Bias

From iGeek
Jump to: navigation, search
Bias.jpg
This is the more Politically Correct term for FakeNews, Hypocrisy, Liars, Frauds and so on. This area has articles that stress things that aren't quite the whole truth.

This video seems to sum it up:


MOAB: Mother of All Bombs

MOAB.jpg
NYT, LAT, Time, CNBC, ThinkProgress all whined about the $314M cost of the MOAB (Mother of all bombs), only it cost $170K, they were using a source that Alex Jones / InfoWars warned his readers against trusting, and not one fact checked, or offered their readers or warning, or went back and corrected their online articles.

Checking the Checkers: Hillary vs Trump speeches

NoBS.png

The AP (Administration's Press) did a couple of comedy pieces, playing a DNC water carrier, poorly disguised as fact checking. (WaPo, PBS, ABC, Yahoo, and a few other places ran these pieces, so they own that bias as well).

The idea appears to have been to cherry pick the worst 11 things Trump said, and play pedantics to make them look worse, while ignoring 57 things he said that were correct facts. Then compared that to the 11 best things Hillary said (with a few sacrifices to look objective), then excusing most of them, while ignoring 60 things they could have criticized her on, if they were measuring her by the same yardstick as Trump. Michael Moore couldn't have done it better.

The article's below summarize each of the two speeches and "FactChecks" to show not only how they use selection bias, standards bias, and other techniques within each "fact check" -- but also how massively obvious the bias is when you compare them side-by-side. (Assuming you believe that both side's politicians lie equally).


Fake News

ACLU

ACLU.png

A once reliable Civil Liberties non-partisan organization, now spotty and issues based that often aligns with the DNC. Their pool of followers seem lean more and more non-libertarian left, and that seems to be tainting them on issues they don't belong in, or way less reliable and a civil liberties organization. You can't be for minority rights and not for individual rights, as the smallest minority is one. Yet, they often try, choosing collective rights over individual ones, racism to fix racism (affirmative action), and ignoring parts of the constitution they don't like (like the 2nd Amendment).

CNN

CNNaganda.jpeg
CNN is to News what Chlamydia‎ is to promiscuity. Though that's not completely fair, since Chlamydia‎ doesn't pretend to be honest, and you can cure it with antibiotics.

MSNBC

Msdnclogo.png

Starting a section on MSNBC and their bias is like starting one on listing all the names in the Holocaust. This is a Sisyphusian task to try to create a comprehensive list -- so I won't do that. Heck, it'd be impossible to list all the failures of any on of their personalities alone (Ed Shultz, Chris Matthews, Tom Brokaw, Mika, Maddow, and the other Hurricane Katrina's of journalistic ethics). So I'll just cherry pick, and offer a few nuggets, links to aggregate sources, greatest misses, and things that can point out the obvious to those capable of getting it.

NPR

NPR.png
I so dread starting an NPR section, because I listen to them a lot, and hear at least 2 or 3 fuck-ups per day, unless it's a weekend or later at night, then it's more like 10. Thus, starting this section would be a full time job of correcting much of what they say about Conservatives, Libertarians, or anything but left leaning feel good stories.

New York Times

NYTbullshit.png
A never great News Agency has become a shadow of their former self: admittedly biased by their own Ombudsman and editors, as well as exposed confessions. They still have occasionally good content, but that can't make up for their more frequent bad, or their willingness to deceive, commit lies of omission, or present things in a biased way.

Occupy Democrats

Occupy-Democrats.png
RMVP or Propagandaministerium of America. They exist to take things out of context, lie, distort, and feel that any means to their ends (of furthering the power of government over the people) is justified. At least based on their actions. If you can't look at anything they post, and find at least 10 things wrong with it, then you're not qualified to have a discussion.

PolitiFact

Politifact.png
List of evidence that supports the popular opinion that PolitiFact is biased partisan hackery. Worse than that, they act like angry grade schoolers when caught, which is fairly often. So there are basically two camps: those that think PolitiFact is non-partisan, and those who know what's going on in the world.

Snopes

Snopes.png

Despite a cabal of liberal editors, most of Snopes isn't that bad. But many fair stories doesn't correct for completely biased and unfair ones. And as a source, each article deserves it's own scrutiny, with many falling far below journalistic standards.

SPLC

SPLC Logo.png

A far left site created to fear-monger for money. Their platform is used to attack anyone on the right, and by their own standards, they would qualify as a hate-group, if they applied their standards to left-of-center institutions.

Washington Post

WaPo.png
A once great paper, now a liberal fake news rag that looks more like Bezos Blog than a Newspaper. A list of falsehoods, embarrassments, and mistakes.

Wikipedia

Wikipedia.png

Wikipedia is both hit and miss, with a lot more hits than misses. I reference it a lot, because most articles are pretty good, or at least good enough. But don't let that lull you into an "Appeal to Authority" or "Appeal to Celebrity" fallacy. Science is skepticism. Wikipedia is hegemony. Wikipedia has millions of articles, across hundreds of thousands of topics -- and each topic is a community (clique) of editors, but herd-think rules most of them. That means if one clique is bad, that whole area can be bad. And there are bad (biased) areas of wikipedia. Especially in History, Science, Politics, and anything that's controversial. And everything can be political and controversial to folks that focus on any topic.

Fake victims

Checking the Checkers:
Clinton vs Trump speeches

NoBS.png

The AP (Administration's Press) did a couple of comedy pieces, playing a DNC water carrier, poorly disguised as fact checking. (WaPo, PBS, ABC, Yahoo, and a few other places ran these pieces, so they own that bias as well).

The idea appears to have been to cherry pick the worst 11 things Trump said, and play pedantics to make them look worse, while ignoring 57 things he said that were correct facts. Then compared that to the 11 best things Hillary said (with a few sacrifices to look objective), then excusing most of them, while ignoring 60 things they could have criticized her on, if they were measuring her by the same yardstick as Trump. Michael Moore couldn't have done it better.

The article's below summarize each of the two speeches and "FactChecks" to show not only how they use selection bias, standards bias, and other techniques within each "fact check" -- but also how massively obvious the bias is when you compare them side-by-side. (Assuming you believe that both side's politicians lie equally).