3 ms·
Seriously? Washington Times has mixed factual reporting, not reliable: https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/washington-times/ https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/washingto
by ycjim 7y ago
Seriously? Washington Times has mixed factual reporting, not reliable: https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/washington-times/ https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/washington-times/
- protomyth 7y agoAnd I am to trust a site called Media Bias / Fact Check website because?
- ceejayoz 7y agoThat site isn't much to write home about. That said, the Washington Times' bias issues aren't a secret. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Washington_Times#Political_stance,_content_and_controversies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Washington_Times#Political...
- CharlesColeman 7y ago> Media Bias / Fact Check That website is garbage, it's just some amateurs slapping ratings on things. It should not be treated as authoritative in any way.
- dragontamer 7y agoWashington Times is well known to be far-right. With that being said, I'm confident that a good discussion would prove the worthiness of the article one way or the other.
- viraptor 7y agoBecause they list and link to the reasoning behind their opinion. You can read the sources and any extra information and form your own. This is not simply "we think it's bad, trust us".
- not_a_cop75 7y agoHonestly, trust this is bad because we said so is not a logical response. At least hot link to the opinion of why.
- happytoexplain 7y agoThe link seems to say more than "this is bad because we said so".
- pg_is_a_butt 7y agoThe Washington Times vouched for them.
- andymockli 7y agoThe "Analysis/Bias" section of Washington Times basically boils down to: founded by religious people, uses language and SEO that they don't like, and publishes articles from scientists they don't like. I don't consider Washington Times as a paper of record necessarily, but I do think fact-checking is a much harder problem than people are willing to grant and the evidence listed in that section wasn't very edifying.