4 ms·
IMO Wikipedia is a bias source for anything politics related. Heck the Wikipedia page for its confounder even mentions this. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larr
by keneda7 5y ago
IMO Wikipedia is a bias source for anything politics related. Heck the Wikipedia page for its confounder even mentions this.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_Sanger#:~:text=In%20a%20blog%20post%20in,Wikipedia%20as%20%22badly%20biased%22.&text=He%20listed%20other%20topics%20he,%2C%20religion%2C%20and%20LGBT%20adoption https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_Sanger#:~:text=In%20a%20....
I have found this site to be much more reliable when looking for media bias.
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/new-york-times/ https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/new-york-times/
- nend 5y agoThat website also says the WSJ has a right lean: "Overall, we rate the Wall Street Journal Right-Center biased due to low biased news reporting combined with a strong right biased editorial stance." https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/wall-street-journal/ https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/wall-street-journal/
- keneda7 5y agoYa that is my mistake sorry it was early and somehow I misread WSJ as NYT.
- hairofadog 5y agoI’m confused (sincerely, not concern trolling) about the point you’re making by linking to media bias fact check for NYT (which wasn’t being discussed) but not WSJ or Wikipedia. According to the site you find reliable, NYT: biased center left, factual reporting “high” WSJ: biased on the right edge of center right, factual reporting “mostly factual” Wikipedia: “least biased”, factual reporting “mixed”
- keneda7 5y agoNope you are correct. It was early and I misread it as NYT. That is my mistake