This is why fake news is dangerous

[Judgedredd]

You freely admit you have absolutely no factual grounds on which to contest their results. You make a false assumption that more right-wing sources spreading fake news is somehow evidence of manipulation by Mediabiasfactcheck, when the alternative explanation, that right-wing sources are more likely to lie about things these days, somehow never occurs to you.

It's particularly egregious when their methodology is publicly stated; https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/methodology/
Nor are they "faceless"; their main writers/contributors are all listed right here; https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/about/

You literally could not find any evidence that they were biased or manipulating data, so you just assumed they must be, because you don't like the facts. That's your argument.

You're part of the problem, mate.

Shouldn't the honest have nothing to fear from the truth?

I wonder why they don't reveal who their biggest Patreon donors are.

Also everything seems to be in their methodology apart from the voting preferences of the individuals, and the specific individuals doing the fact checking on what exactly.

Even a jury is scrutinised greatly, yet these faceless individuals are above reproach?

How do we know then that this fact checking website is not flagging right wing websites cause they are all Democrat voters? This is like the referee of international sporting match being the same nationality as one of the contestants. I wonder why the referee is always a third separate nationality from said two contestants?

Also, I just linked a Guardian article. Must be a great shock I know but I read the Guardian, along with BBC, Sky News, Breitbart even, Huff Post, and Economist once a week (shouldn't have to ask for those that visit the website regularly). I will admit most of Breitbart stuff is laughable and poorly written, but it gives a window into the view of the Trump supporter.

[Machismo]

Shouldn't the honest have nothing to fear from the truth?

I wonder why they don't reveal who their biggest Patreon donors are.

Also everything seems to be in their methodology apart from the voting preferences of the individuals, and the specific individuals doing the fact checking on what exactly.

Even a jury is scrutinised greatly, yet these faceless individuals are above reproach?

How do we know then that this fact checking website is not flagging right wing websites cause they are all Democrat voters? This is like the referee of international sporting match being the same nationality as one of the contestants. I wonder why the referee is always a third separate nationality from said two contestants?

Also, I just linked a Guardian article. Must be a great shock I know but I read the Guardian, along with BBC, Sky News, Breitbart even, Huff Post, and Economist once a week (shouldn't have to ask for those that visit the website regularly). I will admit most of Breitbart stuff is laughable and poorly written, but it gives a window into the view of the Trump supporter.

It sounds like you should create a fact-checking website that lists the names of everyone who financially supports you.

[Judgedredd]

Really, what you're talking about here is that you, personally, have no comprehension of what a "fact" is. Neither of your two examples of "political facts" are facts at all.



They literally aren't "faceless". I linked you right to the "About" page which identifies them. You either couldn't be arsed to make any effort at all to check before spouting off, or you're deliberately lying to cast the site in a negative light because they expose some facts you don't want people to be aware of. Take your pick as to your motive.

Read previous posts. Everything but who they voted for seems to be there.

Wow, this is real 'impartial' indeed:

Ken resides in California with his wife. Ken is not registered to any party, leans left but strives for center in his reporting, and wishes all this Neo-Nazi business would hide its head in the sand once again.

Not registered to any party, but wishes all this 'Neo-Nazi' business would hide head in sand once again.

You can tell who he is rooting for with such powerful language.

With two lines how do you even know this person is real?

- - - Updated - - -

It sounds like you should create a fact-checking website that lists the names of everyone who financially supports you.

I don't claim to judge sources of news as fake. Best way to gauge is to read from a plethora of sources.

Also, did both of you read the Guardian article I linked?

Or is that 'fake news' now just because I linked it?

[Endus]

Shouldn't the honest have nothing to fear from the truth?

I wonder why they don't reveal who their biggest Patreon donors are.

Because financials are kept secret, because it's not just about the site, it's about the privacy of those donors.

This is basic ethics.

Also everything seems to be in their methodology apart from the voting preferences of the individuals, and the specific individuals doing the fact checking on what exactly.

Neither of those would be part of any methodological approach. You've never done any research, yourself, have you?

Even a jury is scrutinised greatly, yet these faceless individuals are above reproach?

Nobody said they're "above reproach". We've pointed out you have no grounds on which to accuse them of anything, and are lying out your ass to slander them for some reason. Which you are. Provably, because you keep making claims about them which are provably false, and which you could have verified for yourself if you'd taken 10 seconds to check.

