Factcheck/Snopes bias

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: PokerGuy

Breathtakingly inane only if you are too breathtakingly dense to understand simple concepts. Introducing opinion means bias can creep in. They've actually done a pretty good job of not allowing it to get too bad, but it's there nonetheless. You just can't comprehend that there is no "objective" measure to such a bias, so there's no evidence to be brought. If you want objective evidence, stick to science. Otherwise, just realize that there is bias in political reporting and move on.

Okay, so you are objecting the the fundamental basis for rational discourse. That's fine with me. As far as objective measures of bias, there certainly is. Go research some meta-analysis of political reporting along with the great number of studies done on media bias. It's not like this is some new idea, and shockingly enough people have done scientific research on it.

 

[jonks]

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.

 

[fskimospy]

Jonks, you're wasting your time. Pokerguy is literally arguing against factcheck based on the idea that people need to use their brains to evaluate facts and come to conclusions. He's either being so pedantic that he deserves no further response, or he's an incredible moron... in which case what's the point?

 

[evident]

jonks want to be my friend? you are one of the few level headed people here :laugh: P&N is a scary place where spin rules all it seems

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: evident
jonks want to be my friend? you are one of the few level headed people here :laugh: P&N is a scary place where spin rules all it seems

Don't be fooled, I'm in the tank for Hillary!

 

[hellokeith]

FactCheck is owned by Obama's former employer.

xyzsite is owned by McCain's former employer.

Draw your own conclusions about which website would or wouldn't be called biased, in the tank, not credible, etc etc.

 

[PokerGuy]

Originally posted by: jonks
This is not credible evidence.

Your turn. If you have any evidence of bias, post it. Surely it can't be hard to find.

Read my earlier post. Politics is not science, there is no such thing as real evidence. Bias is in the eye of the beholder. You might read something and think it's perfectly "objective" , and someone else could read the same statement and think "geez, that guy is obviously biased against xyz". There is no objective measure or standard to bias. Period.

I've also said that for the most part they do a pretty good job of keeping hackery out of it, but that doesn't mean it's unbiased.

 

[PokerGuy]

Originally posted by: hellokeith
FactCheck is owned by Obama's former employer.

Oh come on now, how dare you think that could cause some bias to creep in, you must be stupid. :roll:

I've seen bias on the left and the right on factcheck.....

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: hellokeith
FactCheck is owned by Obama's former employer.

xyzsite is owned by McCain's former employer.

Draw your own conclusions about which website would or wouldn't be called biased, in the tank, not credible, etc etc.

So you have no evidence either eh?

 

[PokerGuy]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

So you have no evidence either eh?

Talk about dense. Can you show evidence that fox is biased? Not opinion mind you, actual evidence? Of course not, and we all know that fox is right-wing biased to the max.

 

[newnameman]

http://albanymediabias.blogspo...eckorg-turns-left.html

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: PokerGuy

Originally posted by: eskimospy

So you have no evidence either eh?

Talk about dense. Can you show evidence that fox is biased? Not opinion mind you, actual evidence? Of course not, and we all know that fox is right-wing biased to the max.

Are you serious? I agree, talk about dense. Please go educate yourself on media bias. There are tons of studies out there, and yes they show that FOX is biased.

I think you just don't understand that a lot of people have been researching this topic for quite some time and there is in fact a lot of scientific, peer reviewed journal articles and studies published on the subject.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: newnameman
http://albanymediabias.blogspo...eckorg-turns-left.html

Did you read the blog you just linked to? I predicted you perfectly, and no... that's not a credible source.

 

[newmachineoverlord]

Here's an example of a pro-GOP biased interpretation.

Statement in question: "McCain "said no to higher fuel-efficiency standards for cars.""
From the article: "In 2005 and in 2003, McCain voted against an amendment that would have increased fuel-economy standards on a set timetable."
I'd say that's a clear cut case of statement confirmed to be completely true. McCain voted against increasing fuel economy standards twice. Yet somehow despite this fact they see fit to call it "barely true."
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/672/

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: hellokeith
FactCheck is owned by Obama's former employer.

Originally posted by: jonks
But stop with the "they're biased" claims when the only "evidence/proof" being that someone once knew someone who worked with someone who got money from someone that knew X candidate.

