Originally posted by Mountain Man
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
Civics 101 Guidelines
Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!
Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less
'Not The Same Biden': WH Stenographer Says Biden's 'Mental Acuity' Has Deteriorated
Collapse
X
-
I believe Biden is on a CNN Town Hall tonight. I don't think I'm going to be able to watch. I'm looking forward to the reviews on Friday."For I desire mercy, not sacrifice, and acknowledgment of God rather than burnt offerings." Hosea 6:6
"Theology can be an intellectual entertainment." Metropolitan Anthony Bloom
Comment
-
Another one: Biden shouts that he's running for the United States Senate and then directs people to a nonexistent website. And then later he can't remember Mitt Romney's name, referring to him as "the Senator, the Mormon, who used to be a governor".
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattve...gaffe-n2577933Last edited by Mountain Man; 10-12-2020, 07:07 PM.Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
Than a fool in the eyes of God
From "Fools Gold" by Petra
Comment
-
Originally posted by Mr. Genetic Fallcy View PostNot a credible source of factual information.Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
Than a fool in the eyes of God
From "Fools Gold" by Petra
Comment
-
Originally posted by Mountain Man View PostAnother one: Biden shouts that he's running for the United States Senate and then directs people to a nonexistent website. And then later he can't remember Mitt Romney's name, referring to him as "the Senator, the Mormon, who used to be a governor".
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattve...gaffe-n2577933
Comment
-
Originally posted by seanD View Post
I'm not sure what point you have in saying that when we can all watch the video ourselves and see that it is.
You can watch whatever you want, and conclude whatever you want from it - but that doesn't make the conclusion credible.Last edited by Whateverman; 10-13-2020, 12:01 AM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Whateverman View Post
Can "we"? I can't, because the source of the information - including the video - is a known source of disinformation.
You can watch whatever you want, and conclude whatever you want from it - but that doesn't make the conclusion credible.
- 1 like
Comment
-
Originally posted by Mr. Genetic Fallacy View Post
Can "we"? I can't, because the source of the information - including the video - is a known source of disinformation.
You can watch whatever you want, and conclude whatever you want from it - but that doesn't make the conclusion credible.
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):- Biased Wording/Headlines- Does the source use loaded words to convey emotion to sway the reader. Do headlines match the story.
- Factual/Sourcing- Does the source report factually and back up claims with well sourced evidence.
- Story Choices: Does the source report news from both sides or do they only publish one side.
- 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?
https://www.justfactsdaily.com/media...t-or-dishonest
The flagrant and simplistic nature of these bogus critiques suggests that Media Bias Fact Check is either inept and/or dishonest.
Siewert goes on to write that Just Facts is “a deceptive site because they do use facts, but not all the facts in order to mask their right Bias.” As proof of this, she cites two articles that take issue with the Stanford Law Review paper cited by Just Facts. Neither of these articles appeared in a journal, and one of them is from a publication “written and published entirely by Harvard undergraduates.” Siewert does not even attempt to prove whether the critiques have any factual or logical value.
Worse still, the lone excerpt that Siewert cited from these articles does not even take issue with the facts from Stanford Law Review paper that were presented by Just Facts. Thus, she must not understand the context in which Just Facts cited the paper, or she is lying about it.
By Siewert’s logic, if someone cites a peer-reviewed paper, and anyone argues against it, then the person who cited the paper is “deceptive” and “masking their bias” if they don’t cite the critique—regardless of whether it has any merit or relevance. This inane standard would apply to just about every scholar.
https://www.justfactsdaily.com/media...t-or-dishonest
But getting back on topic, are you suggesting that the videos posted in the Townhall article were fabricated? That Joe Biden never actually said what he is clearly seen saying in the footage? Or did you even bother to look a the source for yourself and just went off on your logical fallacy tangent?Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
Than a fool in the eyes of God
From "Fools Gold" by Petra
Comment
-
Originally posted by Mountain Man View PostAnother one: Biden shouts that he's running for the United States Senate and then directs people to a nonexistent website. And then later he can't remember Mitt Romney's name, referring to him as "the Senator, the Mormon, who used to be a governor".
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattve...gaffe-n2577933
The former can have people around him to double-check him, or jog his memory. And the latter just needs a parent figure around to swat him on the butt when he misbehaves. But Melania won't let Stormy Daniels in the White House, so I'm going to have to say that we are safer with Biden.
Comment
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by little_monkey, Yesterday, 04:19 PM
|
6 responses
48 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by whag
Yesterday, 08:38 PM
|
||
Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
|
42 responses
234 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by whag
Yesterday, 03:53 PM
|
||
Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
|
24 responses
104 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Ronson
Yesterday, 02:40 PM
|
||
Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
|
32 responses
178 views
0 likes
|
Last Post Yesterday, 08:22 AM | ||
Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
|
73 responses
310 views
0 likes
|
Last Post Today, 03:51 AM |
Comment