How do we know then that this fact checking website is not flagging right wing websites cause they are all Democrat voters?

First, because we know they aren't "all Democrat voters".
Second, because if you want to make that claim, you need evidence to back that up, or you're just making up slanderous bullshit. And you haven't cited anything to back your bullshit up. Not one trace of any malfeasance.

Also, I just linked a Guardian article. Must be a great shock I know but I read the Guardian, along with BBC, Sky News, Breitbart even, Huff Post, and Economist once a week (shouldn't have to ask for those that visit the website regularly). I will admit most of Breitbart stuff is laughable and poorly written, but it gives a window into the view of the Trump supporter.

I don't care what other sources you read. I care that you're slandering a site's staff based on nothing but your antagonism to the facts they present.

[Machismo]

Read previous posts. Everything but who they voted for seems to be there.

Wow, this is real 'impartial' indeed:

Ken resides in California with his wife. Ken is not registered to any party, leans left but strives for center in his reporting, and wishes all this Neo-Nazi business would hide its head in the sand once again.

Not registered to any party, but wishes all this 'Neo-Nazi' business would hide head in sand once again.

You can tell who he is rooting for with such powerful language.

With two lines how do you even know this person is real?

- - - Updated - - -



I don't claim to judge sources of news as fake. Best way to gauge is to read from a plethora of sources.

Also, did both of you read the Guardian article I linked?

Or is that 'fake news' now just because I linked it?

The Guardian is not just a left-wing site. They also are there to stir the pot. Good for them.

You seem to be mistaking political opinions as facts. They are two completely different things. When something is fact-checked, you have actual facts to go off of. You may not like fact-checking, but once again, the facts don't care about your opinion.

[Judgedredd]

Because financials are kept secret, because it's not just about the site, it's about the privacy of those donors.

This is basic ethics.



Neither of those would be part of any methodological approach. You've never done any research, yourself, have you?



Nobody said they're "above reproach". We've pointed out you have no grounds on which to accuse them of anything, and are lying out your ass to slander them for some reason. Which you are. Provably, because you keep making claims about them which are provably false, and which you could have verified for yourself if you'd taken 10 seconds to check.


First, because we know they aren't "all Democrat voters".
Second, because if you want to make that claim, you need evidence to back that up, or you're just making up slanderous bullshit. And you haven't cited anything to back your bullshit up. Not one trace of any malfeasance.



I don't care what other sources you read. I care that you're slandering a site's staff based on nothing but your antagonism to the facts they present.

You do realise disclosure is now a big part of finance right? Pick up any corporate statement there is a whole section on disclosure after the statements. With politics its a foregone conclusion that disclosure is mandatory, otherwise how would you know where the money is coming from? Could be from those meddling Russian secret agents.

Your version of 'check' seems to be to take the website at face value. Ask any student of history/journalism (maybe not in todays political climate), and refuting sources is invariably going to involve holding the identity of the author/commentator up to light. Even an impeccable source like Ian Kershaw, perhaps the leading historian on Holocaust history, will have some bias.

All there is of these 'fact checkers' is barely two lines.

Lying? Want to prove it with some facts. And I mean facts, not 'facts'. I claimed that none of the individuals (of which only 4 have links) have revealed who they voted for in the most recent election. Got some guy claiming to be independent but leans left and seems to have strong opinions on the other side. Sounds like he would sentence a Trump voter guilty if this person ever sat on a jury.

[Endus]

You do realise disclosure is now a big part of finance right?

Not to the public, it isn't.

Your version of 'check' seems to be to take the website at face value. Ask any student of history/journalism (maybe not in todays political climate), and refuting sources is invariably going to involve holding the identity of the author/commentator up to light. Even an impeccable source like Ian Kershaw, perhaps the leading historian on Holocaust history, will have some bias.

All there is of these 'fact checkers' is barely two lines.

Feel free to dig into it more.

What you're not free to do is make up fantastical bullshit and pretend it's true, which is all you've been doing thus far in this thread.

Lying? Want to prove it with some facts. And I mean facts, not 'facts'. I claimed that none of the individuals (of which only 4 have links) have revealed who they voted for in the most recent election. Got some guy claiming to be independent but leans left and seems to have strong opinions on the other side. Sounds like he would sentence a Trump voter guilty if this person ever sat on a jury.

