' plans to go cheapskate and consolidate their polling places, there were no accompanying "without evidence" headlines. Newsrooms didn't pounce with these headlines last week when Rep. Gerry Connolly, D-Va., claimed without evidence that CNN’s Jim Acosta is the victim of a conspiracy to have his White House credentials suspended. Were the polling place consolidate? There is no link to the statements so I have not idea what they said. If they did, they need to stop acting like CJ. Looking back even further, you’ll see there’s not a single "without evidence" headline seeking to correct the multiple conspiracy-mongering claims by Democrats that Russia " hacked" the 2016 election. Likewise, there were no "without evidence" headlines for former Sen. Harry Reid's lie that 2012 GOP nominee Mitt Romney cheated on his taxes, a claim that the retired Nevada lawmaker all but admitted to fabricating from thin air. And of course, when former President Barack Obama claimed, "You can keep your healthcare plan" — a claim about Obamacare that he never had any basis for making — it took more than three years, until late 2013, before anyone in the press pointed out that this had been a very big lie, even the lie of the year. If only we'd been warned three years earlier that Obama was making that claim, "without evidence." The Democrats Russia garbage has to review and there wasn't much there. Just conspiracy garbage. Reid - https://www.politifact.com/personalities/harry-reid/statements/byruling/false/ Obama -https://www.politifact.com/personalities/barack-obama/statements/byruling/false/ He got the lie of the year, but that isn't enough uproar. The one-sided nature of this fact-checking trend really sticks out when you consider there were no such headlines written for the Democrat-backed women who claimed, without evidence, that they were sexually abused by Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh. "Democrat-backed women", wtf does that mean? Ford's testimony is not evidence now? I guess if women come forward about an sexual assault it should be ignored if she doesn't have any evidence? There were no “without evidence” headlines for the Democrats who promoted Christine Blasey Ford before and after her testimony, even though there is still no evidence for what she said outside of her own word. And there were no “without evidence” headlines for Democrats who stood behind allegations that Kavanaugh exposed himself during a drinking game when he was a student at Yale. I’m all for aggressive fact-checking. But let's apply the standard equally, eh? https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/democrats-often-make-claims-without-evidence-but-youll-rarely-see-it-mentioned-in-the-headline You think there might be a one-side fact-checking because only one side cares if the facts are correct? The one-sided nature of this fact-checking trend really sticks out when you consider there were no such headlines written for the Democrat-backed women who claimed, without evidence, that they were sexually abused by Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldBrownsFan Posted November 13, 2018 Author Report Share Posted November 13, 2018 3 hours ago, cccjwh said: You think there might be a one-side fact-checking because only one side cares if the facts are correct? The one-sided nature of this fact-checking trend really sticks out when you consider there were no such headlines written for the Democrat-backed women who claimed, without evidence, that they were sexually abused by Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh. No just pointing out clear bias that zoomed right over your head; CNN Is Already Signaling It’s Going To Be As Biased As Possible In Its Coverage Of Nancy Pelosi’s Time As Speaker https://www.redstate.com/brandon_morse/2018/11/13/cnn-already-signaling-not-going-cover-nancy-pelosis-time-speaker-fairly/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cccjwh Posted November 13, 2018 Report Share Posted November 13, 2018 1 hour ago, OldBrownsFan said: No just pointing out clear bias that zoomed right over your head; CNN Is Already Signaling It’s Going To Be As Biased As Possible In Its Coverage Of Nancy Pelosi’s Time As Speaker https://www.redstate.com/brandon_morse/2018/11/13/cnn-already-signaling-not-going-cover-nancy-pelosis-time-speaker-fairly/ Redstate RIGHT BIAS These media sources are moderately to strongly biased toward conservative causes through story selection and/or political affiliation. They may utilize strong loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes), publish misleading reports and omit reporting of information that may damage conservative causes. Some sources in this category may be untrustworthy. See all Right Bias sources. Factual Reporting: MIXED Notes: Red State is a news opinion blog run by Erick Erickson, a TV and radio commentator. The information on the blog has loaded