Bias

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

Of course, I have a bias myself -- and my goal isn't to present both sides of everything. I trust that people know the "popular" or common understanding of things presented, so I often shortcut or omit that, and tend to focus on more the other side of the story (the less often heard), or the ones that make these organizations/people/stories look less than 100% credible. The goal in counter-balancing the myths isn't to just ad hominem the sources, it is to dilute the fallacies of either Cult of Popularity or Cult of Celebrity. To encourage people to be skeptical of all sources, and recognize when either side might not be telling the whole truth, or leading by example.

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).

Bloomberg is a privately held financial, software, data, and media company headquartered in Midtown Manhattan, founded by Michael Bloomberg in 1981.
FNN.png
In 1980 Ted Turner started CNN, and put his left center spin on "the news". His later marriage to Hanoi Jane Fonda didn't help perceptions, nor did the newsrooms agenda convey a fully objective tone. He wanted to be the 24 hour version of the same left of center news outlets like CBS, ABC, NBC. So it was founded on his flavor of bias, and went downhill. It wouldn't be quite so bad, if they were just honest about it: but the faux air of objectivity, and denial of any bias, makes it worse.
FakeNewsmen.jpg

There are people who are either too biased (or aren't paying attention) to realize how biased the media is. We're not going to convince each other of anything: me with proof, and them by denying it. So this article isn't for "them". It's just a place for me to collect example's of media bias, for those rational enough to consider them.

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 hour, 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.
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.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.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.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.

TheAtlantic.jpg

The Atlantic is a far-left Newspaper (not by ideology, just by bias), that occasionally lets a good article or two through, and even rarely has some diversity of thought. I had some hope when they hired the prolific conservative intellectual, Kevin Williamson, away from the National Review. But like so often happens in sheep flocks, they got nervous when someone unlike them came in, that the editors actually had to defend their position -- not because Kevin is a bomb-thrower, but because the snowflakes on staff, didn't want "one of them" in their clique. Then, less than a week in, he fired Kevin after his first article. Not because of its contents, but because of the content of his character: scrupulous, intellectual, and individualist (instead of collectivist progressive). Oh, and he committed a thought crime of saying abortion is a bad thing.

ViceCovers.jpg

Vice is a hard left outlet, that exists to twist every news story from a hard left PoV. Like the worst of WaPo, HuffPo and a basement blogger, all screaming against the injustices of the anyone with a clue. Other than the bad journalism, they were created as a pump-and-dump scam, that seems to have been successful -- sensationalism sells, and this was dot-com version of website replacing the old stodgy ink-stained fingers, with younger and hipper writing (ignore the quality beneath SuperMarket tabloids): it's clickbait journalism Pied Piper, only instead of leading the rats out of the sewer, it lead the other so-called jouranlistic institutions down into them.

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.
Hillary.jpg

The AP carried the DNC's water when "fact checking" the Trump speech, basically twisting 11 true (or mostly true) things into looking like he was lying, then ignoring 43 other true facts, to keep their ratios down: Checking the Checkers: Clinton vs Trump speeches

So of course you expect they'd treat Hillary Clinton the same way, and measure her by the same yardstick? Don't be absurd. The AP doesn't stand for the Administration's Press for nothing. They are to Journalism what Michael Moore was to Documentary Film Making: slovenly, hypocrtical, obnoxious propagandists. ABC news, Yahoo and a few others ran the AP piece, which means they agree (or were too lazy to vet the material before publishing).

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).

TrumpLogo.png

The AP (Administration's Press) did a comedy piece, playing a DNC water carrier, poorly disguised as fact checking. It's embarrassingly bad journalism, and really just an op-ed piece by a Clinton supporter.

If you look at the actual facts, Trump was materially correct in all of them. But since saying that, wouldn't fit the meme, they picked nits, changed topics, filled it with fluff or side topics, or had a wonky standard that will never apply the same way to Hillary.

FakeNewsmen.jpg
List of fake newsmen and some of their greatest accomplishments. Including:
  • David Lettermen
  • Edward R. Murrow
  • Dan Rather: CBS
  • Jon Stewart
  • Brian Williams


A list of people that all played the victim card.

Michael Brown

Kimmel1.png

Jimmy Kimmel was a misogynist and not-very-funny pseudo-commedian of the Man Show, before he became a host of late night TV. Then he decided to become "woke". Instead of taking the Johnny Carson tradition of poking at both sides, but mostly staying out of politics except for some zingers -- Kimmel became an SJW moron, that alienates anyone with a triply digit IQ. Instead of replacing Johnny Carson he decided he wanted to replace Jon Stewart, because Stewart had lower ratings, lower IQ audience, and won all sorts of Hollywood awards for his dishonesty. Who wouldn't want some of that?

Mika Brzezinski embarrassed herself and journalism by revealing her gossip on what someone said off-camera in a private conversation (when they weren't there to defend themselves). If Mika isn't fired, it shows how low of standards that MSNBC, NBC has. You destroy your credibility as a journalist by revealing private gossip as news. And who honestly believes Mika as the paragon of truth and non-exaggeration? Tucker Carlson eviscerated her for that.
DNCLogo.jpeg
Here's a list of abrasive and almost always wrong Democrats that are doing everything they can to divide the nation and champion falsehoods to their base.

Including:


MaddowCollar.jpg
Rachel Maddow lowlights -- again, this isn't to be a fair and balanced piece about her career and achievements, you can listen to her or MSNBC, CNN or any progressive if you want to hear that claptrap. This is more about some of the many of reasons her detractors are not fans.
Spicer.jpeg

Sean Spicer: Press Secretary for an unpopular administration means he's the victim of repeat yellow journalism and hatchet jobs. It's not that he doesn't say dumb things, he does. He just does it less often than the other side of the aisle, and when caught saying the same dumb things they did, the Press makes 10x the sink out of his mistakes. This lists a few examples.

Brokaw.jpg
Once considered the paragon of a fair Journalist, now a simple video like this can show how partisan and biased he was all along.

}}

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.
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).