You claimed they were biased and not performing their analyses correctly.

You were lying about that, and have provided absolutely fuck-all to back those accusations up.

This bullshit about wanting to know who they voted for is just a distraction, and is not in any way relevant in the first place; it is again a deliberately dishonest angle to insert.

[Judgedredd]

The Guardian is not just a left-wing site. They also are there to stir the pot. Good for them.

You seem to be mistaking political opinions as facts. They are two completely different things. When something is fact-checked, you have actual facts to go off of. You may not like fact-checking, but once again, the facts don't care about your opinion.

Guardian not left-wing? They make some of the US based newspapers look firmly centre. I don't read very much of Guardian, that article came from a newsfeed.

So is it some coincidence, the fact checkers having an axe to grind, or the news is actually fake, but even that website admits in its Q&A that most of its flagged fake news sites are from right wing sources?

And yes, clearly I did visit the website despite what some people are claiming.

The fact that none of them admit to having any journalistic experience, to the extent of claiming this is good is even worse. Its like a doctor operating on me without having gone to med school.

[Kiri]

As I've been saying countless times in this thread the root of the problem is polarisation of society, which has its origins well before the phenomenon of fake news. All fake news is now is a term to debase the other side. Whether the event is real or not, the likes of Trump is just going to bandy the term around to put the Democrats down.

https://www.theguardian.com/books/20...-up-with-trump

Here's a guardian article that details the problem. And Guardian is as left-wing as they come.

Actually, that is not what Fake News is - that is just how Trump and his supporters tend to use it (along with some opposed to it). But just because a lot of people use it that way does not mean it lost its original meaning. People just use it wrong.

It also does not mean that the problem it described has gone away.

The primary issue here is that Trump managed to turn "Fake News" into an umbrella term for multiple, disparate effects. Namely:

- Erroneous reporting. Due to rushing, mistakes, etc, reports sometimes concern errors. This is what Trump always pounces on if he finds it in a left-wing source. It has always been around, but the high-speed information access we have today urges News Organizations (NOs) to rush those out quickly, so they can be the first.

- Slanting. This describes the practice of reporting news in such a way that it coincides with the viewer's preconceived notions. However, the important part here is that this is done without lying. One simply changes the order of events or leaves out crucial details in order to invoke the desired perception. For example, in another thread here, people talk about how "90% of reporting on Trump is negative", which was also the headline of an article. That article does include a study finding that 90% of reporting is negative - but neglects to report that the study only investigated non-neutral reporting.
This is something that NOs have always done, deliberately, because of, well, competition. There are many scientific papers on that, but to grossly oversimplify, papers slant in order to serve their readers. So, if you want to appeal to Democrats, you make Trump look as badly as possible, without lying, for example. Etc. The pressure on papers to do so has increased in recent years because of every single person who gets their news online without paying, imho. Needs clickbait, when you can only earn good money through ads.

- Fake News. As in, news stories that are completely fabricated. Yellow Journalism, conspiracy theories, hoaxes, lies. Also increases through the internet, since a lot of social media "sources" do not have to take any responsibility for their reporting to begin with.

What Trump has done, in essence, is to seize on errors and slanting - and the occasional left-wing fake news, though that is usually rare with the big networks - into one single term. And people are lapping it up. Because it is easy. But once you call slightly slanted news and outright fabrication the same thing, it becomes the same thing for many. That is why we need to be conscious with our wording. If you dislike "Fake News" as used by Trump, you need to make sure to always distinguish proper yourself.

[Endus]

So is it some coincidence, the fact checkers having an axe to grind, or the news is actually fake, but even that website admits in its Q&A that most of its flagged fake news sites are from right wing sources?

So you apparently know they acknowledge this, but you didn't bother reading their statement on that;

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/frequ...ked-questions/

Why do you have more Right Wing sources listed?

The first 500 or so sources reviewed were picked by the reviewers and were mostly balanced. The last 1500+ sources added have been submitted by users. We have found that right wing sites are submitted for review more. Significantly more! We review what we get. We would love to have more left wing sites submitted for review to provide more balance. Further, prior to and after the election of 2016 there was an explosion of fake right wing websites, many of which originate in the country of Macedonia. We have added several hundred of these sites to our questionable list, which leads to far more right wing sites being listed at this time.

