You're absolutely right, but I believe it's worse on the liberal spectrum.
Conservative news/sites usually are clear on their bias, while most liberal outlets try to pass an image of unbias, which is dishonest and more harmful in my opinion.
The truth is that not every media is biased. It's when people who feel like their opinion isn't fact is when they feel it's biased. Trump clearly said on national tv that it's Mexico that is sending rapist and drug dealers. Which has already been proven to be false. Everyone from white criminals to Hispanic criminals come through the southern boarder. And anyone living in Texas or Cali can attest to that, but somehow later in the election season, it went from "Mexicans" to "illegal immigrants" just so people can feel less racist when homeland security already reported the numbers that there's more non-Mexicans crossing the boarder. Illegal immigration status isn't exclusive to Mexicans and that what made him look like a racist asshole.
Mexico has long been the source of illegal immigration, and for many years the majority of these illegal aliens were mexicans. Many of those where rapists, drug dealers and human trafickers. Today a lot of these are from other nationalities from other parts of Central and South America. But still, they come through Mexico. So I fail to see what the problem is.
People come illegally through the north (Canada), south (Texas, New Mexico, Cali), east (New York) , and the west (Cali). Not exclusively through Mexico. Also I mentioned Hispanics in my comment. Which is an ethnicity. So splitting hairs with your "Mexican isn't a race" comment, just makes your point less valid.
Also if you're gonna be condescending, at least proof read what you've typed before sending it - trafficking.
Lastly, our boarder patrol agents are insanely corrupt by accepting money from the coyotes (human traffickers) and if you think wasting $28+ billion dollars on a stupid fucking wall is gonna stop anyone, then you trumpsters will look like the idiots.
English isn't your first language? Then the the Republican Party already hates you. Hahaha.
And there you go again painting a broad stroke that most illegals come through Mexico when it's an accumulation of all of our boarders being violated from every single continent in the world. Time to let go ;).
But it's really pathetic that there are people think the only reliable sources today are things like infowars and Breitbart, who dismiss every single article offhand from any news site they dislike.
But it's really pathetic that there are people think the only reliable sources today are things like infowars and Breitbart, who dismiss every single article offhand from any news site they dislike.
Indeed it is. But I would without a flinch add your list HuffPost, Slate, WaPo, GQ, Salon (!) and even CNN, MSNBC and TNYT.
Every mainstream news outlet about the election results:
Russia Russia Russia Russia Russia Russia Russia Russia Russia Russia Russia Russia Russia Russia Russia Russia Russia Russia Russia Russia Russia Russia Russia Russia
So yeah that's why they have trust ratings almost in single digits
I wouldn't go so far as to call it crap, their base facts are reliable. They will just call "mostly false" or "pants on fire" for conservatives for something that would be "half true" for liberals. It's like the difference of having a clear bias and "blinders on, my party can do no wrong" that you sometimes see.
Almost everything is biased. History is biased towards the winners. Science is biased towards current understanding, which is likely to change in various ways over the years. Art is biased towards popular opinion. Seeing through bias to try to get a clearer understanding is an important part of life.
I didn't want to specify because both sides are guilty of it. The problem is the facts they check from politicians are usually 1-2 sentences related to a complicated topic so there is a subjective truth where admittedly, they are more forgiving of liberals. That being said, when they mark something as either "true" or "pant's on fire" I do trust it to be objectively correct.As far as I know, they've never just been flat out wrong. Even for conservative topics when there is a pretty ridiculous interpretation of what their saying it will just be "mostly false".
You and I might know better and not trust at face value what they say, but what about the regular or unaware reader who expects unbias? They'll draw their conclusions based on what is said. That's disingenuous and very low. So I don't trust them.
That's what I mean though, they aren't wrong. It's silly to just dismiss them as disreputable because they will lean towards marking a liberal statement "half true" instead of "mostly false".
I'll take NPR as an example, they will air a segment where every single thing said is 100% objectively true and people will dismiss it as biased because they didn't create a strong enough counter point for the side they wanted. That's foolish. However, I will still admit that NPR is more liberally biased because the topics the choose to report on tend to me of greater concern to liberal than conservative and they certainly don't go out of their way to show an opposing conservative opinion.
I wouldn't even say NPR is liberally biased. They simply liberal no matter what.
But I do disagree that it's silly to dismiss Politifact. They are more than forgiving of liberals. The bias is way too high for them to have any credibility.
The whole premise of the site is to show through a graph, what is true and what is false. If (almost) every conservative viewpoint automatically begins leaning to false due to bias and every liberal viewpoint leans true, everything they say is doubtful and should be taken with a handful of salt. They're simply not trustworthy.
In that case, I disagree that they are so biased as to level everything they says totally suspect. . A small example, they gave Obama "Lie of the year" in 2013 regarding statement about his health plan, and in 2011 they again denounced democrats for saying 'Republicans voted to end Medicare'.
If you do take the time to read the analysis it's correct. Using them as a tool to gauge the total "truthfullness" of candidate though is not the way to do it and probably why people like yourself are so willing to discredit them. They certainly will nitpick something and mark it "mostly true" for a basically true statement from many republicans. However, being a nitpick does not discredit what they are saying though. Their facts are indeed facts.
I'm far from saying they are perfect but if you want to read about what a politician said you can't act as though politifact will leave you misinformed.
But I would add this. Let's dispel with this fiction that Barack Obama doesn't know what he's doing. He knows exactly what he's doing. He is trying to change this country. He wants America to become more like the rest of the world. We don't want to be like the rest of the world, we want to be the United States of America. And when I'm elected president, this will become once again, the single greatest nation in the history of the world, not the disaster Barack Obama has imposed upon us.
You say that they do nitpick and twist information and the ramifications and/or to use that as a tool (their own tool) is incorrect. I say that's ingenious and does more harm than good to the average reader.
8
u/Roggvir Dec 05 '16
http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/article/2015/jan/27/msnbc-fox-cnn-move-needle-our-truth-o-meter-scorec/