language and is right biased based on story selection. Erick Erickson does not have a great track record with fact checkers. (7/19/2016) Updated (4/6/2017) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldBrownsFan Posted November 13, 2018 Author Report Share Posted November 13, 2018 9 minutes ago, cccjwh said: Redstate RIGHT BIAS These media sources are moderately to strongly biased toward conservative causes through story selection and/or political affiliation. They may utilize strong loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes), publish misleading reports and omit reporting of information that may damage conservative causes. Some sources in this category may be untrustworthy. See all Right Bias sources. Factual Reporting: MIXED Notes: Red State is a news opinion blog run by Erick Erickson, a TV and radio commentator. The information on the blog has loaded language and is right biased based on story selection. Erick Erickson does not have a great track record with fact checkers. (7/19/2016) Updated (4/6/2017) Using Snopes again...lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cccjwh Posted November 13, 2018 Report Share Posted November 13, 2018 3 minutes ago, OldBrownsFan said: Using Snopes again...lol No Beavis it is not snopes. But you think whatever you need to stay in your bubble. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldBrownsFan Posted November 13, 2018 Author Report Share Posted November 13, 2018 10 minutes ago, cccjwh said: No Beavis it is not snopes. But you think whatever you need to stay in your bubble. Sorry but we live in a time when the so called fact checkers need to be fact checked so quit throwing around your fact checkers like they are the gospel truth. If not Snopes then was it this one: Media Bias Fact Check MediaBIasFactCheck.com describes itself as “the most comprehensive media bias resource in the Internet.” The site is owned by Dave Van Zandt from North Carolina, who offers no biographical information about himself aside from the following: “Dave has been freelancing for 25+ years for a variety of print and web mediums (sic), with a focus on media bias and the role of media in politics. Dave is a registered Non-Affiliated voter who values evidence based reporting” and, “Dave Van Zandt obtained a Communications Degree before pursuing a higher degree in the sciences. Dave currently works full time in the health care industry. Dave has spent more than 20 years as an arm chair researcher on media bias and its role in political influence.” WND was unable to locate a single article with Van Zandt’s byline. Ironically, the “fact checker” fails to establish his own credibility by disclosing his qualifications and training in evaluating news sources. Asked for information concerning his expertise in the field of journalism and evaluating news sources, Van Zandt told WND: “I am not a journalist and just a person who is interested in how media bias impacts politics. You will find zero claims of expertise on the website.” Concerning his purported “25+ years” of experience writing for print and web media, he said: “I am not sure why the 25+ years is still on the website. That was removed a year ago when I first started the website. All of the writing I did was small print news zines from the ’90s. I felt that what I wrote in the ’90s is not related to what I am doing today so I removed it. Again, I am not a journalist. I simply have a background in communications and more importantly science where I learned to value evidence over all else. Through this I also became interested in research of all kinds, especially media bias, which is difficult to measure and is subjective to a degree.” WND asked: Were your evaluations reviewed by any experts in the industry? “I can’t say they have,” Van Zandt replied. “Though the right-of-center Atlantic Council is using our data for a project they are working on.” Van Zandt says he uses “three volunteers” to “research and assist in fact checking.” However, he adds that he doesn’t pay them for their services. Van Zandt lists WND on his “Right Bias” page, alongside news organizations such as Fox News, the Drudge Report, the Washington Free Beacon, the Daily Wire, the Blaze, Breitbart, Red State, Project Veritas, PJ Media, National Review, Daily Caller and others. “These media sources are highly biased toward conservative causes,” Van Zandt writes. “They utilize strong loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes), publish misleading reports and omit reporting of information that may damage conservative causes. Sources in this category may be untrustworthy.” Van Zandt says he uses a “strict methodology” in determining which news sources are credible, but his website offers vague and typo-ridden explanations of his criteria, such as the followiing: Asked if his own political leanings influence his evaluations, Van Zandt said: “Sure it is possible. However, our methodology is designed to eliminate most of that. We also have a team of 4 researchers with different political leanings so that we can further reduce researcher bias.” Bill Palmer of the website Daily News Bin accused Van Zandt of retaliating when the Daily News Bin contacted him about his rating. Palmer wrote: “t turns out Van Zandt has a vindictive streak. After one hapless social media user tried to use his phony ‘Media Bias Fact Check’ site to dispute a thoroughly sourced article from this site, Daily News Bin, we made the mistake of contacting Van Zandt and asking him to take down his ridiculous ‘rating’ – which consisted of nothing more than hearsay such as ‘has been accused of being satire.’ Really? When? By whom? None of those facts seem to matter to the guy running this ‘Media Bias Fact Check’ scam. “But instead of acknowledging that he’d been caught in the act, Van Zandt retaliated against Daily News Bin by changing his rating to something more sinister. He also added a link to a similar phony security company called World of Trust, which generates its ratings by allowing random anonymous individuals to post whatever bizarre conspiracy theories they want, and then letting these loons vote on whether that news site is ‘real’ or not. These scam sites are now trying to use each other for cover, in order to back up the false and unsubstantiated ‘ratings’ they semi-randomly assign respected news outlets. … “‘Media Bias Fact Check’ is truly just one guy making misleading claims about news outlets while failing to back them up with anything, while maliciously changing the ratings to punish any news outlets that try to expose the invalidity of what he’s doing.” But Van Zandt accused Palmer of threatening him, and he said MediaBiasFactCheck welcomes criticism. If evidence is provided, he said, the site will correct its errors. “Bottom line is, we are not trying to be something we are not,” he said. “We have disclaimers on every page of the website indicating that our method is not scientifically proven and that there is [sic] subjective judgments being used as it is unavoidable with determining bias.” Read more at https://www.wnd.com/2017/02/phony-baloney-the-9-fakest-fake-news-checkers/#PUcjXPqmicqhaVHg.99 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cccjwh Posted November 14, 2018 Report Share Posted November 14, 2018 16 hours ago, OldBrownsFan said: Sorry but we live in a time when the so called fact checkers need to be fact checked so quit throwing around your fact checkers like they are the gospel truth. If not Snopes then was it this one: Media Bias Fact Check MediaBIasFactCheck.com describes itself as “the most comprehensive media bias resource in the Internet.” The site is owned by Dave Van Zandt from North Carolina, who offers no biographical information about himself aside from the following: “Dave has been freelancing for 25+ years for a variety of print and web mediums (sic), with a focus on media bias and the role of media in politics. Dave is a registered Non-Affiliated voter who values evidence based reporting” and, “Dave Van Zandt obtained a Communications Degree before pursuing a higher degree in the sciences. Dave currently works full time in the health care industry. Dave has spent more than 20 years as an arm chair researcher on media bias and its role in political influence.” WND was unable to locate a single article with Van Zandt’s byline. Ironically, the “fact checker” fails to establish his own credibility by disclosing his qualifications and training in evaluating news sources. Asked for information concerning his expertise in the field of journalism and evaluating news sources, Van Zandt told WND: “I am not a journalist and just a person who is interested in how media bias impacts politics. You will find zero claims of expertise on the website.” Concerning his purported “25+ years” of experience writing for print and web media, he said: “I am not sure why the 25+ years is still on the website. That was removed a year ago when I first started the website. All of the writing I did was small print news zines from the ’90s. I felt that what I wrote in the ’90s is not related to what I am doing today so I removed it. Again, I am not a journalist. I simply have a background in communications and more importantly science where I learned to value evidence over all else. Through this I also became interested in research of all kinds, especially media bias, which is difficult to measure and is subjective to a degree.” WND asked: Were your evaluations reviewed by any experts in the industry? “I can’t say they have,” Van Zandt replied. “Though the right-of-center Atlantic Council is using our data for a project they are working on.” Van Zandt says he uses “three volunteers” to “research and assist in fact checking.” However, he adds that he doesn’t pay them for their services. Van