Thanks for helping to illustrate my point. Did you know Bush has a financial interest in oil? Guess he must have started the Iraq war for oil. At the very least it factored into his decision that he'd profit, right?

But lets assess your claim. Obama was employed by a division of Annenberg, which also funds a public policy center at Upenn, which runs Factcheck, which is staffed by lifelong scholars and journalists who worked with news sources from the Wall Street Journal to CNN, which has analyzed statements for years before Obama surfaced, which receives no funding from business corporations or labor unions or political parties, which has an archive overflowing with corrections of statements made by politicians of every stripe and political party including Obama, which has been cited by Dick Cheney as an accurate source of information, and you assert the site is going to risk it's credibility and purpose for existence, and the lifelong journalists working there are going to risk their reputation and careers by espousing articles biased towards Obama simply because a decade ago he chaired a charity in Chicago that was funded by the same people that fund them.

Bravo. You could teach the Truthers a thing or two.

 

[sportage]

Here some fact checking:

·Palin recently said that the war in Iraq is "God's task." She's even admitted she hasn't thought about the war much?just last year she was quoted saying, "I've been so focused on state government, I haven't really focused much on the war in Iraq."

·Palin has actively sought the support of the fringe Alaska Independence Party. Six months ago, Palin told members of the group?who advocate for a vote on secession from the union?to "keep up the good work" and "wished the party luck on what she called its 'inspiring convention.'

·Palin wants to teach creationism in public schools. She hasn't made clear whether she thinks evolution is a fact.

·Palin doesn't believe that humans contribute to global warming. Speaking about climate change, she said, "I'm not one though who would attribute it to being manmade."

·Palin has close ties to Big Oil. Her inauguration was even sponsored by BP.

·Palin is extremely anti-choice. She doesn't even support abortion in the case of rape or incest.

·Palin opposes comprehensive sex-ed in public schools. She's said she will only support abstinence-only approaches.

·As mayor, Palin tried to ban books from the library. Palin asked the library how she might go about banning books because some had inappropriate language in them?shocking the librarian, Mary Ellen Baker. According to Time, "news reports from the time show that Palin had threatened to fire Baker for not giving "full support" to the mayor."

·She DID support the Bridge to Nowhere (before she opposed it). Palin claimed that she said "thanks, but no thanks" to the infamous Bridge to Nowhere. But in 2006, Palin supported the project repeatedly, saying that Alaska should take advantage of earmarks "while our congressional delegation is in a strong position to assist."

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: sportage
Here some fact checking:

·Palin recently said that the war in Iraq is "God's task." She's even admitted she hasn't thought about the war much?just last year she was quoted saying, "I've been so focused on state government, I haven't really focused much on the war in Iraq."

·Palin has actively sought the support of the fringe Alaska Independence Party. Six months ago, Palin told members of the group?who advocate for a vote on secession from the union?to "keep up the good work" and "wished the party luck on what she called its 'inspiring convention.'

·Palin wants to teach creationism in public schools. She hasn't made clear whether she thinks evolution is a fact.

·Palin doesn't believe that humans contribute to global warming. Speaking about climate change, she said, "I'm not one though who would attribute it to being manmade."

·Palin has close ties to Big Oil. Her inauguration was even sponsored by BP.

·Palin is extremely anti-choice. She doesn't even support abortion in the case of rape or incest.

·Palin opposes comprehensive sex-ed in public schools. She's said she will only support abstinence-only approaches.

·As mayor, Palin tried to ban books from the library. Palin asked the library how she might go about banning books because some had inappropriate language in them?shocking the librarian, Mary Ellen Baker. According to Time, "news reports from the time show that Palin had threatened to fire Baker for not giving "full support" to the mayor."

·She DID support the Bridge to Nowhere (before she opposed it). Palin claimed that she said "thanks, but no thanks" to the infamous Bridge to Nowhere. But in 2006, Palin supported the project repeatedly, saying that Alaska should take advantage of earmarks "while our congressional delegation is in a strong position to assist."

How many threads are you going to post the DNC talking points in?

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: hellokeith
FactCheck is owned by Obama's former employer.

Originally posted by: jonks
But stop with the "they're biased" claims when the only "evidence/proof" being that someone once knew someone who worked with someone who got money from someone that knew X candidate.

