• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Evaluating & Fact Checking Sources

Trippy Trekker

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 26, 2016
Messages
12,065
Reaction score
5,686
Location
Tampa Bay area
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Several days ago I came under escalating attack after using Media Bias Fact Check to rate two sources.

Accusations included:

1. Using results as evidence does not establish credibility.

2. Anyone can start a blog to rate media bias.

3. Has the rating service rated itself?

4. Trekker considers the rating service Progressive and down the middle.

5. Trekker automatically disregards the source if the rating service rates the source Right Wing.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My answers fell on deaf ears -

I used the rating service to rate Fox News, MSNBC and CNN as examples. My critics disregarded my response and the accompanying results as an inadequate and non-credible barometer of "lean".

My critics disregarded my statement that lean becomes one more factor in my assessments when attempting to conjecture, opine, analyze and arrive at a cognitive conclusion.

Fake news and Filter Bubbles have become today's norm. How many of you feel you can anticipate the tone and gist of a response based on someone's political affiliation?

Resources for Fact-Checking & Researching Controversial Topics - Evaluating & Fact-Checking Sources - Research Guides at Stetson University

https://onlinejournalismblog.com/2017/02/20/fake-news-allsides-filter-bubbles-john-gable/
 
Several days ago I came under escalating attack after using Media Bias Fact Check to rate two sources.

Accusations included:

1. Using results as evidence does not establish credibility.

2. Anyone can start a blog to rate media bias.

3. Has the rating service rated itself?

4. Trekker considers the rating service Progressive and down the middle.

5. Trekker automatically disregards the source if the rating service rates the source Right Wing.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My answers fell on deaf ears -

I used the rating service to rate Fox News, MSNBC and CNN as examples. My critics disregarded my response and the accompanying results as an inadequate and non-credible barometer of "lean".

My critics disregarded my statement that lean becomes one more factor in my assessments when attempting to conjecture, opine, analyze and arrive at a cognitive conclusion.

Fake news and Filter Bubbles have become today's norm. How many of you feel you can anticipate the tone and gist of a response based on someone's political affiliation?

Resources for Fact-Checking & Researching Controversial Topics - Evaluating & Fact-Checking Sources - Research Guides at Stetson University

https://onlinejournalismblog.com/2017/02/20/fake-news-allsides-filter-bubbles-john-gable/

Discussing bias, is subject to... well... bias.

If a person agrees with a conclusion, then they probably don't see any bias even if it exists. If a person disagrees with a conclusion, then they are likely to see bias, even if none exists.

This is a debate site, don't take it personal if people don't agree with you, or comment negatively on your conclusions, or disagree with the conclusions of the evidence you present.

If someone attacks you personally, rather than your post's content (which it sounds like from your post above is what seemed to happen), then report them and I guarantee you the staff will deal with it.
 
Discussing bias, is subject to... well... bias.

If a person agrees with a conclusion, then they probably don't see any bias even if it exists. If a person disagrees with a conclusion, then they are likely to see bias, even if none exists.

This is a debate site, don't take it personal if people don't agree with you, or comment negatively on your conclusions, or disagree with the conclusions of the evidence you present.

If someone attacks you personally, rather than your post's content (which it sounds like from your post above is what seemed to happen), then report them and I guarantee you the staff will deal with it.

Thanks. I try to wear my Big Boy Pants when posting. Maybe as one still too Noob to Know, I have not flagged anyone yet.

On a left to right spectrum of dim-witted to Bright I consider you clearly Right of Center.
 
Several days ago I came under escalating attack after using Media Bias Fact Check to rate two sources.

Accusations included:

1. Using results as evidence does not establish credibility.

2. Anyone can start a blog to rate media bias.

3. Has the rating service rated itself?

4. Trekker considers the rating service Progressive and down the middle.

5. Trekker automatically disregards the source if the rating service rates the source Right Wing.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My answers fell on deaf ears -

I used the rating service to rate Fox News, MSNBC and CNN as examples. My critics disregarded my response and the accompanying results as an inadequate and non-credible barometer of "lean".

My critics disregarded my statement that lean becomes one more factor in my assessments when attempting to conjecture, opine, analyze and arrive at a cognitive conclusion.

Fake news and Filter Bubbles have become today's norm. How many of you feel you can anticipate the tone and gist of a response based on someone's political affiliation?

Resources for Fact-Checking & Researching Controversial Topics - Evaluating & Fact-Checking Sources - Research Guides at Stetson University

https://onlinejournalismblog.com/2017/02/20/fake-news-allsides-filter-bubbles-john-gable/

A couple of related observations.

- One of the fact checking organizations listed in your first link was FactCheck.org.
A while back I looked at one of their efforts to fact check something Carly Fiorina said about the Clinton Foundation.
They rated it False and to do that they accepted what the Clinton Foundation reported as facts.
In general, FactCheck will take a complicated question and narrow it down to a component they can declare to be true or false and their criteria too often looks like it depends on who made the claim and about whom it was made.

- Another observation is something I mentioned on a post earlier today and it's unmistakable and inarguable.
Returned search engine hits.
Do a search for Susan Rice using Google and do the same search using Bing.
 
A couple of related observations.

