Mueller Report Next Week?

[tabibito]

Wrt the New York Times this might be a bit outdated. They have thrown all pretenses into the winds during the 2016 election and their hiring of a blatantly unabashed racist for an editorial position last year was the icing on the cake.

My assessment matches yours, though the specifics you refer to aren't familiar.

As for the "loaded words" I really noticed that while looking for stories concerning the migrant caravans coming from Central America refusing amnesty in Mexico (thus putting the lie to the claim that they were just fleeing persecution and violence). For instance, both papers likened Mexico's offer as a "scheme."

I'll note that inference for "scheme" in American English. Here, the wider context would be needed to lend "scheme" a negative connotation (i.e. of and by itself, "scheme" is emotionally neutral.)

[Mountain Man]

The NY Times and Washington Post are both reputable media outlets with a long history of reliable reporting.

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/breitbart/

Source: Media Bias Fact Check: Incompetent or Dishonest?

https://www.justfactsdaily.com/media...-or-dishonest/

© Copyright Original Source

Source: Can you trust what "Media Bias/Fact Check" says about PolitiFact?

Media Bias/Fact Check bills itself as "The most comprehensive media bias resource." It's run by Dave Van Zandt, making it fair to say it's run by "some guy" ("Dave studied Communications in college" is his main claim to expertise).

We have nothing against "some guy" possessing expertise despite a lack of qualifications, of course. One doesn't need a degree or awards (or audience) to be right about stuff. But is Van Zandt and his Media Bias/Fact Check right about PolitiFact?

Media Bias/Fact Check rates PolitiFact as a "Least-biased" source of information. How does MB/FC reach that conclusion? The website has a "Methodology" page describing its methods:

The method for (rating bias) is determined by ranking bias in four different categories. In each category the source is rated on a 0-10 scale, with 0 meaning without bias and 10 being the maximum bias(worst). These four numbers are then added up and divided by 4. This 0-10 number is then placed on the line according to their Left or Right bias.

This system makes PolitiFact's "Truth-O-Meter" almost look objective by comparison. An 11-point scale? To obtain objectivity with an 11-point scale would require a very finely-grained system of objective bias measures--something that probably nobody on the planet has even dreamt of achieving.

It comes as no surprise that Van Zandt lacks those objective measures:

The categories are as follows (bold emphasis added):

1. Biased Wording/Headlines- Does the source use loaded words to convey emotion to sway the reader. Do headlines match the story.
2. Factual/Sourcing- Does the source report factually and back up claims with well sourced evidence.
3. Story Choices: Does the source report news from both sides or do they only publish one side.
4. Political Affiliation: How strongly does the source endorse a particular political ideology? In other words how extreme are their views. (This can be rather subjective)

Likely Van Zandt regards only the fourth category as subjective. All four are subjective unless Van Zandt has kept secret additional criteria he uses to judge bias. Think about it. Take the "biased wording" category, for example. Rate the headline bias for "PolitiFact Bias" on a scale of 0-10. Do it. What objective criteria guided the decision?

There is nothing to go on except for one's own subjective notion of where any observed bias falls on the 0-10 scale.

If the scale was worth something, researchers could put the rating system in the hands of any reasonable person and obtain comparable results. Systems with robust objective markers attached to each level of the scale can achieve that. Those lacking such markers will not.

Based on our experience with PolitiFact, we used Van Zandt's system on PolitiFact. Please remember that our experience will not render Van Zandt's system anything other than subjective.

Biased Wording/Headlines: 4
Factual/Sourcing: 3
Story Choices: 4
Political Affiliation: 3

Total=14
Formula calls for division by 4.
14/4=3.5
3.5=Left Center Bias

Why is Van Zandt's rating objectively more valid than ours? Or yours?

...


The temptation of subjective rating scales is obvious, but such scales misinform readers and probably tend to mislead their creators as well.

A rating scale that fails to base its ratings on quantifiable data is worthless. Van Zandt's ratings are worthless except to tell you his opinion.

https://www.politifactbias.com/2017/...check.html?m=1

© Copyright Original Source

Source: Scam site �Media Bias Fact Check� caught cribbing its ratings from Wikipedia

https://www.palmerreport.com/politic...ikipedia/2342/

© Copyright Original Source

[Sparko]

Or Sparko willingly bathe.

I just took my annual bath on New Years!

[JimL]

From the same source, General comments about:

New York Times, Washington Post

These media sources have a slight to moderate liberal bias. They often publish factual information that utilizes loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes) to favor liberal causes. These sources are generally trustworthy for information, but may require further investigation.

Which is to say that the actual information is (often) accurate, but the paper acts positively to influence opinion based on that information. What they print needs to be read with care. That need is demonstrated by headlines which conflict with or misrepresent the facts of the story. They are also selective with regard to coverage: don't expect any positive stories to be printed unless those stories reflect their political aims or ideology. Don't expect them to print stories where the facts conflict with their agenda.