Thanks for helping to prove my point. Did you know Bush has a financial interest in oil? Guess he must have started the Iraq war for oil. At the very least it factored into his decision that he'd profit, right?

But lets assess your claim. Obama was employed by a division of Annenberg, which also funds a public policy center at Upenn, which runs Factcheck, which is staffed by lifelong scholars and journalists who worked with news sources from the Wall Street Journal to CNN, which has analyzed statements for years before Obama surfaced, which receives no funding from business corporations or labor unions or political parties, which has an archive overflowing with corrections of statements made by politicians of every stripe and political party including Obama, which has been cited by Dick Cheney as an accurate source of information, and you assert the site is going to risk it's credibility and purpose for existence, and the lifelong journalists working there are going to risk their reputation and careers by espousing articles biased towards Obama simply because a decade ago he chaired a charity in Chicago that was funded by the same people that fund them.

Bravo. You could teach the Truthers a thing or two.

Thank you for so perfectly encapsulating this stupidity. This should give us a respite of at least 3 days until some other idiot shows up with the "HURF BLURF FACTZCHEK IZ BIAS"

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: hellokeith
FactCheck is owned by Obama's former employer.

Originally posted by: jonks
But stop with the "they're biased" claims when the only "evidence/proof" being that someone once knew someone who worked with someone who got money from someone that knew X candidate.

Thanks for helping to prove my point. Did you know Bush has a financial interest in oil? Guess he must have started the Iraq war for oil. At the very least it factored into his decision that he'd profit, right?

But lets assess your claim. Obama was employed by a division of Annenberg, which also funds a public policy center at Upenn, which runs Factcheck, which is staffed by lifelong scholars and journalists who worked with news sources from the Wall Street Journal to CNN, which has analyzed statements for years before Obama surfaced, which receives no funding from business corporations or labor unions or political parties, which has an archive overflowing with corrections of statements made by politicians of every stripe and political party including Obama, which has been cited by Dick Cheney as an accurate source of information, and you assert the site is going to risk it's credibility and purpose for existence, and the lifelong journalists working there are going to risk their reputation and careers by espousing articles biased towards Obama simply because a decade ago he chaired a charity in Chicago that was funded by the same people that fund them.

Bravo. You could teach the Truthers a thing or two.

Thank you for so perfectly encapsulating this stupidity. This should give us a respite of at least 3 days until some other idiot shows up with the "HURF BLURF FACTZCHEK IZ BIAS"

It might help if people didn't post things from there as if it's unassailable though. Maybe we'd get those 3 days if there were 3 days without you people posting it as if it were gospel.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Thank you for so perfectly encapsulating this stupidity. This should give us a respite of at least 3 days until some other idiot shows up with the "HURF BLURF FACTZCHEK IZ BIAS"

It might help if people didn't post things from there as if it's unassailable though. Maybe we'd get those 3 days if there were 3 days without you people posting it as if it were gospel.

Feel free to dispute any of their assertions with equally well researched links whenever you please. If you can prove something they write wrong with credible sources I will be the first to take your side.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Thank you for so perfectly encapsulating this stupidity. This should give us a respite of at least 3 days until some other idiot shows up with the "HURF BLURF FACTZCHEK IZ BIAS"

It might help if people didn't post things from there as if it's unassailable though. Maybe we'd get those 3 days if there were 3 days without you people posting it as if it were gospel.

Feel free to dispute any of their assertions with equally well researched links whenever you please. If you can prove something they write wrong with credible sources I will be the first to take your side.

:yawn; I've already stated my position on this. Try reading.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Thank you for so perfectly encapsulating this stupidity. This should give us a respite of at least 3 days until some other idiot shows up with the "HURF BLURF FACTZCHEK IZ BIAS"

It might help if people didn't post things from there as if it's unassailable though. Maybe we'd get those 3 days if there were 3 days without you people posting it as if it were gospel.

Feel free to dispute any of their assertions with equally well researched links whenever you please. If you can prove something they write wrong with credible sources I will be the first to take your side.

:yawn; I've already stated my position on this. Try reading.

It's still not getting any smarter.

