2024 US Presidential Election

[jasperkent]

NPR (National Public Radio) - Bias and Credibility

LEFT-CENTER BIAS These media sources have a slight to moderate liberal bias. They often publish factual information that utilizes loaded words (wording

mediabiasfactcheck.com

 

[jasperkent]

You'll notice that American Mind has "mixed" credibility, while NPR rates "high" credibility.

One leans Right, the other slightly Left, but the latter is much better factually.

 

[mal3volent]

You'll notice that American Mind has "mixed" credibility, while NPR rates "high" credibility.

One leans Right, the other slightly Left, but the latter is much better factually.

Does anyone analyze the credibility of the credibility raters?

 

[brokedownpalace10]

Does anyone analyze the credibility of the credibility raters?

Then who would analyze the credibility of the credibility raters who analyzed the credibility of the credibility raters?

I personally go by whether the credibility raters seem to agree with the impressions I have of the news sites. Really, you can tell the far left and the far right trash pretty quickly. For any issue which strongly interests me, I read a few news sites toward the middle and see what they agree on. Those are usually the underlying facts. Non-extreme sites slant and omit. Extreme sites sometimes actually lie or get pretty close.

 

[alasdairm]

I read most of it but didn't finish it because it's the same claim I've seen before.
Every exhaustive investigation of voter fraud has revealed nearly nothing-- usually 3 or 4 cases (or attempts) out of tens of millions.

i read it too.

there is a decent amount of conjecture in the piece but also plenty of credible info from officials at the state level e.g.

"“Even the conservative CATO Institute has said that ‘noncitizens don’t illegally vote in detectable numbers,’” California Democratic Sen. Alex Padilla noted in a floor speech in response to Mike Lee, referencing a 2020 blog post from the libertarian think tank. "

"North Carolina election board public information director Patrick Gannon told RCI: “We have little evidence of noncitizens voting in elections, and get very few complaints alleging voting by noncitizens.”"

"Similarly, Wisconsin election commission public information officer Riley Vetterkind told RCI, “There is not evidence to support the idea that noncitizens are voting in Wisconsin in significant numbers.” The spokesperson for the state’s bipartisan commission cited the few instances of suspected election fraud, irregularities, or violations referred to district attorneys by municipal clerks that the state’s election commission “has been made aware of.”"

that said, "These messages of reassurance, however, at times come with notes of caution that underpin election integrity advocates’ concerns."

alasdair

 

[mal3volent]

Then who would analyze the credibility of the credibility raters who analyzed the credibility of the credibility raters?

I personally go by whether the credibility raters seem to agree with the impressions I have of the news sites. Really, you can tell the far left and the far right trash pretty quickly. For any issue which strongly interests me, I read a few news sites toward the middle and see what they agree on. Those are usually the underlying facts. Non-extreme sites slant and omit. Extreme sites sometimes actually lie or get pretty close.

I'm just saying, if I were a rich partisan donor, I would try throwing as much money as I could at one of these fact check/credibility sites to get them to do my bidding. And I doubt I'm the only one who has had that thought.

 

[brokedownpalace10]

I'm just saying, if I were a rich partisan donor, I would try throwing as much money as I could at one of these fact check/credibility sites to get them to do my bidding. And I doubt I'm the only one who has had that thought.

Riight. But, as I said, where do you stop. Are we going to have checkers for the checkers for the checkers?
Personally, as said above, I go by what source seems to be something I can depend on as proven over time and if the media checkers agree, they also get a plus point.

The thing I absolutely can't fathom about Trumpers is how they can have a blatant lie proven to them and then just bounce right back and continue mindlessly consuming that data source. To me, that would seriously put that media source in question.

Yes, they have all always slanted and omitted. No, they have not all always lied outright. That's new.

 

[pixies+]

Respectfully, think that goes both ways. Personally.

 

[alasdairm]

I'm just saying, if I were a rich partisan donor, I would try throwing as much money as I could at one of these fact check/credibility sites to get them to do my bidding.

sure. is there any evidence that is actually happening?

we all have to do our best to research multiple sources and make our best decision with the information we have.

i think, very generally speaking, that many/most people here - regardless of their political leaning or affiliation - do just that.

(which is why i think it's a real shame there's a small group of individuals here who constantly tell people with whom they disagree that they're just morons believing what the media tells them )

alasdair

 

[mal3volent]

sure. is there any evidence that is actually happening?

we all have to do our best to research multiple sources and make our best decision with the information we have.

i think, very generally speaking, that many/most people here - regardless of their political leaning or affiliation - do just that.

