4 ms·

I found the site tad bit suspicious when they proclaim they are the "small indie company" doing the good fight multi national companies won't (got nothing again

by 0dayz 4y ago

I found the site tad bit suspicious when they proclaim they are the "small indie company" doing the good fight multi national companies won't (got nothing against left wing causes but I do think far left is a problem) . According to mediabias: https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/novara-media-bias/ https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/novara-media-bias/ The site is far left with mixed factual/credibility.

vintermann 4y ago
Your authority on bias is associated with that part of the US foreign policy establishment known as "The blob". So it's more informative if you say "The site is considered far left with mixed factual credibility by a minor CFR clerk". But really, that's telling us little that isn't dead obvious already!
- 0dayz 4y ago
  I'm sorry but genuinely don't get what you're trying to say here, is it an insult? A praise?
  - vintermann 4y ago
    I'm saying if you really need to criticize an opinion article based on its source, don't quote such a laughable authority as "mediabiasfactcheck.com" (Now, an actually good criticism of this article would be to ask: aren't bankers actually doing their job for once with wheat futures, if they're preventing a shortage by increasing prices in anticipation of it?)
    - 0dayz 4y ago
      It's clearly labeled "analysis" not opinion. And why specifically is mbfc laughable authority? From what I gather they seem to do at least a decent job at looking into the media outlet's credibility & political position. I'll admit, I don't have a degree in economics, neither do the author (they're a sociologist). But even I can tell that they either are withholding information to suit their political point (bankers bad) or they genuinely don't know enough and are doing a correlation = causation. Since the "analysis" doesn't analysis anything, it only points things out, without going into detail explaining why, how and where food production is allocated, really it's the bare minimum if even that. Of course if you want a more detailed critic zhiyanfoo's comment is far more detailed.

by 0dayz 4y ago

vintermann 4y ago

Your authority on bias is associated with that part of the US foreign policy establishment known as "The blob". So it's more informative if you say "The site is considered far left with mixed factual credibility by a minor CFR clerk". But really, that's telling us little that isn't dead obvious already!

0dayz 4y ago
I'm sorry but genuinely don't get what you're trying to say here, is it an insult? A praise?
- vintermann 4y ago
  I'm saying if you really need to criticize an opinion article based on its source, don't quote such a laughable authority as "mediabiasfactcheck.com" (Now, an actually good criticism of this article would be to ask: aren't bankers actually doing their job for once with wheat futures, if they're preventing a shortage by increasing prices in anticipation of it?)
  - 0dayz 4y ago
    It's clearly labeled "analysis" not opinion. And why specifically is mbfc laughable authority? From what I gather they seem to do at least a decent job at looking into the media outlet's credibility & political position. I'll admit, I don't have a degree in economics, neither do the author (they're a sociologist). But even I can tell that they either are withholding information to suit their political point (bankers bad) or they genuinely don't know enough and are doing a correlation = causation. Since the "analysis" doesn't analysis anything, it only points things out, without going into detail explaining why, how and where food production is allocated, really it's the bare minimum if even that. Of course if you want a more detailed critic zhiyanfoo's comment is far more detailed.