I would think accuracy = factualYou need to add "unbiased & factual" to your poll. News can be absolutely factual, and still be spun right off the rails. Omission of information or context being the most common methods of being factual and misleading at the same time.
Look at who is asking, though.The fact that this is even a question is fricking sad.
I didn't see anyone saying Cuomo should have remained in office.Many people won't answer a question like this honestly, I'm afraid.
Few people will admit they're more interested in ideology than accuracy — a die-hard Trumpist will still likely claim they value accuracy even if they get all their news from hyperpartisan outlets like Fox/Newsmax/OAN. It's just that they believe accurate claims only come from outlets that support their ideology.
Supporting real accuracy means accepting that the truth isn't what you want to hear. Say, that Democrats can be scummy (see: Andrew Cuomo), or that Trump knowingly courted racism and sedition. You may accept that philosophy on the surface, but it's not always easy to apply it in practice.
Also, some people just don't understand what accuracy is. It's not, as @Juiblex suggests, always about hearing "both sides." Sometimes only one side is correct. Trump lost the election, and voter fraud is not a significant issue; human-made climate change is real and needs to be addressed; Democrats let Cuomo's behavior slide for entirely too long; COVID-19 is a serious pandemic that requires safety precautions.
There are certainly issues where there's a degree of subjectivity, but sometimes the "other side" is just... wrong.
You need to add "unbiased & factual" to your poll. News can be absolutely factual, and still be spun right off the rails. Omission of information or context being the most common methods of being factual and misleading at the same time.
I didn't see anyone saying Cuomo should have remained in office.
Let's face it, some people stick to principles and some don't
Cuomo is a bad example, though. That guy is such an asshole that he made countless enemies on both sides of the aisle. I doubt that anybody in New York is really going to miss him.
Lol
Did you see how you dismissed the example? To you, Dems couldn’t possibly hold their own accountable so it must be that they really didn’t like him anyway. That’s some good feels right there.
I didn't see anyone saying Cuomo should have remained in office.
Let's face it, some people stick to principles and some don't
You need to add "unbiased & factual" to your poll. News can be absolutely factual, and still be spun right off the rails. Omission of information or context being the most common methods of being factual and misleading at the same time.
At least one person chose option #3. Too bad the poll wasn't configured to show who chose each option.With the current trends of different news organisations being classified as Trump supporting, right, left, real actual, centric, or made up stuff, it tends to be up to the user to decide which they believe and which ones they don't.
It is shown, probably just not if you have the user on iggy already.At least one person chose option #3. Too bad the poll wasn't configured to show who chose each option.
However, I am virtually positive that they are already on my ignore list.
One of my two favorite examples of reporting gone horribly wrong happened years back when California passed it's "three strikes" law that mandated long prison terms for a third felony. Local news did a story about a fellow who was getting 20 or 25 years for stealing a bicycle, and what a travesty of justice it was.Absolutely. The reporting on the fact that Newsome spent less on fire prevention than promised is a great example. That's because he had to spend huge money on actual fire fighting, but Larry Elder won't mention that part, nor will many media outlets when they're just telling us what Elder & "the report" said. We all get to figure out on our own that it's egregious distortion & that's beyond the capabilities of all too many people.
This reminds me of something Greenman would say. It is really unfair to report a stolen bike getting somebody 20 years when in fact they stole a truck at gun point. It is a manipulation to make a case against the three strike law. But, on the other hand, the three strike law is really evil itself. It was put into effect by fear mongers who have no trust in the wisdom of others to properly evaluate sentencing that fits the crime, calling instead for inhumane laws to protect authoritarians from their fears. Which is the greater evil?One of my two favorite examples of reporting gone horribly wrong happened years back when California passed it's "three strikes" law that mandated long prison terms for a third felony. Local news did a story about a fellow who was getting 20 or 25 years for stealing a bicycle, and what a travesty of justice it was.
What the story didn't mention was that the stolen bike was in the back of a pickup that the fellow had jacked at gunpoint.
I don't know how to put basic honesty into reporting, I don't believe it was ever there to begin with. But it does seem to be getting worse as everything now needs to have a political and emotional connection.
He was charged with car jacking and the theft of the bike. The reporter chose to ignore the car jacking part.This reminds me of something Greenman would say. It is really unfair to report a stolen bike getting somebody 20 years when in fact they stole a truck at gun point. It is a manipulation to make a case against the three strike law. But, on the other hand, the three strike law is really evil itself. It was put into effect by fear mongers who have no trust in the wisdom of others to properly evaluate sentencing that fits the crime, calling instead for inhumane laws to protect authoritarians from their fears. Which is the greater evil?
Was the person on trial for the bike theft or for armed robbery? If for bike theft then a jury can't consider the other crime, can they?
Al Franken got railroaded for nothing. The Dems ate their own there. I think he could have been our president in 2016. He would have been the perfect foil to Trump.His theory might make more sense had Cuomo not been lionized over his COVID response last year. He was riding pretty high politically until all this came down early this year. Those who knew him personally might not have liked him but he was doing quite well with democrats in general.
He also fails to mention Al Franken who was very well liked by the public and colleagues alike. Didn't save him.
I'm referring to people in this forum. Trump was just as big an asshole yet that same group continue to suck his dickCuomo is a bad example, though. That guy is such an asshole that he made countless enemies on both sides of the aisle. I doubt that anybody in New York is really going to miss him.
So did Katie Hill.Al Franken got railroaded for nothing. The Dems ate their own there. I think he could have been our president in 2016. He would have been the perfect foil to Trump.
I almost agree. The problem, of course, is that long before crimes in a society are committed the state should act to secure the mental health of its children including special the rehabilitation of any that fall thought the cracks.He was charged with car jacking and the theft of the bike. The reporter chose to ignore the car jacking part.
Clearly this was an extreme case, but it happens all to often.
The three strikes law actually started out as a good idea, as it was originally conceived, it was only going to apply to violent felony's. Commit three violent crimes and the third conviction gets you twenty years. I don't have an issue with that. Somewhere along the way "violent" was removed from the law. I do have an issue with that.
People generally view ‘what aligns with my beliefs’ as ‘what’s true’, but few people are aware of it and even fewer will admit it.
Snopes Retracts 60 Articles Plagiarized by Co-Founder: ‘Our Staff Are Gutted’ (Published 2021)
The fact-checking site has banned David Mikkelson, who owns half the company, from writing articles after a BuzzFeed News investigation prompted an internal review.www.nytimes.com