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Thank you for so perfectly encapsulating this stupidity. This should give us a respite of at least 3 days until some other idiot shows up with the "HURF BLURF FACTZCHEK IZ BIAS"

It might help if people didn't post things from there as if it's unassailable though. Maybe we'd get those 3 days if there were 3 days without you people posting it as if it were gospel.

Feel free to dispute any of their assertions with equally well researched links whenever you please. If you can prove something they write wrong with credible sources I will be the first to take your side.

The cognitive dissonance is very, very strong with you.

Look, if you can't see it then I can't explain it to you. Just like how fox news is fair and balanced to me (and it is, through my minds eye), factcheck is truth to you. Step outside your own bias to see that it is there. The blog link was a perfect example of their bias, sure it's a blog, but I question blogs just as much as I question and trust factcheck - run, founded by and contributors of professors and journalists who statistically by a wide margin are liberal. And if you ever heard them speak (staff of the site) you would see it. But you can't, because it reinforces your belief.

Next you'll be saying that USA today is a factual paper like the new york times?

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Thank you for so perfectly encapsulating this stupidity. This should give us a respite of at least 3 days until some other idiot shows up with the "HURF BLURF FACTZCHEK IZ BIAS"

It might help if people didn't post things from there as if it's unassailable though. Maybe we'd get those 3 days if there were 3 days without you people posting it as if it were gospel.

Feel free to dispute any of their assertions with equally well researched links whenever you please. If you can prove something they write wrong with credible sources I will be the first to take your side.

The cognitive dissonance is very, very strong with you.

Look, if you can't see it then I can't explain it to you. Just like how fox news is fair and balanced to me (and it is, through my minds eye), factcheck is truth to you. Step outside your own bias to see that it is there. The blog link was a perfect example of their bias, sure it's a blog, but I question blogs just as much as I question and trust factcheck - run, founded by and contributors of professors and journalists who statistically by a wide margin are liberal. And if you ever heard them speak (staff of the site) you would see it. But you can't, because it reinforces your belief.

Next you'll be saying that USA today is a factual paper like the new york times?

Sure I'll say that USA today is a factual paper. Why would anyone dispute that? This might explain a lot about you... you simply aren't living on the same planet as the rest of us.

Spidey, I don't even know how to argue with you when you're this far divorced from reality. I mean this sincerely, you have a seriously warped view of the world. When google searches on the bias of fact check turn up a lonely blog entry or two by hyper right wing sites, that doesn't mean an organization is biased. (what's funny is that there are other sites claiming factcheck has a conservative bias) The comparison of FOX news is ludicrous and you know it.

What's so strange about you is that everything you are trying to project on other people is an exact description of yourself. I have total contempt for your stupidity (not because you're stupid, but because it's willful), but I'm also feeling sorry for you right now. You're crazy and you don't even know it. I guess that's what makes someone crazy though, thinking that they are normal.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: sportage
·Palin recently said
·Palin has actively s
·Palin wants to teac
·Palin doesn't believe

Seriously, you couldn't post this in one of the 100 Palin threads?

I have no response to Spidey since he's on Jonk's List, but I see Eskimo gave it a shot. I stopped bothering, it keeps my blood pressure down.

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
It might help if people didn't post things from there as if it's unassailable though. Maybe we'd get those 3 days if there were 3 days without you people posting it as if it were gospel.

Feel free to dispute any of their assertions with equally well researched links whenever you please. If you can prove something they write wrong with credible sources I will be the first to take your side.

Seriously, he wants people to stop posting links/info from the most informative political site on the web because he doesn't like the subjects of the articles? Did you know about half the articles on the site debunk Obama and other Democratic ads/statements? Feel free to post them here to support your arguments against Obama. I have never seen anyone, be it blogger or P&N poster, dispute Factcheck's corrections of Democratic misstatements. Sure the Ron Paul supporters took exception to the one article dedicated to debunking all of RP's wacko claims, but if you want to ally yourself with conspiracy theorists, have at it.

And one last time. No one said the articles are "unassailable." If you find anything, that shows the FC article is exaggerating, misstating, or spinning, or showing any kind of bias, then post it! The whole point of this thread, as stated (and then ignored by everyone) in the OP was that bald assertions of bias against FC and other similar demonstrably independent sites are not helpful or useful, and merely make the one speaking look like they are whining about the facts presented.