3 ms·

I agree that bias is unavoidable. But what we're talking about here is an organization who's entire purpose for existing is to spread conservative views. Furthe

by mthoms 3y ago

I agree that bias is unavoidable. But what we're talking about here is an organization who's entire purpose for existing is to spread conservative views. Furthermore, they blatantly misrepresented the very question asked in the poll. The poll is not about "euthanasia" or "murder", yet the piece implies otherwise. Since it's emotionally charged and intentionally misleading, it's not really the best source to quote.

anonymouskimmer 3y ago
> it's not really the best source to quote. Sure. I presumed people could parse out the emotion from such an obviously biased source and focus on the claims. But yes, cherry-picked quotes have a higher likelihood from such a source. The purpose of a source doesn't matter. Whether or not they are misrepresenting (and what they are misrepresenting) does. ProPublica exists solely "To expose abuses of power and betrayals of the public trust by government, business, and other institutions, using the moral force of investigative journalism to spur reform through the sustained spotlighting of wrongdoing." Yet it does it right, earning a very highly-placed spot on the Ad Fontes Media Bias Chart.
- mthoms 3y ago
  Just take the "L" :-). You're not going to convince me that it was a worthwhile source, or that the motivations of a speaker don't deserve consideration. Thats plainly absurd. Especially when there's money AND (religious) ideology involved. Sorry. It's true that no source is perfect - but some sources are much less perfect than others. Anyways, thanks for the respectful dialogue. Cheers.
  - anonymouskimmer 3y ago
    I was thinking of this as a discussion, not something people can win or lose. You having an opposite opinion isn't a loss to me, because we had a good discussion about it.
    - mthoms 3y ago
      I enjoyed the discussion. If you gave some semblance of acknowledgment that the opinion piece wasn't so great, and those same sentiments could be expressed in a more constructive manner we could have moved on. No worries, though. Cheers.
      - anonymouskimmer 3y ago
        It was a poor source for the content that I didn't directly quote. I stand by the content that I did quote.

by mthoms 3y ago

anonymouskimmer 3y ago

> it's not really the best source to quote. Sure. I presumed people could parse out the emotion from such an obviously biased source and focus on the claims. But yes, cherry-picked quotes have a higher likelihood from such a source. The purpose of a source doesn't matter. Whether or not they are misrepresenting (and what they are misrepresenting) does. ProPublica exists solely "To expose abuses of power and betrayals of the public trust by government, business, and other institutions, using the moral force of investigative journalism to spur reform through the sustained spotlighting of wrongdoing." Yet it does it right, earning a very highly-placed spot on the Ad Fontes Media Bias Chart.

mthoms 3y ago
Just take the "L" :-). You're not going to convince me that it was a worthwhile source, or that the motivations of a speaker don't deserve consideration. Thats plainly absurd. Especially when there's money AND (religious) ideology involved. Sorry. It's true that no source is perfect - but some sources are much less perfect than others. Anyways, thanks for the respectful dialogue. Cheers.
- anonymouskimmer 3y ago
  I was thinking of this as a discussion, not something people can win or lose. You having an opposite opinion isn't a loss to me, because we had a good discussion about it.
  - mthoms 3y ago
    I enjoyed the discussion. If you gave some semblance of acknowledgment that the opinion piece wasn't so great, and those same sentiments could be expressed in a more constructive manner we could have moved on. No worries, though. Cheers.
    - anonymouskimmer 3y ago
      It was a poor source for the content that I didn't directly quote. I stand by the content that I did quote.