LogFAQs > #944993383

LurkerFAQs, Active DB, DB1, DB2, DB3, DB4, DB5, DB6, Database 7 ( 07.18.2020-02.18.2021 ), DB8, DB9, DB10, DB11, DB12, Clear

Topic List	Page List: 1
Topic	Trump's legal team laying groundwork to circumvent election results.
Zeus_LLC 09/23/20 3:59:34 PM #19:	Jen0125 posted... Do you suffer from selective reading? It's left-center. It's not left bias or extreme left bias. Do you understand there's almost no way to remove bias completely? It also states it is left-center because of the editorials, not the news articles. Please learn to read. >Asks if somebody suffers from selective reading >Reads "leftist" as "extreme left" (which could just be conflating my comments) The point was that even the sketchy, non-authoritative guide you linked was acknowledging a clear bias I had already pointed out. The significance being that even though you had carefully chosen a bullshit reference even the bullshit reference doesn't absolve the Atlantic of bias. Jen0125 posted... So you admit getting your news from left leaning sources as well? While trying to call out others? First, I don't rely on far-left sources like you do -- you cite crap like HuffPo, which fact checkers (including the one you chose) routinely rank in their farthest-left bracket, and the Atlantic. Second, while NPR is leftist, I don't rely on it as a primary source for information since any claims I hear are vetted elsewhere (something you don't seem to do at all which is why you wind up posting really outlandish crap). Third, even though USA Today and BBC are acknowledged as being more towards the middle (well, except by your sketchy site), I STILL vet claims against other sources. Jen0125 posted... https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/bbc/ BBC - left center https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/usa-today-2/ USA Today - left center Stop acting like you get your news from better sources. You mean a sketchy, non-authoritative site you chose to go with (probably because the top few results didn't support your argument) is wrong?! Who would have thunk it! However, it also circles back to my initial criticism of your low-information approach to media. And I suppose on some level it's inspiring, since it shows all I'd need to to sway the poorly-informed is create a website and buy an authoritative-sounding domain since I can count on people to not bother examining credentials, etc, to see that it's a one-man-with-volunteers operation where there's relatively little information out there about that one man. I can't even seem to find a Linkedin page, which is the barest minimum for a professional. --- (\/)(\/)\|-\| <cite>Zeus_LLC posted [p:944993383] in Trump's le... [t:78994993]...</cite> <quote>Jen0125 posted... </cite> <quote>Do you suffer from selective reading? It's left-center. It's not left bias or extreme left bias. Do you understand there's almost no way to remove bias completely? It also states it is left-center because of the editorials, not the news articles. Please learn to read.</quote> >Asks if somebody suffers from selective reading >Reads "leftist" as "extreme left" (which could just be conflating my comments) The point was that even the sketchy, non-authoritative guide you linked was acknowledging a clear bias I had already pointed out. The significance being that even though you had carefully chosen a bullshit reference even the bullshit reference doesn't absolve the Atlantic of bias. Jen0125 posted... </cite> <quote>So you admit getting your news from left leaning sources as well? While trying to call out others?</quote> First, I don't rely on far-left sources like you do -- you cite crap like HuffPo, which fact checkers (including the one you chose) routinely rank in their farthest-left bracket, and the Atlantic. Second, while NPR is leftist, I don't rely on it as a primary source for information since any claims I hear are vetted elsewhere (something you don't seem to do at all which is why you wind up posting really outlandish crap). Third, even though USA Today and BBC are acknowledged as being more towards the middle (well, except by your sketchy site), I STILL vet claims against other sources. Jen0125 posted... </cite> <quote>https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/bbc/ BBC - left center https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/usa-today-2/ USA Today - left center Stop acting like you get your news from better sources.</quote> You mean a sketchy, non-authoritative site you chose to go with (probably because the top few results didn't support your argument) is wrong?! Who would have thunk it! However, it also circles back to my initial criticism of your low-information approach to media. And I suppose on some level it's inspiring, since it shows all I'd need to to sway the poorly-informed is create a website and buy an authoritative-sounding domain since I can count on people to not bother examining credentials, etc, to see that it's a one-man-with-volunteers operation where there's relatively little information out there about that one man. I can't even seem to find a Linkedin page, which is the barest minimum for a professional. --- (\/)(\/)\|-\|</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1