71–77 of 77 posts
No judgement on this particular opinion piece, but just for sake of clarity in case people are unaware, the Washington Examiner has a rather pronounced conservative and Republican bias.
You say it like it's a bad thing. Odd.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Of course it's not "totally harmless". It's just better than the alternatives. Not using herbicides is totally harmless to humans. It just reduces profits. Personally, I'm for options that prioritize humans over money.
Not using herbicides destroys the land which is where this discussion started.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Neutral source: https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/washington-examiner/ Neutral, perhaps, but also poorly qualified: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_Bias/Fact_Check : > The Columbia Journalism Review describes Media Bias/Fact Check as an amateur attempt at categorizing media bias and Van Zandt as an "armchair media analyst."[2] Van Zandt describes himself as someone with "more than 20 years as an arm chair research…
Totally fair, thank you. But you left out some important bits from your response, including that several academic groups have used the site for building fake news classifiers: > The site has been used by researchers at the University of Michigan to create a tool called the "Iffy Quotient", which draws data from Media Bias/Fact Check and NewsWhip to track the prevalence of 'fake news' and questionable sources on socia…
No I didn't. My quote from Wikipedia included this: "The Poynter Institute notes, "Media Bias/Fact Check is a widely cited source for news stories and even studies about misinformation, despite the fact that its method is in no way scientific [emphasis mine].""
The fact that some AI group used it to train a classifier is not a very strong endorsement in my opinion. AI researchers aren't journalism subject matter experts, and Media Bias/Fact Check is obviously a very convenient data source, but covenience is not good indicator of quality.
> Despite publications in academia using the site, you may also note the following:
> ...I'm not sure what to think of the above pedigree for CJR's editor, but IMO I suspect he either fell to one end of the political spectrum or the other.
You seem to be trying to synthesize two disparate observations to imply the idea that Kyle Pope is some kind of conservative and therefore too untrustworthy to evaluate Media Bias/Fact Check, but that betrays a poor understanding of how newspapers operate. In a well-run paper, there's a separation between the newsroom and the opinion/editorial pages. For instance, the WSJ has a famously conservative editorial page. You might think its reporters have the same ideology, but (IIRC) its newsroom staff is even more liberal than that from the NYT, a fact that seldom shows because they're so professional. The newsroom exists to report the facts, and the editorial pages to voice the opinions of the owner/publisher. That Jerod Kushner had his paper endorse Donald Trump in no way reflects on Kyle Pope's judgement as a journalist.
Furthermore, Kyle Pope's own Wiki page has him saying:
> In an interview with Brian Stelter of CNN, Pope stated that after the election of President Donald Trump, the news media needs to rethink how it covers the news in order to "retake the agenda from this man who so hungers for attention, and how do we tell stories in a way that reflects the scale and sweep of the moment we're in?" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyle_Pope)
The tone of that kinda confirms to me that your quotes are two puzzle pieces that don't actually fit together.
I'm inclined to trust the CJR's editor's judgement on journalism topics (topics which include the Media Bias/Fact Check website), because the CJR is the professional journal of the most prestigious American school of journalism.
Good. It needs to die and be replaced with something new. I grew up there and the only reason it has survived this long is encouraging teenage pregnancy.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I couldn't agree more. I'd love to live in deep rural but I really need at least 10 mbit/s duplex reliable (rare downtime, low ping/jitter) internet connection (at a reasonable price), Amazon/eBay/etc delivery and a train to get me to the city in no longer than a couple of hours on any day I need. Once these are available I'm movin'
No ISP is going to invest in high-speed internet to rural areas without a built-in base large enough and willing to pay for it. In any case, I'm pretty sure that they'd charge somewhere north of your reasonable price. As for trains, even less unlikely. Running a train is a massive expense in capital costs and maintenance. Any trains still remaining today are exclusively freight save for Amtrack which only follows its…
I believe Internet everywhere really is an essential thing every nation has to get to revitalize rural development.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Totally fair, thank you. But you left out some important bits from your response, including that several academic groups have used the site for building fake news classifiers: > The site has been used by researchers at the University of Michigan to create a tool called the "Iffy Quotient", which draws data from Media Bias/Fact Check and NewsWhip to track the prevalence of 'fake news' and questionable sources on socia…
> But you left out some important bits from your response, including that several academic groups have used the site for building fake news classifiers No I didn't. My quote from Wikipedia included this: "The Poynter Institute notes, "Media Bias/Fact Check is a widely cited source for news stories and even studies about misinformation, despite the fact that its method is in no way scientific [emphasis mine]."" The fa…
At the end of the day I suppose I am still curious where/how I can gauge the political bias of a given news source? Does CJR do something like this on their own?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> for sake of clarity never heard of this newsource before but what kind of clarity is this additional information supposed to provide ?
Every media source has bias and I think people should be aware of them, especially for smaller sources like Washington Examiner.