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.
Facebook is completely non-partisan and has no biases or agendas, right? LOL. History proves that FactCheck.org 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.
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.
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.
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.
⚖️ 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 speechesSo 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).
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.
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-Cortez • Barack Obama • Bernie Sanders • Chris Matthews • Chuck Schumer • Cory Booker • Dan Rather • Diane Feinstein • Donna Brazile • Elizabeth Warren • Eric Swalwell • Hillary Clinton • Jim Acosta • John Kerry • Kamala Harris • Maxine Waters • Nancy Pelosi • Stacey Abrams • Ted Kennedy •
🚫 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?
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 left likes to spread lies (myths) and then use as an excuse for more government or oppression of the white male patriarchy. Like their fantastical claims that we have a "rape culture", that sexual assault is everywhere (especially on campus) with exaggerated claims, and that Women never use their sexuality to get ahead, have regrets and/or lie about being sexually assaulted or raped. While facts show that fake sexual accusations happens between 2-10% of the time (from multiple studies), which is actually about 5x more common than other crimes that 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. You get what you incentivize, and this has great pity rewards. 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 Saez • Stanford Prison Experiment • Numbers Covered by Obamacare • Minimum Wage Laws • Medicare-for-all popularity • Climate Consensus • Beepocalypse • 2014.06.06 DGU Disinformation • and so on.
Of course there is inequality and injustice in the world, and even in our nation. But by and large, we're in the top handful of countries in the world as far as tolerance and diversity, in every dimension. But the progressive left is addicted "progress" (change), not balance, or knowing when to stop/slow/moderate. So no matter what progress is made, they have to ignore it, exaggerate the wrongs and the potential for government to fix society with a few laws and a little more intolerance towards that with which they disagree -- until they get to the point where their views are a caricature of reality, and a delusion. That only they are virtuous, and those who disagree in any degree, are not (and thus are enemies). Here's a list of silly or abusive things the Social Justice Warriors (Snowflakes) demand.
⚖️ All the articles about bias.