So I repeat; you are deliberately lying.

[Judgedredd]

Not to the public, it isn't.



Feel free to dig into it more.

What you're not free to do is make up fantastical bullshit and pretend it's true, which is all you've been doing thus far in this thread.



You claimed they were biased and not performing their analyses correctly.

You were lying about that, and have provided absolutely fuck-all to back those accusations up.

This bullshit about wanting to know who they voted for is just a distraction, and is not in any way relevant in the first place; it is again a deliberately dishonest angle to insert.

Wow, some 'impartiality' right here:

Please quote the full sentence. Ill put it in for reference's sake:

You do realise disclosure is now a big part of finance right? Pick up any corporate statement there is a whole section on disclosure after the statements. With politics its a foregone conclusion that disclosure is mandatory, otherwise how would you know where the money is coming from? Could be from those meddling Russian secret agents.

Before Enron, disclosure was lax, but when you can't even trust the auditors (a kind of fact checkers for accountants), whose primary job is to make sure accountants do not cook the books so to speak, who can you really trust? This is why the Big Five is now the Big Four. And this was about 15 years ago, today even the tax havens are having trouble keeping things under the rug.

You see how selective editing is used here just because my viewpoint is diametrically opposed to yours?

Now apply that to the 'fact checking' website who openly claims not to adhere to journalistic guidelines.

[Endus]

Wow, some 'impartiality' right here:

Who said I was "impartial"? I'm heavily partial to the facts.

Please quote the full sentence. Ill put it in for reference's sake:

You do realise disclosure is now a big part of finance right? Pick up any corporate statement there is a whole section on disclosure after the statements. With politics its a foregone conclusion that disclosure is mandatory, otherwise how would you know where the money is coming from? Could be from those meddling Russian secret agents.

Before Enron, disclosure was lax, but when you can't even trust the auditors (a kind of fact checkers for accountants), whose primary job is to make sure accountants do not cook the books so to speak, who can you really trust? This is why the Big Five is now the Big Four. And this was about 15 years ago, today even the tax havens are having trouble keeping things under the rug.

You see how selective editing is used here just because my viewpoint is diametrically opposed to yours?

Not particularly.

You're talking about disclosure by political parties to the public, which is a legal requirement, and disclosure by companies to the government, which nobody's suggested isn't happening with MBFC.

What your statements do not make an argument for is public disclosure of private donations to a privately-held company like MBFC. Which, I repeat, are ethically obliged to remain private unless the company made it clear to donors from the outset that they would be publicized.

Just another case of you trying to edit the facts because reality doesn't line up with what you wish were true.

[jazen]

The 'deep state' is also a prime example of fake news and the danger caused by it. Trump and the rights alluding to some massive conspiracy to thwart the GOP is laughable at best. It's dangerous because it undercuts the credibility of the US government, at home and abroad.

[Machismo]

Guardian not left-wing? They make some of the US based newspapers look firmly centre. I don't read very much of Guardian, that article came from a newsfeed.

So is it some coincidence, the fact checkers having an axe to grind, or the news is actually fake, but even that website admits in its Q&A that most of its flagged fake news sites are from right wing sources?

And yes, clearly I did visit the website despite what some people are claiming.

The fact that none of them admit to having any journalistic experience, to the extent of claiming this is good is even worse. Its like a doctor operating on me without having gone to med school.

How does it pose a problem that most of the flagged sites are rightwing? Not everything is symmetrical and a "both sides" issue. Sometimes, things are simply worse on one side.

If you don't like a site, fine. Once again, that does nothing to refute facts or evidence provided by those sites. The more you whine, the more you are simply displaying your own personal bias.

[Mormolyce]

Its basically a jury of blues judging reds. They even admit there are more right wing news sources in their fake news list if you check the methodology page.

Fallacy of the middle. It's entirely possible right wing news is more biased and runs more fake news than the left. Hint: it is and it does.

[Orange Joe]

No, he's so busy dealing with frivolous challenges to his authority be obstructionist judges who get triggered everytime Trump uses his authority to do something, there hasn't been much time to do anything, and that shit needs to stop.

Before or after his 127 golf trips?

https://thegolfnewsnet.com/golfnewsn...otland-110164/

Such hard work, much busy........

