4 ms·

Conservative: makes claims, provides "sources" You reference mediabiasfactcheck.com a hobby site by a creator who says "his methods are not rigorously objectiv

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
      >You're assuming the Daily wire is not a trustworthy source. I'm not assuming anything, remember? That's according to the source you were crowing about. >Thanks for the source! I love being given more material that backs my claims! The folks at mediabiasfactcheck (which you've continuously defended) gave the Daily Wire a "Mixed" ranking for Factual Reporting. They couldn't even make it to "mostly factual" (which seems like a pretty low bar).
      - PathOfEclipse 4y ago
        You're being very dishonest, and we both know it. If a news source is legitimately mixed in factual reporting, that would mean you can't assume what they are saying is false, because some of what they say is true by definition. But you just outright dismissed the entire site! Anyways, you didn't actually catch me on anything. I knew long before that Daily Wire had a "mixed" rating on that site. I had also already clicked on all their examples of false reporting, and all of them were climate change-related articles from years ago where they found a scientist who disagreed with the reporting. So, uh, don't trust Daily wire for climate change articles? Anyways, even a recent hit piece from NPR admitted that daily wire's reporting is mostly factual: https://www.dailywire.com/news/npr-accuses-daily-wire-of-tricking-readers-because-were-conservative-thats-a-lie-but-npr-is-lying-to-its-own-readers?force_isolation=true https://www.dailywire.com/news/npr-accuses-daily-wire-of-tri... From NPR: "The articles The Daily Wire publishes don’t normally include falsehoods (with some exceptions), and the site said it is committed to “truthful, accurate and ethical reporting.”" Please come talk to me again when you're willing to have an honest discussion about a topic, and not when you're just trying, and failing, to score points. (link to original NPR hit piece here: https://www.npr.org/2021/07/19/1013793067/outrage-as-a-business-model-how-ben-shapiro-is-using-facebook-to-build-an-empire https://www.npr.org/2021/07/19/1013793067/outrage-as-a-busin...) (link to analysis of the hit piece from western journal: https://www.westernjournal.com/fact-check-npr-caught-blatantly-lying-daily-wire-hit-piece-conservative-news/ https://www.westernjournal.com/fact-check-npr-caught-blatant...)

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
    >You're assuming the Daily wire is not a trustworthy source. I'm not assuming anything, remember? That's according to the source you were crowing about. >Thanks for the source! I love being given more material that backs my claims! The folks at mediabiasfactcheck (which you've continuously defended) gave the Daily Wire a "Mixed" ranking for Factual Reporting. They couldn't even make it to "mostly factual" (which seems like a pretty low bar).
    - PathOfEclipse 4y ago
      You're being very dishonest, and we both know it. If a news source is legitimately mixed in factual reporting, that would mean you can't assume what they are saying is false, because some of what they say is true by definition. But you just outright dismissed the entire site! Anyways, you didn't actually catch me on anything. I knew long before that Daily Wire had a "mixed" rating on that site. I had also already clicked on all their examples of false reporting, and all of them were climate change-related articles from years ago where they found a scientist who disagreed with the reporting. So, uh, don't trust Daily wire for climate change articles? Anyways, even a recent hit piece from NPR admitted that daily wire's reporting is mostly factual: https://www.dailywire.com/news/npr-accuses-daily-wire-of-tricking-readers-because-were-conservative-thats-a-lie-but-npr-is-lying-to-its-own-readers?force_isolation=true https://www.dailywire.com/news/npr-accuses-daily-wire-of-tri... From NPR: "The articles The Daily Wire publishes don’t normally include falsehoods (with some exceptions), and the site said it is committed to “truthful, accurate and ethical reporting.”" Please come talk to me again when you're willing to have an honest discussion about a topic, and not when you're just trying, and failing, to score points. (link to original NPR hit piece here: https://www.npr.org/2021/07/19/1013793067/outrage-as-a-business-model-how-ben-shapiro-is-using-facebook-to-build-an-empire https://www.npr.org/2021/07/19/1013793067/outrage-as-a-busin...) (link to analysis of the hit piece from western journal: https://www.westernjournal.com/fact-check-npr-caught-blatantly-lying-daily-wire-hit-piece-conservative-news/ https://www.westernjournal.com/fact-check-npr-caught-blatant...)