2 ms·
Given that mediabiasfactcheck is a highly biased source this is a case of the pot calling out the kettle for being black. This is true for many if not most of t
by hagbard_c 2y ago
Given that mediabiasfactcheck is a highly biased source this is a case of the pot calling out the kettle for being black. This is true for many if not most of the 'fact checking' sites which turn out to be 'desired narrative checkers'.
This leaves aside the fact that Wikipedia itself is one big cesspool of manipulation by interested parties, ideologically driven cabals of editors, commercial entities specialising in online meddling and more. It does not surprise me one bit to see the Iranians join in the fray.
- josefritzishere 2y agoThat bias is immutable and exists in the universe is not a compelling argument that a highly biased source is anything but. I dont reject the topic, it's interesting, but I'd like to see more information from a less dubious source. It's a just a fact that we have to consider the source when vetting any topic these days.
- hagbard_c 2y agoCan you describe what you mean by 'reputable' in a way which works equally well for those who are ideologically aligned with whatever source the term is applied to as to those who are ideologically opposed to it? The Blaze is comparable to The Daily Beast in style and content, the difference between the two is their ideological alignment. Where 'mediabiasfactcheck' marks The Blaze as 'questionable' (with no such marking for the Daily Beast) it is not marked as such elsewhere, e.g. on the Interactive Media Bias Chart [1]which shows these sources are more or less mirror images of each other around the centre axis. [1] https://adfontesmedia.com/interactive-media-bias-chart/ https://adfontesmedia.com/interactive-media-bias-chart/