Originally posted by: PokerGuy
I won't link to anything
Then at least READ the goddamn OP. Casting vague accusations and telling someone to "go google' is exactly the damaging sort of crap I'm talking about.
People from the entire political spectrum regularly cite and refer to Factcheck, so the overwhelming consensus is they are a valid independent source. You come in and say "there's plenty of evidence of bias, go google".
For shits and giggles I did. Know what I found? Accusations of bias from righty bloggers and on random forum message boards. That's it. This is not credible evidence.
Your turn. If you have any evidence of bias, post it. Surely it can't be hard to find.
Originally posted by: PokerGuy
As soon as one starts inserting opinion into it, it's no longer objective facts, and thus more subject to bias. It's less biased than most typical hackery sites, but there is bias included.
You and CAD confuse an editorial comment with bias. I can only conclude that neither of you knows what the definition of bias is. Editorial comments are inserted into factcheck articles about Obama and articles about McCain. How does this demonstrate bias?
Here's an example of each from Factcheck.
Checking Obama
"By using months-old quotes and selective editing, the Obama ad distorts McCain's assessment of the economy."
Obama would likely contest the ad distorts McCain's assessment, after all, "he approved his message." But common sense interpretation tells us this is exactly what happened. Is the author "biased" against Obama for drawing this conclusion? No.
Checking McCain
"We call a foul ball on this one. By separating Obama's words from their context, and from his other comments on the subject, McCain's ad distorts Obama's stated views on Iran."
Naturally McCain would dispute that his ad is either out of context or that it distorts Obama's views. Yet Factcheck draws this conclusion after looking at the context and making a common sense apolitical judgment. Is the author biased against McCain? No.