Trump now openly asks China for help in the 2020 election

[Charles]

This reminds me of the time you claimed that Breitbart reported the straight facts only as a deceptive ruse to prevent critics from accusing them of not reporting the straight facts. If only all news sources were so devious.

Media Bias Fact Check says very shortly about Breitbart: Overall, we rate Breitbart Questionable based on extreme right wing bias, publication of conspiracy theories and propaganda as well as numerous false claims.

For anyone looking for examples of false stories brought to us by Breitbart, they provide a list of them here: https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/breitbart/

[Mountain Man]

Media Bias Fact Check says very shortly about Breitbart: Overall, we rate Breitbart Questionable based on extreme right wing bias, publication of conspiracy theories and propaganda as well as numerous false claims.

For anyone looking for examples of false stories brought to us by Breitbart, they provide a list of them here: https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/breitbart/

Or as I like to call them, "Biased Media Fact Check".

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

[Juvenal]

Demi, what ever happened to your Russian accent?

TheologyWeb declined to allow him to continue posting unless he abandoned it.

[JimL]

TheologyWeb declined to allow him to continue posting unless he abandoned it.

Oh, didn't see that. Thanks.

[Mountain Man]

It was less Russian accent and more Cro-Magnon Man.

[Tassman]

20% of the Dems surveyed in that particular survey also believe Biden did something illegal.

Well they would be wrong, but to what survey are you referring?

[carpedm9587]

That's not the standard, either. Facts used in an op/ed have to meet the same standard as facts used in a news report, which amounts to two reliable and independent sources. This just doesn't.

It's been in the press for years that the British investigation was closed down when Shokin's office publicly absolved Zlochevsky. Upthread, I posted remarks from our ambassador:

US Ambassador Geoffrey Pyatt at the Odesa Financial Forum on September 24, 2015:

v.

Solomon:

A British-based investigation of Burisma's owner was closed down in early 2015 on a technicality when a deadline for documents was not met.

Well - you have successfully taught me something. Now that you mention the "two sources" standard, it rings a bell, but I had completely forgotten it. Thanks for the catch and the education!