3 ms·

The only difference is that the Guardian/NYT's lies are accepted enough to be dangerous. See: russiagate; russian bounties for american soldiers; the lack of r

by beaner 5y ago

The only difference is that the Guardian/NYT's lies are accepted enough to be dangerous. See: russiagate; russian bounties for american soldiers; the lack of representation of blacks and minorities in initial Covid coverage, leading many to assume it did not affect them; etc.

sofixa 5y ago
You're going to have to do better than that. Please provide articles from The Guardian that were stating incorrect facts (not reporting allegations or personal opinions) that weren't recanted later when new evidence came to light. Edit to clarify: you're making a statement, you should be able to provide direct proof. Most sources claim the Guardian is mostly factually correct: https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-guardian/ https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-guardian/ ( which is American-centric, so ignore the bullshit liberal and conservative arguments) says they're mostly factual with the `Failed Fact Checks` section including opinion pieces and reporting as per X (e.g. https://fullfact.org/education/barnardos-foster-care-coronavirus/ https://fullfact.org/education/barnardos-foster-care-coronav...) , and the fact check saying X's report is wrong, not that the Guardian are misrepresenting facts. https://www.adfontesmedia.com/the-guardian-bias-and-reliability/ https://www.adfontesmedia.com/the-guardian-bias-and-reliabil... says they're very reliable.
- beaner 5y ago
  Yeah... I'm not going to go down the rabbit hole for you. You have to have been paying attention. These things turned out to be false but were continuously reported on at length as if they were true, even though plenty of sound skepticism existed at the time and a basic, continuous, genuine application of journalistic standards would have compelled then to ask, what is this based on? And discovered it was nothing or made-up. When it comes to your links, consider that media ranking the media is perhaps not the least-biased judgment. Outlets branding themselves as fact-checkers are often particularly egregious. Snopes, for example, can't even dispassionately and accurately rate stories that do not fit a woke worldview. I once read a NYT "fact check" that was checking a trump quote. One of the quotes was "we've been fighting in the middle east for 17 years." They rated this statement False, flat-out. Why? The correction stated, "We've been fighting in afghanistan for 17 years, but afghanistan is not the middle east. We've been fighting in the middle east for 16 years." It completely ignored the point of the statement to issue a False rating on a technicality. Any reasonable interpretation would not have done so. This is an example of the accuracy of modern-day "fact-checking." It's basically made up.

by beaner 5y ago

sofixa 5y ago

You're going to have to do better than that. Please provide articles from The Guardian that were stating incorrect facts (not reporting allegations or personal opinions) that weren't recanted later when new evidence came to light. Edit to clarify: you're making a statement, you should be able to provide direct proof. Most sources claim the Guardian is mostly factually correct: https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-guardian/ https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-guardian/ ( which is American-centric, so ignore the bullshit liberal and conservative arguments) says they're mostly factual with the `Failed Fact Checks` section including opinion pieces and reporting as per X (e.g. https://fullfact.org/education/barnardos-foster-care-coronavirus/ https://fullfact.org/education/barnardos-foster-care-coronav...) , and the fact check saying X's report is wrong, not that the Guardian are misrepresenting facts. https://www.adfontesmedia.com/the-guardian-bias-and-reliability/ https://www.adfontesmedia.com/the-guardian-bias-and-reliabil... says they're very reliable.

beaner 5y ago
Yeah... I'm not going to go down the rabbit hole for you. You have to have been paying attention. These things turned out to be false but were continuously reported on at length as if they were true, even though plenty of sound skepticism existed at the time and a basic, continuous, genuine application of journalistic standards would have compelled then to ask, what is this based on? And discovered it was nothing or made-up. When it comes to your links, consider that media ranking the media is perhaps not the least-biased judgment. Outlets branding themselves as fact-checkers are often particularly egregious. Snopes, for example, can't even dispassionately and accurately rate stories that do not fit a woke worldview. I once read a NYT "fact check" that was checking a trump quote. One of the quotes was "we've been fighting in the middle east for 17 years." They rated this statement False, flat-out. Why? The correction stated, "We've been fighting in afghanistan for 17 years, but afghanistan is not the middle east. We've been fighting in the middle east for 16 years." It completely ignored the point of the statement to issue a False rating on a technicality. Any reasonable interpretation would not have done so. This is an example of the accuracy of modern-day "fact-checking." It's basically made up.