you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]christnmusicreleases 6 insightful - 6 fun6 insightful - 5 fun7 insightful - 6 fun -  (8 children)

Please don't bring in any left-wing "fact checkers" to an argument. That disproves you from the beginning.

[–][deleted] 4 insightful - 3 fun4 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 3 fun -  (7 children)

Facts are not 'left-wing' or 'right-wing', though one could mistakenly think facts are 'left-wing', when right-wing politics includes an expensive, exxtensive corporate campaign of lies. (Politifact is not left or right.)

[–][deleted] 5 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 2 fun -  (6 children)

when right-wing politics includes an expensive, exxtensive corporate campaign of lies

And what do you think is the purpose of the fact checkers?

Msm says msm is trustworthy and the dissidents are all liars. When people stop believing, fact checkers are invented. A new type of organization filled with the same people telling the same story.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

Not all news agencies are equal. This is typical false equivalence used by corrupt news media. The purpose of fact checkers is to determine facts. Pick an approach, check the facts, support those who engage with the facts.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Not all news agencies are equal.

Indeed. There are agencies that have been bought, agencies that refuse to be bought and agencies that are still growing. The second group is the smallest, since almost anyone can be bought and there are many non-market ways to reduce the price.

The purpose of fact checkers is to determine facts.

The purpose of an organization is to serve its customers. Fixing the problem of corrupt agencies that protect each other up and corrupt new agencies, by throwing even more agencies into this fire, is a pretty leftist idea. Their customer base has never been very diverse.

Pick an approach, check the facts, support those who engage with the facts.

"Context missing", false. "Mostly" true. These guys are comically biased.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Rather than speak in generalities, perhaps we look at a chart:

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/how-biased-is-your-news-source-you-probably-wont-agree-with-this-chart-2018-02-28

Let's say you're an invester. Be sure to pick a good horse.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Comments at your site say you're wrong.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

Why should anyone agree with those comments? You do realize that idiots post comments on websites, right?

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Indeed. But it doesn't really matter how clever they are and what they think they're posting.

The thing that matters, is what I manage to read. And learn.