Breitbart

A questionable source exhibits one or more of the following: extreme bias, consistent promotion of propaganda/conspiracies, poor or no sourcing to credible information, a complete lack of transparency and/or is fake news. Fake News is the deliberate attempt to publish hoaxes and/or disinformation for the purpose of profit or influence (Learn More). Sources listed in the Questionable Category may be very untrustworthy and should be fact checked on a per article basis. Please note sources on this list are not considered fake news unless specifically written in the reasoning section for that source.
nuff said.

CNN

These media sources are moderately to strongly biased toward liberal causes through story selection and/or political affiliation. They may utilize strong loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes), publish misleading reports and omit reporting of information that may damage liberal causes. Some sources in this category may be untrustworthy.

FOX (deemed further from centre than CNN.)

These media sources are moderately to strongly biased toward conservative causes through story selection and/or political affiliation. They may utilize strong loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes), publish misleading reports and omit reporting of information that may damage conservative causes. Some sources in this category may be untrustworthy.

There is no cause for confidence in any of them.

There is a difference between being a politically biased outlet and being a propaganda outlet. Fox and Breitbart fit the latter category!

[rogue06]

I'll note that inference for "scheme" in American English. Here, the wider context would be needed to lend "scheme" a negative connotation (i.e. of and by itself, "scheme" is emotionally neutral.)

Call someone a schemer here and see what sort of reaction you get

[rogue06]

I just took my annual bath on New Years!

I thought you usually waited for the weather to warm up a bit before your annual keelhauling.

[tabibito]

There is a difference between being a politically biased outlet and being a propaganda outlet. Fox and Breitbart fit the latter category!

Breitbart yes. Fox no - not according to the ratings mob anyway. Though as has been observed, there seems to have been some shifting since those things were posted.

[tabibito]

Call someone a schemer here and see what sort of reaction you get

Yep - I figured that's where "scheme" picked up the dirty name.

[JimL]

Breitbart yes. Fox no - not according to the ratings mob anyway. Though as has been observed, there seems to have been some shifting since those things were posted.

Fox spews out lies constantly. Just yesterday they reported that Trump has a 55% favorability rating when in actuality it's somewhere in the low 40's. You can find the same kind of falsehoods on many of their shows every day. It is, though they have a few jounalist with integrity, basically a propaganda outlet.

[Mountain Man]

Breitbart yes. Fox no - not according to the ratings mob anyway. Though as has been observed, there seems to have been some shifting since those things were posted.

Breitbart isn't propaganda. It's a serious news organization with an admitted strong conservative bias. I've often challenged the critics here to point out stories from Breitbart that are factually incorrect or even fabricated (you know, the kind of stuff that is regularly published by BuzzFeed, CNN, the New York Times, Washington Post, etc.), and they always come up empty. carpedm offered the novel conspiracy theory that the only reason Breitbart publishes "factually straight" stories is as a deceptive ruse to prevent their critics from being able to claim that Breitbart doesn't report the facts.

[tabibito]

Breitbart isn't propaganda. It's a serious news organization with an admitted strong conservative bias. I've often challenged the critics here to point out stories from Breitbart that are factually incorrect or even fabricated (you know, the kind of stuff that is regularly published by BuzzFeed, CNN, the New York Times, Washington Post, etc.), and they always come up empty. carpedm offered the novel conspiracy theory that the only reason Breitbart publishes "factually straight" stories is as a deceptive ruse to prevent their critics from being able to claim that Breitbart doesn't report the facts.

Can we leave the twilight zone yet?




When I see reports in any of them, I try to find something else to check the reports against anyway.

[Cow Poke]

Fox spews out lies constantly. Just yesterday they reported that Trump has a 55% favorability rating when in actuality it's somewhere in the low 40's.

Calm yourself, Jim - it was an error that they've already fessed up to and corrected... (but lemme highlight some fun facts in this)

Fox Business issues correction for botched Trump approval poll

showed a 58 percent approval rating for Trump's handling of the economy and a 55 percent overall approval rating for the president.

However, the 55 percent figure actually represents the number of respondents who said they hold unfavorable views of Trump. According to the survey, 41 percent have a favorable view of Trump. Of those polled, 52 percent disapprove of Trump's job as president, compared with the 43 percent who said they approve.

"According to a poll from Georgetown University, That portion of the graphic was right,Fox News White House Correspondent Kevin Corke also issued a similar statement on Fox News.

[Cow Poke]

Can we leave the twilight zone yet?

In order to leave the twilight zone, one would actually have to be aware they are in it.

[Mountain Man]

Can we leave the twilight zone yet?

All you need to do is shine the light of truth into the darkest recesses of the liberal media. I've found Breitbart (among other sources) to serve that purpose admirably.

[rogue06]

In order to leave the twilight zone, one would actually have to be aware they are in it.

Even if you're in the Outer Limits of the Twilight Zone?