- One of the fact checking organizations listed in your first link was FactCheck.org.
A while back I looked at one of their efforts to fact check something Carly Fiorina said about the Clinton Foundation.
They rated it False and to do that they accepted what the Clinton Foundation reported as facts.
In general, FactCheck will take a complicated question and narrow it down to a component they can declare to be true or false and their criteria too often looks like it depends on who made the claim and about whom it was made.

- Another observation is something I mentioned on a post earlier today and it's unmistakable and inarguable.
Returned search engine hits.
Do a search for Susan Rice using Google and do the same search using Bing.

I use Google a lot more than Bing.

https://www.google.com/webhp?source...US692US693&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=Susan+Rice

https://www.bing.com/search?q=Susan...-10&sk=&cvid=D57BCF8CF5414E0283145E585150DB6D
 
Thanks. I try to wear my Big Boy Pants when posting. Maybe as one still too Noob to Know, I have not flagged anyone yet.

On a left to right spectrum of dim-witted to Bright I consider you clearly Right of Center.

I'm a Goldwater Republican. There are a few members like Clax1911 and others that are Goldwater Republicans as well.
 

I stopped using Google when I noticed the stark difference.
Did you notice the difference of lean in the links returned?

By serendipity re this thread, one of the Google links returned was to PolitiFact which made it clear they just can't bring themselves to decide that Susan Rice wasn't truthful.

The point to all this is that bias is all around and nothing is immune.
Anyone who depends on only a handful of sources for their news is selling themselves short.
 
Discussing bias, is subject to... well... bias.

If a person agrees with a conclusion, then they probably don't see any bias even if it exists. If a person disagrees with a conclusion, then they are likely to see bias, even if none exists.

This is a debate site, don't take it personal if people don't agree with you, or comment negatively on your conclusions, or disagree with the conclusions of the evidence you present.

If someone attacks you personally, rather than your post's content (which it sounds like from your post above is what seemed to happen), then report them and I guarantee you the staff will deal with it.

Well said.
 
Several days ago I came under escalating attack after using Media Bias Fact Check to rate two sources.

Accusations included:

1. Using results as evidence does not establish credibility.

2. Anyone can start a blog to rate media bias.

3. Has the rating service rated itself?

4. Trekker considers the rating service Progressive and down the middle.

5. Trekker automatically disregards the source if the rating service rates the source Right Wing.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My answers fell on deaf ears -

I used the rating service to rate Fox News, MSNBC and CNN as examples. My critics disregarded my response and the accompanying results as an inadequate and non-credible barometer of "lean".

My critics disregarded my statement that lean becomes one more factor in my assessments when attempting to conjecture, opine, analyze and arrive at a cognitive conclusion.

Fake news and Filter Bubbles have become today's norm. How many of you feel you can anticipate the tone and gist of a response based on someone's political affiliation?

Resources for Fact-Checking & Researching Controversial Topics - Evaluating & Fact-Checking Sources - Research Guides at Stetson University

https://onlinejournalismblog.com/2017/02/20/fake-news-allsides-filter-bubbles-john-gable/

Sadly, our "fourth estate" is now administration or opposition propaganda. It probably always was, but until there was a variant line of broadcast, it was not apparent.

As long as you can HEAR what is being said, you are better armed to deal with it.

We suffer from selective blindness in what we hear and see in news reports. When I was taking classes dealing with this, the bias to be watched was in the selection of words used and in the information to be included or omitted.

This has risen to an incredibly, openly biased level as some "reporters" are now issuing statements in the "news" reports that they will not cover stories that oppose the message they endorse. We are now instructed not just on how we are to think, but also on those stories that we absolutely must not think about at all.

Astonishing!
 
Thanks. I try to wear my Big Boy Pants when posting. Maybe as one still too Noob to Know, I have not flagged anyone yet.

On a left to right spectrum of dim-witted to Bright I consider you clearly Right of Center.

Is that like using a bathroom scale to calculate speed?
 
A couple of related observations.

- One of the fact checking organizations listed in your first link was FactCheck.org.
A while back I looked at one of their efforts to fact check something Carly Fiorina said about the Clinton Foundation.
They rated it False and to do that they accepted what the Clinton Foundation reported as facts.
In general, FactCheck will take a complicated question and narrow it down to a component they can declare to be true or false and their criteria too often looks like it depends on who made the claim and about whom it was made.

- Another observation is something I mentioned on a post earlier today and it's unmistakable and inarguable.
Returned search engine hits.
Do a search for Susan Rice using Google and do the same search using Bing.

Fact Check is a Democrat Party tool.
 
Is that like using a bathroom scale to calculate speed?

Your question left me puzzled. I can't think of anyone who would use a bathroom scale to calculate speed.

Wearing Big Boy pants means not running to Momma. On a left to right spectrum of dim-witted to Bright, Far Left implies really dumb. Far Right implies really Bright.
 
Your question left me puzzled. I can't think of anyone who would use a bathroom scale to calculate speed.

Wearing Big Boy pants means not running to Momma. On a left to right spectrum of dim-witted to Bright, Far Left implies really dumb. Far Right implies really Bright.

Sorry. I inferred a meaning you did not imply.
 
Facts to get in the way of the right-wing mythology don't they



One good way to fact check things for yourself is to simply ask, "If this is true, what else must be true?"

I'm not sure what you mean by "Right Wing Mythology".

Care to give an example?
 
Back
Top Bottom