Biased Organizations

From iGeek
Jump to: navigation, search

Of course everything has a bias, but these are some of the biased organizations that I'm tracking things on.

A once reliable non-partisan Civil Liberties organization, they devolved to first be spotty (issues based), and now are more likely to align with the DNC than with civil liberties. You can't be for minority rights and not for individual rights, as the smallest minority is one -- yet, when given the choice, they often choose collective rights over individuals, use racism to fix racism (affirmative action), and ignoring parts of the constitution they don't like.
Bloomberg is a privately held financial, software, data, and media company headquartered in Midtown Manhattan, founded by Michael Bloomberg in 1981.
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.
Annenberg's is another lefty front posing as a non-partisan fact checker. Actually, since they started taking money from Facebook, they should be called Zuckerberg's follow the money. And Facebook is completely non-partisan and has no biases or agendas, right? LOL. History proves that was partisan and bias, but since their acquisition by Facebook, it seems that they won't have even the false front of being a "J-School", which are all partisan, it's just Zuckerberg's sock-puppet.
HuffPo is a mockery of new journalism. The rules to get published seem to be (1) be popular (2) be wrong on everything you post (3) be sensitive to any corrections (4) have a flock of trolls.
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.
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. (Never trusting their readership with the whole truth). More than that, some insist on idol worship for what they publish, and abject denial of their obvious and omitted bias: and that fuels the backlash against them.
New Yorker.png
The New Yorker was once a renowned for their fact checking and quality. Then David Remnick took over as Editor and they became the cheap partisan low-quality mock-worthy rag that they are today. This details just a small portion of that.
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.
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.
Politico started when left-of-center John F. Harris, and the slightly less left-of-center Jim VandeHei (who left to found Axios in disgust, and penned a FU I'm outta here letter), got funding for a DC tabloid journalism (rumor mongering) on the DC set. Sort of what HuffingtonPost was to Hollywood, but only for DC, if HuffPo had even lower ethical and journalistic standards. The point isn't that I dislike Politico -- its looser quality controls allows for some people to get a voice that they wouldn't have elsewhere. So to me, it's like reddit or twitchy -- sure most articles are full of shit, but they allow both sides turds, and you can find some treasures in the sewage, if you are willing to wade long enough.
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.
All sources have a bias, and all make mistakes. I don't care that Snopes was created by California couple Barbara and David Mikkelson, who decided to covert alt.folklore.urban newsgroup into a website. Despite a cabal of liberal editors, most of Snopes isn't that bad. But mostly fair, isn't completely fair -- and they have plenty of bias, un-corrected errors, and unfair interpretations. Each article deserves separate scrutiny/skepticism, with many falling far below journalistic standards. So despite their voracity supported by partisans and rubes, Snopes is far from the paragon of objectivity that some pretend. This article offers a small sampling of errors and bias.
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.
USAToday has a long history of dumb, and they should have been renamed USSA (United Socialist States of America) because that seems to be their bend/lean. But here's an example of their dumb.
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.
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 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.