4 ms·

Conservative: makes claims, provides sources. Leftist: makes claims, can't be bothered to cite anything to support them. If only this weren't a typical patter

Conservative: makes claims, provides sources. Leftist: makes claims, can't be bothered to cite anything to support them. If only this weren't a typical pattern! No leftwing popular media? Are you joking? Even left-leaning "bias" sites show that the biggest names in news as being on the left: https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/new-york-times/ https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/new-york-times/ https://www.allsides.com/news-source/new-york-times https://www.allsides.com/news-source/new-york-times And for AP: https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/associated-press/ https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/associated-press/ My only disagreement is to replace "left-center" with far-left.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
bink 4y ago
I'll never understand how people can justify seeing the world in such binary terms. You don't honestly think someone is "bad" or "good" based on political ideology, do you?
- PathOfEclipse 4y ago
  It's easy to summarize the world in binary terms based on empirical evidence that comes from your own experiences. In my experience, conservatives are far more likely to back up their claims with evidence than those on the left. Is it always true? Of course not. But it certainly is a generalization I am convinced that is supported by reality.
nervelink 4y ago
Conservative: makes claims, provides "sources" You reference mediabiasfactcheck.com a hobby site by a creator who says "his methods are not rigorously objective." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_Bias/Fact_Check#Methodology https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_Bias/Fact_Check#Methodol... You reference the dailywire so much when even your own source (mediabiasfactcheck) rates them just short of "extreme right" and rates their "Factual Reporting" as "MIXED"? Why would anyone take the time to respond to each of your points any more than they would a random Facebook post?
- petersellers 4y ago
  This is part of what makes political discourse so challenging today. It's really easy to conjure up evidence in the form of poorly written articles with bad sources (or outright fabrications), but exponentially more difficult to go and fact check every one of these sources any time they are trotted out.
- PathOfEclipse 4y ago
  And, from your own wikipedia article: " A study published in Scientific Reports wrote: "While [Media Bias/Fact Check's] credibility is sometimes questioned, it has been regarded as accurate enough to be used as ground-truth." Thanks for the source! I love being given more material that backs my claims! What does it mean to rigorously and objectively classify a news site as on the left or on the right? More importantly, what's your alternative classification system that is more objective and rigorous? It's so easy to criticize, and yet so hard to come up with something better. Again, you bring absolutely nothing to the conversation. How do you intend to convince anyone of anything?
  - nervelink 4y ago
    >Thanks for the source! I love being given more material that backs my claims! None of your dailywire claims have been backed up. You keep dodging that fact. >Again, you bring absolutely nothing to the conversation. All I'm trying to "bring to the conversation" is the fact that your "sources" are just links to a site nobody could possibly trust. But since that's clearly good enough for you to take as fact, you're exactly the kind of person they hope to rope in.
    - PathOfEclipse 4y ago
      You're assuming the Daily wire is not a trustworthy source. I do not share that assumption. If you want to debunk them, do it yourself. Otherwise, they stand as solid supporting evidence!
      - nervelink 4y ago

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

bink 4y ago

I'll never understand how people can justify seeing the world in such binary terms. You don't honestly think someone is "bad" or "good" based on political ideology, do you?

PathOfEclipse 4y ago
It's easy to summarize the world in binary terms based on empirical evidence that comes from your own experiences. In my experience, conservatives are far more likely to back up their claims with evidence than those on the left. Is it always true? Of course not. But it certainly is a generalization I am convinced that is supported by reality.

nervelink 4y ago

Conservative: makes claims, provides "sources" You reference mediabiasfactcheck.com a hobby site by a creator who says "his methods are not rigorously objective." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_Bias/Fact_Check#Methodology https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_Bias/Fact_Check#Methodol... You reference the dailywire so much when even your own source (mediabiasfactcheck) rates them just short of "extreme right" and rates their "Factual Reporting" as "MIXED"? Why would anyone take the time to respond to each of your points any more than they would a random Facebook post?

petersellers 4y ago
This is part of what makes political discourse so challenging today. It's really easy to conjure up evidence in the form of poorly written articles with bad sources (or outright fabrications), but exponentially more difficult to go and fact check every one of these sources any time they are trotted out.
PathOfEclipse 4y ago
And, from your own wikipedia article: " A study published in Scientific Reports wrote: "While [Media Bias/Fact Check's] credibility is sometimes questioned, it has been regarded as accurate enough to be used as ground-truth." Thanks for the source! I love being given more material that backs my claims! What does it mean to rigorously and objectively classify a news site as on the left or on the right? More importantly, what's your alternative classification system that is more objective and rigorous? It's so easy to criticize, and yet so hard to come up with something better. Again, you bring absolutely nothing to the conversation. How do you intend to convince anyone of anything?
- nervelink 4y ago
  >Thanks for the source! I love being given more material that backs my claims! None of your dailywire claims have been backed up. You keep dodging that fact. >Again, you bring absolutely nothing to the conversation. All I'm trying to "bring to the conversation" is the fact that your "sources" are just links to a site nobody could possibly trust. But since that's clearly good enough for you to take as fact, you're exactly the kind of person they hope to rope in.
  - PathOfEclipse 4y ago
    You're assuming the Daily wire is not a trustworthy source. I do not share that assumption. If you want to debunk them, do it yourself. Otherwise, they stand as solid supporting evidence!
    - nervelink 4y ago