Here's the news site I'm liking now

SamSpade

Well-Known Member
I like it too. I just finished reading much of their "Fact Check" section.

I do try to balance anything I see in a "fact checking" site, because many of the more
well known ones have shown such an incredible bias, I tend to read them to read
strictly the more liberal angle on the issue. Calling it "fact checking" is just a euphemism
designed to tell the reader that the opinion they promote is the "right" one.
 

MJ

Material Girl
PREMO Member
I like it too. I just finished reading much of their "Fact Check" section.

I do try to balance anything I see in a "fact checking" site, because many of the more
well known ones have shown such an incredible bias, I tend to read them to read
strictly the more liberal angle on the issue. Calling it "fact checking" is just a euphemism
designed to tell the reader that the opinion they promote is the "right" one.
True, my first instinct is to see if they're run by a lobbyist group or some DC "think tank", but this one looks pretty legit.
 

Chris0nllyn

Active Member
I like it too. I just finished reading much of their "Fact Check" section.

I do try to balance anything I see in a "fact checking" site, because many of the more
well known ones have shown such an incredible bias, I tend to read them to read
strictly the more liberal angle on the issue. Calling it "fact checking" is just a euphemism
designed to tell the reader that the opinion they promote is the "right" one.
It's too bad their fact check section hasn't been updated since August and only has 3 stories.

I'm curious about it also, but it seems to be lacking.
 

vraiblonde

Board Mommy
Staff member
PREMO Member
It's too bad their fact check section hasn't been updated since August and only has 3 stories.

I'm curious about it also, but it seems to be lacking.
I don't think anyone expected you to appreciate a multi-sided news outlet. Go back to MSNBC and CNN where you're happy.
 

TCROW

Active Member
I am far, far less concerned with bias, or more accurately someone’s perception of bias, than I am with truth.

The reality is that if you consume your news free of charge to you (advert supported) then you are the product being sold. It matters not how many “sides” you consult, this is immutable fact.
 

vraiblonde

Board Mommy
Staff member
PREMO Member
I am far, far less concerned with bias, or more accurately someone’s perception of bias, than I am with truth.
I'm okay with different perspectives. I just want the basics to be factual. As in, "Here is what happened, and now here's how I, the reporter, feel about it." When they play fast and loose with information or flat out lie, that's when I lose interest.
 

SamSpade

Well-Known Member
I'm okay with different perspectives. I just want the basics to be factual. As in, "Here is what happened, and now here's how I, the reporter, feel about it." When they play fast and loose with information or flat out lie, that's when I lose interest.
I like how they made it clear - or perhaps, explained it enough to ME - that news organizations have a vested interest
in KEEPING the news polarized. MAKING it us versus them. Because prior to the appearance of FOX and MSNBC - and others -
the only thing that kept you riveted to the news was a crisis, like the constant watching of CNN during the Gulf War,
or during the Clarence Thomas hearings. Once the dust clears, no one wants to watch your programming -

Unless you can keep it all in a sense of constant agitation. Making EVERY election "the most important election of your life".
Making the idea that THEY are the gatekeepers of truth.

I never really noticed this until, I think it was Katrina, where two news organizations had pictures of people clearly
*LOOTING*. But one had a shot of a white family "foraging" while another had a black family "looting". I'd always
noticed an anti-right agenda. Who could forget - and fail to continue to observe - news outlets using the SAME WORDS
to describe an event? How, when Cheney was selected, a hitherto obscure word "gravitas" was used in every outlet
describing him? That is, ones critical of him.

It doesn't change the fact that I am still basically - conservative. Until the 90's, I was a conservative DEMOCRAT.
Voted for Blue Dogs. Recognized the party had liberals, but it had conservatives, too. I'm still a registered Democrat,
and I have actually voted for the occasional Democrat (usually in local elections). But not really anymore. There
pretty much aren't any Blue Dogs anymore.

So, since I am conservative, I'm probably going to favor the news source that confirms my own bias - but I do
read both sides, if only to understand where others are coming from. As many here know, most of my extended
family are of the "Trump is Hitler" variety.
 
Top