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.

CNN

CNNaganda.jpeg
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.
Main article: CNN

Media Bias

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.

Main article: Media Bias

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.
Main article: PolitiFact

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.

Main article: Snopes

The Atlantic

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.

Main article: The Atlantic

Vice

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.

Main article: Vice

Checking the Checkers: Clinton Speech

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).

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).

Checking the Checkers: Trump Speech

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.

Fake Newsmen

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


Main article: Fake Newsmen

Jimmy Kimmel

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?

Main article: Jimmy Kimmel

Polemic Democrats

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:


Main article: Polemic Democrats

}}

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).