Zandt lists WND on his “Right Bias” page, alongside news organizations such as Fox News, the Drudge Report, the Washington Free Beacon, the Daily Wire, the Blaze, Breitbart, Red State, Project Veritas, PJ Media, National Review, Daily Caller and others. “These media sources are highly biased toward conservative causes,” Van Zandt writes. “They utilize strong loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes), publish misleading reports and omit reporting of information that may damage conservative causes. Sources in this category may be untrustworthy.” Van Zandt says he uses a “strict methodology” in determining which news sources are credible, but his website offers vague and typo-ridden explanations of his criteria, such as the followiing: Asked if his own political leanings influence his evaluations, Van Zandt said: “Sure it is possible. However, our methodology is designed to eliminate most of that. We also have a team of 4 researchers with different political leanings so that we can further reduce researcher bias.” Bill Palmer of the website Daily News Bin accused Van Zandt of retaliating when the Daily News Bin contacted him about his rating. Palmer wrote: “t turns out Van Zandt has a vindictive streak. After one hapless social media user tried to use his phony ‘Media Bias Fact Check’ site to dispute a thoroughly sourced article from this site, Daily News Bin, we made the mistake of contacting Van Zandt and asking him to take down his ridiculous ‘rating’ – which consisted of nothing more than hearsay such as ‘has been accused of being satire.’ Really? When? By whom? None of those facts seem to matter to the guy running this ‘Media Bias Fact Check’ scam. “But instead of acknowledging that he’d been caught in the act, Van Zandt retaliated against Daily News Bin by changing his rating to something more sinister. He also added a link to a similar phony security company called World of Trust, which generates its ratings by allowing random anonymous individuals to post whatever bizarre conspiracy theories they want, and then letting these loons vote on whether that news site is ‘real’ or not. These scam sites are now trying to use each other for cover, in order to back up the false and unsubstantiated ‘ratings’ they semi-randomly assign respected news outlets. … “‘Media Bias Fact Check’ is truly just one guy making misleading claims about news outlets while failing to back them up with anything, while maliciously changing the ratings to punish any news outlets that try to expose the invalidity of what he’s doing.” But Van Zandt accused Palmer of threatening him, and he said MediaBiasFactCheck welcomes criticism. If evidence is provided, he said, the site will correct its errors. “Bottom line is, we are not trying to be something we are not,” he said. “We have disclaimers on every page of the website indicating that our method is not scientifically proven and that there is [sic] subjective judgments being used as it is unavoidable with determining bias.” Read more at https://www.wnd.com/2017/02/phony-baloney-the-9-fakest-fake-news-checkers/#PUcjXPqmicqhaVHg.99 So you think a site known for promoting conspiracy theories a good source for information? Here are some other great articles from wnd CLINICALLY DEAD VETERAN MIRACULOUSLY WAKES UP 'FRED FLINTSTONE' CITED FOR SPEEDING IN 'FOOTMOBILE' 'This is what Intelligence-Led Policing looked like in the stone age' RABBI WARNS OF BIBLICAL END-TIMES WAR IN ISRAEL 'Could be more horrifying than anything we could ever imagine' SCIENTISTS: 'DARK MATTER HURRICANE' TO COLLIDE WITH EARTH 'Really, there's no cause for concern' Read more at https://www.wnd.com/2018/11/scientists-dark-matter-hurricane-to-collide-with-earth/#Ls2wgG4f0OeuY72a.99Read more at https://www.wnd.com/2018/11/rabbi-warns-of-biblical-end-times-war-in-israel/#l89AhJXt2ROi13F4.99Read more at https://www.wnd.com/2018/11/fred-flintstone-cited-for-speeding-in-footmobile/#HoabqlZKmDRhxFjP.99 Do you have links to the National Inquirer too? Please learn how to figure out if a source is reputable. thanks WorldNetDaily (WND) is an American news and opinion website and online news aggregator which has been described as "fringe" and far right[2][3][4][5] as well as politically conservative.[6] The website is known for promoting falsehoods and conspiracy theories.