It’s mostly an embedded clip from MSNBC; clicking the linked article can be informative!
I’m also not sure what bias you are accusing Meidas Touch of in the headline (since we know you didn’t get any further than that)? Is it the part about the maga convoy being confused? We know they are easily led from one moral outrage to another without really understanding the issues.
The part about there not being an invasion at the border? It’s obvious there isn’t anything of the sort happening, because the people that are claiming it’s happening are the same ones who just said that they refuse to do anything about it for a year, until (they hope) Trump is president.
I’m also not sure what bias you are accusing Meidas Touch of in the headline (since we know you didn’t get any further than that)?
If only someone had provided a link that would have answered that question, you know, in the post you replied to. I guess you were the one who couldnt get that far.
Sure, but all the MBFC link proves is that Meidas Touch has an unapologetic left-leaning bias, and they tend to only bother running stories that support that bias. Unlike many other “mixed” factual reporting news sites, they’re not in that category for lying and/or spreading misinformation. This suggests that the article is true. There’s no value in your original insinuation that there’s something wrong with the source of this information, as per your own link.
MeidasTouch does not have a reputation for giving factual information, and its extreme bias makes it inherently untrustworthy… and despite what you claim about them not lying/spreading misinformation, mediabiascheck cites 3 different times they’ve failed a fact check because they were spreading false/made up information.
The real question is why you think its not okay to call out bad sources if they are left leaning. Which is what you surely seem to be implying, with your blatant misrepresentation of whats on the mediabiasfact page about mediastouch and how hard you are trying to defend meidastouch despite a documented history of being fast and lose with facts and truth.
But you wont answer that
No, I wager you’d be more inclined to drill into one factual thing in one article and use that to handwave away meidastouch’s problematic patterns, because your bias is more important than reputable sources and factual reporting… because thats what you’re already doing here, and now.
Overall, we rate MeidasTouch Left Biased based on the negative portrayal of Donald Trump and Republicans and the promotion of Democratic candidates. We also rate them Mixed for factual reporting due to a lack of transparency with funding and the publication of one-sided content that can be misleading.
?
Just working with your sources. I don’t care about Meidas Touch. I hadn’t even heard of them before I stumbled into this thread.
I think it’s okay to accept that everything and everyone has a bias. Removing bias from all reporting is simply impossible, so instead we work to understand our bias’ and the bias’ of others and instead call out non-factual reporting. So, to answer your question, I think it’s okay to call out bad sources for being bad regardless of their lean, but I also don’t think having a noteworthy lean makes a sourcebinherently bad.
I don’t appreciate the straw man you’re attempting to build for me. Trying to angrily have my half of the conversation while spewing a pile of assumptions about what I think is a bad look. Unless the look you’re going for is “a random idiot”, which, I mean, when someone tells you who they are, believe them.
MeidasTouch does not have a reputation for giving factual information
prove it, where are the lies and misinformation?
The real question is why you think its not okay to call out bad sources if they are left leaning.
No, the real question is why you think left leaning bias = bad source.
MBFC says this:
Overall, we rate MeidasTouch Left Biased based on the negative portrayal of Donald Trump and Republicans and the promotion of Democratic candidates. We also rate them Mixed for factual reporting due to a lack of transparency with funding and the publication of one-sided content that can be misleading.
None of that has anything to do with false ‘facts’ and the like, bias doesn’t equal bad source until said bias leads to the degradation of truth in the reporting.
trying to defend meidastouch despite a documented history of being fast and lose with facts and truth.
again, where is the proof? You can’t just speak things into existence. YOU are the one bringing this accusation, so YOU are the one with the onus to provide proof of said accusations.
It’s mostly an embedded clip from MSNBC; clicking the linked article can be informative!
I’m also not sure what bias you are accusing Meidas Touch of in the headline (since we know you didn’t get any further than that)? Is it the part about the maga convoy being confused? We know they are easily led from one moral outrage to another without really understanding the issues.
The part about there not being an invasion at the border? It’s obvious there isn’t anything of the sort happening, because the people that are claiming it’s happening are the same ones who just said that they refuse to do anything about it for a year, until (they hope) Trump is president.
If only someone had provided a link that would have answered that question, you know, in the post you replied to. I guess you were the one who couldnt get that far.
Sure, but all the MBFC link proves is that Meidas Touch has an unapologetic left-leaning bias, and they tend to only bother running stories that support that bias. Unlike many other “mixed” factual reporting news sites, they’re not in that category for lying and/or spreading misinformation. This suggests that the article is true. There’s no value in your original insinuation that there’s something wrong with the source of this information, as per your own link.
MeidasTouch does not have a reputation for giving factual information, and its extreme bias makes it inherently untrustworthy… and despite what you claim about them not lying/spreading misinformation, mediabiascheck cites 3 different times they’ve failed a fact check because they were spreading false/made up information.
The real question is why you think its not okay to call out bad sources if they are left leaning. Which is what you surely seem to be implying, with your blatant misrepresentation of whats on the mediabiasfact page about mediastouch and how hard you are trying to defend meidastouch despite a documented history of being fast and lose with facts and truth.
But you wont answer that
No, I wager you’d be more inclined to drill into one factual thing in one article and use that to handwave away meidastouch’s problematic patterns, because your bias is more important than reputable sources and factual reporting… because thats what you’re already doing here, and now.
?
Just working with your sources. I don’t care about Meidas Touch. I hadn’t even heard of them before I stumbled into this thread.
I think it’s okay to accept that everything and everyone has a bias. Removing bias from all reporting is simply impossible, so instead we work to understand our bias’ and the bias’ of others and instead call out non-factual reporting. So, to answer your question, I think it’s okay to call out bad sources for being bad regardless of their lean, but I also don’t think having a noteworthy lean makes a sourcebinherently bad.
I don’t appreciate the straw man you’re attempting to build for me. Trying to angrily have my half of the conversation while spewing a pile of assumptions about what I think is a bad look. Unless the look you’re going for is “a random idiot”, which, I mean, when someone tells you who they are, believe them.
prove it, where are the lies and misinformation?
MBFC says this:
None of that has anything to do with false ‘facts’ and the like, bias doesn’t equal bad source until said bias leads to the degradation of truth in the reporting.
again, where is the proof? You can’t just speak things into existence. YOU are the one bringing this accusation, so YOU are the one with the onus to provide proof of said accusations.