Obamagate Redux

[Cow Poke]

[seanD]

RUSSIAN PROPAGANDA!

[seer]

RUSSIAN PROPAGANDA!

CP has no shame!

[Cow Poke]

CP has no shame!

I used to, but Rogue stole it.

[shunyadragon]

Source? Breitfart?

[rogue06]

I used to, but Rogue stole it.

rogues never "steal."


We liberate.

[Sparko]

Source? Breitfart?

Click the hyperlinked article headline.

[Ronson]

Source? Breitfart?

"Just The News"

Media Bias / Fact Check = Mostly Trustworthy

save.jpg

[Ronson]

I hope we don't have to watch Strozk being questioned again. He's got one of those smug faces I just want to punch.

[rogue06]

I hope we don't have to watch Strozk being questioned again. He's got one of those smug faces I just want to punch.

Is your superpower the ability to smack folks on the interwebz?

[Ronson]

Is your superpower the ability to smack folks on the interwebz?

In Strozk's case, I wish.

[Cow Poke]

Source? Breitfart?

Are you too stupid to click on a hyperlink?

[Mountain Man]

"Just The News"

Media Bias / Fact Check = Mostly Trustworthy

[ATTACH=CONFIG]46037[/ATTACH]

For the record, Biased Media Fact Check is not a reliable source.

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