politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
It's mostly an embedded clip from MSNBC; clicking the linked article can be informative!
I'm also not sure what bias you are accusing Meidas Touch of in the headline (since we know you didn't get any further than that)? Is it the part about the maga convoy being confused? We know they are easily led from one moral outrage to another without really understanding the issues.
The part about there not being an invasion at the border? It's obvious there isn't anything of the sort happening, because the people that are claiming it's happening are the same ones who just said that they refuse to do anything about it for a year, until (they hope) Trump is president.
If only someone had provided a link that would have answered that question, you know, in the post you replied to. I guess you were the one who couldnt get that far.
Sure, but all the MBFC link proves is that Meidas Touch has an unapologetic left-leaning bias, and they tend to only bother running stories that support that bias. Unlike many other "mixed" factual reporting news sites, they're not in that category for lying and/or spreading misinformation. This suggests that the article is true. There's no value in your original insinuation that there's something wrong with the source of this information, as per your own link.
MeidasTouch does not have a reputation for giving factual information, and its extreme bias makes it inherently untrustworthy.. and despite what you claim about them not lying/spreading misinformation, mediabiascheck cites 3 different times they've failed a fact check because they were spreading false/made up information.
The real question is why you think its not okay to call out bad sources if they are left leaning. Which is what you surely seem to be implying, with your blatant misrepresentation of whats on the mediabiasfact page about mediastouch and how hard you are trying to defend meidastouch despite a documented history of being fast and lose with facts and truth.
But you wont answer that
No, I wager you'd be more inclined to drill into one factual thing in one article and use that to handwave away meidastouch's problematic patterns, because your bias is more important than reputable sources and factual reporting.. because thats what you're already doing here, and now.
?
Just working with your sources. I don't care about Meidas Touch. I hadn't even heard of them before I stumbled into this thread.
I think it's okay to accept that everything and everyone has a bias. Removing bias from all reporting is simply impossible, so instead we work to understand our bias' and the bias' of others and instead call out non-factual reporting. So, to answer your question, I think it's okay to call out bad sources for being bad regardless of their lean, but I also don't think having a noteworthy lean makes a sourcebinherently bad.
I don't appreciate the straw man you're attempting to build for me. Trying to angrily have my half of the conversation while spewing a pile of assumptions about what I think is a bad look. Unless the look you're going for is "a random idiot", which, I mean, when someone tells you who they are, believe them.
prove it, where are the lies and misinformation?
MBFC says this:
None of that has anything to do with false 'facts' and the like, bias doesn't equal bad source until said bias leads to the degradation of truth in the reporting.
again, where is the proof? You can't just speak things into existence. YOU are the one bringing this accusation, so YOU are the one with the onus to provide proof of said accusations.