From iGeek
(Redirected from Category:Bias)
Jump to: navigation, search
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.

⚖️ 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 (or the DNC's blog) than an objective Newspaper. To be fair, WaPo was always walking in the Grey Lady's (NYT's) shadow, and Jeff Bezos acquisition didn't change much... now that the NYT in the mud, it's no surprise that WaPo is crawling in the sewer. Here is a partial 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.

⚖️ Of course everyone has a bias, but these are some of the biased people that I'm tracking.

Everyone is biased, I'm open about mine, so that people can decide if I'm right in spite of them, or where I go wrong (if they disagree). It started in 5th grade when I learned early that the School textbooks and teachers were indoctrinating me with lies (spin). The Italian part of my family was dominant, and that was the normal operating behavior: believe your own lies (self delusion), and repeat them to others until they believe them too (it didn't help that many were in sales). Then I noticed it in movies, TV, books, and Newspapers. The more I looked into everything I was being told, sold or cajoled on, the more bullshit and bias I became aware of. So cynical skepticism (distrust of what I'm told) was ingrained early, often, and imperfect skepticism served me well in most topics I dived into.

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).
I hate hypocrisy and duplicity. My mom's family was Italian, and they always had a loose relationship with the whole truth. It was more a fluid concept for them, where the truth was the best story you could sell -- or that if you repeated an embellishment long and hard enough, then success (acceptance) was proof of validity. From as long as I can remember, I recognized it and didn't like it. Not one bit. For me, the economics of a lie applied: in order for a lie to be valuable, it had to be trusted, or for that to happen, it had to be used as infrequently as possible. It helped form me into being a more honest person (with myself and others), and my self-righteous crusade against those who would fictionalize the past or present. Chuck Schumer is the antithesis of that, and everything I believe in.
Dan has it all, a career of sloppy rumormongering, fired from CBS for failing to vet forged documents, suing CBS and losing, and still defending his actions to this day. He started his career reporting JFK's death before he could have it verified, taking the Vietcong's side in the Vietnam war, dressing up as a mujahideen fighter during Afghanistan war, his career is a parody of Ron Burgundy. If Ron Burgundy was less self-aware.
List of fake newsmen and some of their greatest accomplishments. Including:
  • David Lettermen
  • Edward R. Murrow
  • Dan Rather: CBS
  • Jon Stewart
  • Brian Williams
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.
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. You don't get to pretend that you care about the truth or the tone when it's Donald Trump, then support people like this: Alexandria Ocasio-CortezBarack ObamaBernie SandersChris MatthewsChuck SchumerCory BookerDan RatherDiane FeinsteinDonna BrazileElizabeth WarrenEric SwalwellHillary ClintonJim AcostaJohn KerryKamala HarrisMaxine WatersNancy PelosiTed Kennedy
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.
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.
Once considered the paragon of a fair Journalist, now a parody of journalism, often reminding people of how partisan and biased he was all along.

🚫 Extreme bias (when you should have known better), goes beyond bias and becomes lies, frauds or fakes. This is about those fakes, and the faking fakers that fake them.

There's a reason why the moderately informed don't trust the Fact Checkers: the answer is most fact checkers are as biased (or more so) than the rest of the publications they work for. Who moderates the moderators?
None of this is to diminish that there still is real hate in America. But it is rare, and often directed at the right. Fake Hate still feels like hate. Rationalizing bad things, and trying to pin your crimes on the other side is as old as politics, and certainly the Republicans/conservatives have done it as well. But by nature of youth, Unions, low-education, disenfranchised and the media all favoring the left, from making excuses for the Indian Genocides, for racial lynching and the KKK, or interning the Japanese/Germans/Italians during WWII, 60's and 70's radicals, Antifa, BLM, the Unabomber, or democrats paying thugs to beat up Trump supporters at Trump rally's, and so on, the left has always been more willing to go there. And the media has been willing to suppress the sides of stories they don't like. If anything in here is News to you, then the News hasn't been doing its job.

While the term goes back 100 years, Sharyl Attkisson sums it up in a video.

While our media has always had false narratives and bad stories that are Fake News (exampled include: Edward R. Murrow's "See it now" McCarthy'ing Joe McCarthy (1954), Richard Jewel story (1996), story about a plane crashing into Camp David after 9/11 (2001), Duke LeCross Rape Case (2014), Michael Brown and 'hands up, don't shoot' narrative (2014), and so on). We didn't use the term "Fake News", just liberal media bias or incompetence, but it's been around since the first liberal got sloppy or partisan at a newspaper.

Then on September 13, 2016 Hillary Clinton supporters Google and Eric Schmidt, used a shell charity (a non-profit called "First Draft,") to start seeding the term to attack right wing websites ("to tackle malicious hoaxes and fake news reports"). Hillary Clinton and her surrogate David Brock of Media Matters admitted in a campaign letter that they pressured Facebook to join the effort. Google warned Conservative websites to remove stories that Google didn't like, or they'd take away their ad revenue. And Barack Obama and the liberal media followed along, regurgitating what they were told: none were going to let this opportunity (to curate what information we could see) go to waste, all in the name of protecting free speech. All coincidentally done at the same time, in what could only be a coordinated campaign attack.

Unfortunately for them, it backfired when people noticed that the mainstream liberal media made more errors and was less honest, and started throwing it back in their face. Fake News applied more to the News, Google, Facebook, Obama and other curators and finger pointers than their victims. Donald Trump used that to hijack the term and use it back against them. The left tried to change the narrative and pretend that Trump had created the term, and they wanted to stop using it and claimed it was a hateful term and an attack on free press to point out the Presses bias or errors. And that's where we are today.
While our media has always had false narratives and bad stories that are Fake News (exampled include: Edward R. Murrow's "See it now" McCarthy'ing Joe McCarthy (1954), Richard Jewel story (1996), story about a plane crashing into Camp David after 9/11 (2001), Duke LeCross Rape Case (2014), Michael Brown and 'hands up, don't shoot' narrative (2014), and so on). But Clinton supporters (Googe/Eric Schmidt) re-popularized the term to try to attack conservatives, and it backlashed against the mainstream liberal media big time: since they made more errors and were less honest.
The FakeHate grievance industry is so broad, that they are branching out, and have to have multiple divisions. Hey, you get what you incentivize. and the virtue signaling left rewards victimhood -- so people are lining up to join in. This is just the subset of FakeHate that is specifically about fake racial crimes.
There's a subcategory of Fake Hate, and Fake Crimes that's Fake Rape. The media/left especially likes to lie and claim this never happens, but that's not exactly the whole truth. Fake accusations happens between 2-10% of the time (from multiple studies), which is actually about 5x more common than other crimes are faked. The reason is pretty obvious, it's an easy crime to claim, and a hard crime to disprove, and it garners more attention and sympathy. This is magnified in high profile cases.
This is a list of things that people believe, based on "Studies" that have been debunked or discredited: Thomas Piketty and Emmanuel SaezStanford Prison ExperimentNumbers Covered by ObamacareMinimum Wage LawsMedicare-for-all popularityClimate ConsensusBeepocalypse2014.06.06 DGU Disinformation • and so on.
Here's a list of silly or abusive things the Social Justice Warriors (Snowflakes) demand.