[Orbitus]

Will those 'fact checkers' disclose their voting and party preferences, instead of remaining faceless individuals? Thought not.

Until that happens, their claims of being 'impartial' are hollow. Its basically a jury of blues judging reds. They even admit there are more right wing news sources in their fake news list if you check the methodology page.

As I've been saying countless times in this thread the root of the problem is polarisation of society, which has its origins well before the phenomenon of fake news. All fake news is now is a term to debase the other side. Whether the event is real or not, the likes of Trump is just going to bandy the term around to put the Democrats down.

https://www.theguardian.com/books/20...-up-with-trump

Here's a guardian article that details the problem. And Guardian is as left-wing as they come.

Their voting and party preference doesn't fucking matter. If they source their findings, then they are legit. I don't give a flying fuck what side of the aisle the are on. But show me a right wing fact checker that is truthful and I will use that as well. There is a reason there isn't any.

[Vargulf the Happy Husky]

I don't think that'll go over as well as you think it would...

lmao

[Melusine]

I have been on vacation from the forums for a week, but without looking at anything from your post but your links, and I can say without a shadow of a doubt that you are wrong.

Zerohedge, Breitbart, DailyWire, Washington Times, and whoever the fuck yesiamright.com is are all partisan hacks and then you post a bullshit video from Tim Pool, a fucking nazi apologist? Fuck off with this bullshit.

Without even looking at the links to see the content they are wrong because they have information in them you don't like.

Fucking brilliant. The bullshit to English translation: "I'm too god damned lazy to look and see, and I probably can't refute anything said in the sources without looking like a moron, so I'll just use the ad-hominem approach...."

You make the argument of false assumptions look like a debate mechanism and then bitch that someone doesn't buy into it. So you fuck off with your libtardation. Die alone.

- - - Updated - - -

Their voting and party preference doesn't fucking matter. If they source their findings, then they are legit. I don't give a flying fuck what side of the aisle the are on. But show me a right wing fact checker that is truthful and I will use that as well. There is a reason there isn't any.

Oh... Riiiiight it doesn't matter when they are on YOUR side, everyone else is just wrong. Doesn't matter that we have video evidence of CNN lying through their fucking teeth to people, or not. Doesn't matter that we keep calling out sensationalized news as bullshit.

There are no left wing fact checkers that aren't a bunch of liars and sophists either, so fuck off with that bullshit, too.

- - - Updated - - -

Before or after his 127 golf trips?

https://thegolfnewsnet.com/golfnewsn...otland-110164/

Such hard work, much busy........

It looks like an assertion. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt here, however... show me a schedule of all of them.

And let's assume for a minute this is perfectly correct. So what? Trump just bypassed his 500th day in office, and he has spent on average one of every 4th day on the golf course..... every CEO I have ever worked for has done this to a nearly identical degree. I have every reason in the world to believe this happens pretty widespread across the rich man's demographic, and I'm not bothered by it, because all work and no play makes Trump a dull boy.

[Machismo]

Without even looking at the links to see the content they are wrong because they have information in them you don't like.

Fucking brilliant. The bullshit to English translation: "I'm too god damned lazy to look and see, and I probably can't refute anything said in the sources without looking like a moron, so I'll just use the ad-hominem approach...."

You make the argument of false assumptions look like a debate mechanism and then bitch that someone doesn't buy into it. So you fuck off with your libtardation. Die alone.

- - - Updated - - -



Oh... Riiiiight it doesn't matter when they are on YOUR side, everyone else is just wrong. Doesn't matter that we have video evidence of CNN lying through their fucking teeth to people, or not. Doesn't matter that we keep calling out sensationalized news as bullshit.

There are no left wing fact checkers that aren't a bunch of liars and sophists either, so fuck off with that bullshit, too.

- - - Updated - - -



It looks like an assertion. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt here, however... show me a schedule of all of them.

And let's assume for a minute this is perfectly correct. So what? Trump just bypassed his 500th day in office, and he has spent on average one of every 4th day on the golf course..... every CEO I have ever worked for has done this to a nearly identical degree. I have every reason in the world to believe this happens pretty widespread across the rich man's demographic, and I'm not bothered by it, because all work and no play makes Trump a dull boy.

Remember when Trump and the Trumpsters used to whine about Obama playing golf?

Yeah, I adore the hypocrisy.