[7][8][6][9][10][11][12][13][14] RIGHT BIAS These media sources are moderately to strongly biased toward conservative causes through story selection and/or political affiliation. They may utilize strong loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes), publish misleading reports and omit reporting of information that may damage conservative causes. Some sources in this category may be untrustworthy. See all Right Bias sources. Factual Reporting: MIXED Notes: Based on reviews by all of our researchers, WND is an online news source that has a far right bias and dabbles in right wing conspiracies such as President Obama’s birth certificate. They also use misleading clickbait headlines that do not always match the content of the article (See M. Allen’s review below). WND also has a mixed track record with fact checkers: here and here (D. Van Zandt 6/19/2016). Below is the detailed reviews of each researcher. Update: On 2/20/17 WND wrote a retaliation article due to not liking our rating of their website. Our response is found here as well as a link to their article. WND is deceptive in that their news articles appear moderate and not overtly sensational. However, Snopes has slammed them on many an occasion for parsing of facts, and using inaccurate data. In my opinion, this site with respect to news, is pretty deceiving as on their outward appearances seem well-balanced (scam ads notwithstanding). When you take a look at their Opinion page, their true colors are more evident. This is not a reliable site by any measure for news, and the rest of the site is pretty much a rag (F. Locke Siewert (2/25/2017). WND is a decidedly right bias site that does carry some center and slightly left content. This is through linking to reports from less biased sources. For example: The story regarding Black students at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. The actual article is a fairly well balanced look at the issue by Todd Richmond of the Associated Press. The lead-in line WND used for the article was somewhat misleading, however. By using white supremacists in quotes it seems to imply that it isn’t a factor in the students demands when it is. Where the real bias on the site is evident is on the editorial pages and staff generated articles. Although mostly factual, the wording is heavily weighted and misleading. Carrying some moderate content is not enough, balanced against the editorial stance, to rate WND anything other than right bias. It did prevent them from being rated Questionable or worse though (D. Kelley 2/25/2017). WND is far right/alt-right. This story just came out. Direct quote “The story, nevertheless, was issued by the AP, which explained it obtained an 11-page document that “calls for the unprecedented militarization of immigration enforcement as far north as Portland, Oregon, and as far east as New Orleans, Louisiana.” The issue here is it doesn’t link to the source but another news outlet that is using the source that then links to the source there. This is something you might find in a typical badly cited essay in college. Always cite original sources when referencing material. Second issue in article – “On Thursday, activists protesting Trump’s effort to enforce immigration law carried out a “Day Without Immigrants” protest in which immigrants were to stay home from work or school. In Denver, some parents left work to take lunch to their children in public schools when the lunchroom workers took part in the protest.” This is minor but it shows a significant downplay of how wide spread and national the “Day Without Immigrants” was. It shows clear bias in how they view said protest when you marginalize like this. Better solution is to not reference it at all to limit bias in reporting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted November 14, 2018 Report Share Posted November 14, 2018 you must be crazycleve and woodpecker's little penis or something. You love the Communist News Network (what we called it years before you were born or hatched), but any site like RedState is biased. got it. *************************************************************** https://www.redstate.com/brandon_morse/2018/11/13/cnn-already-signaling-not-going-cover-nancy-pelosis-time-speaker-fairly/ "CNN is a clownish network that has fallen from great heights to become the partisan hack job that it is today. While that may seem harsh, the actions it has taken over the past few years have been nothing short of heinous. Be it threatening citizens with doxing because they made a GIF making fun of the network, allowing their hosts to say unapologetically racist things, or even sending activists posing as journalists to the White House who get physical with women in order to hold on to microphones. And people wonder why CNN doesn’t have a show in the top 25 spots in the cable news rankings. Just to make sure that you know they will be implicitly biased when it comes to how they’re going to cover the incoming Democratic House, CNN is beginning with a puff piece from Dana Bash about its presumed future majority leader Nancy Pelosi. The video is titled “Nancy Pelosi is the Original Badass Woman of Washington,” and the content matches the breathless worship of its namesake. Within, Bash fawns over Pelosi and really dives into how much she and her family have accomplished, as well as how she’s loved and respected by others on both sides of the aisle." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.