(which is why i think it's a real shame there's a small group of individuals here who constantly tell people with whom they disagree that they're just morons believing what the media tells them )

alasdair

I guess my point was I'd rather do the research myself to find out if a claim is true or not rather than relying on these 'fact checker' organizations that could also be biased in some way.

 

[brokedownpalace10]

I guess my point was I'd rather do the research myself to find out if a claim is true or not rather than relying on these 'fact checker' organizations that could also be biased in some way.

They're definitely handy for weeding out time wasters. The extremes.
And, I actually like to cite lean right sources like Forbes for basic latest news. It's harder to question my link then.

 

[alasdairm]

I guess my point was I'd rather do the research myself to find out if a claim is true or not rather than relying on these 'fact checker' organizations that could also be biased in some way.

sure.

many people just dismiss fact-checking anyway, if it supports something with which they disagree...

alasdair

 

[glutitis]

In germany Trump is widely considered an elite idiot.
I mean he atacked his own country, have you forgotten.
We had reagan, an actor, widely laughed at. Yet there's more.
A trump
You must be out of your tree, sorry.
( No offense......I guess)

 

[mal3volent]

In germany Trump is widely considered an elte idiot.
I mean he atacked his own country, have you forgotten.
We had reagan, an actor, widely laughed at. Yet tehre's more.
A trump
You must be out of your tree, sorry.
( No offense......I guess)

The sentiments you just expressed is partly why he got elected.
The more you laugh at him the more his supporters turn out to the polls.

 

[jasperkent]

Here are two other well-respected bias checkers. Note that AllSides does not check for factual accuracy.

About Us | Ground News

Ground News is a platform that makes it easy to keep up to date with the news, compare news outlets coverage and check media bias on news stories and articles.

ground.news

About AllSides

We expose people to information and ideas from all sides of the political spectrum so they can better understand the world — and each other.

www.allsides.com

 

[JackARoe]

Fact checking is the only way forward with AI. The fact we have people saying the Earth could be flat shows how much dumber we are as a society when we lie.

Fact checking, watch for it. Look for truth. It stands the test of time. Dissect each and every bit of info coming into our minds. There is a truth in every situation.

 

[jasperkent]

I get 95% of my news from NPR. I've been listening to NPR news on the radio for over 45 years and I prefer it to other more popular news outlets like CNN, MSNBC (both strongly biased Left), and FauxNews (hard Right rage-generating apparatus with only a nodding acquaintance with the truth).

NPR is criticized by some as boring. That's because they take the responsibility of reporting news seriously and they don't sensationalize. Like the BBC (also good), they have dignity. NPR leans slightly Left, but they do not lie. They try to show every side of any issue and often have people with opposing viewpoints present their respected sides of the story. On the rare occasion that they make a factual error, they are quick to correct themselves.

They also present well-researched deep dives into a wide variety of subjects. It is not unusual for me to learn something entirely new from listening to NPR for a couple of hours.

And yes, I donate to them as often as I can.

 

[jasperkent]

turnour.In germany Trump is widely considered an elte idiot.
I mean he atacked his own country, have you forgotten.
We had reagan, an actor, widely laughed at. Yet tehre's more.
A trump
You must be out of your tree, sorry.
( No offense......I guess)

I am deeply embarrassed for my country that he was elected once and is now getting yet another chance.
Keep in mind that only about 30% of the American people actually support this buffoon.
Our biggest problem here is apathy. When 66% of eligible voters actually show up to vote, it's considered a huge turnout.

 

[brokedownpalace10]

I get 95% of my news from NPR. I've been listening to NPR news on the radio for over 45 years and I prefer it to other more popular news outlets like CNN, MSNBC (both strongly biased Left), and FauxNews (hard Right rage-generating apparatus with only a nodding acquaintance with the truth).

NPR is criticized by some as boring. That's because they take the responsibility of reporting news seriously and they don't sensationalize. Like the BBC (also good), they have dignity. NPR leans slightly Left, but they do not lie. They try to show every side of any issue and often have people with opposing viewpoints present their respected sides of the story. On the rare occasion that they make a factual error, they are quick to correct themselves.

They also present well-researched deep dives into a wide variety of subjects. It is not unusual for me to learn something entirely new from listening to NPR for a couple of hours.

And yes, I donate to them as often as I can.

I think MSNBC is way more liberal biased than CNN. Trump just painted CNN with his broad brush and I don't think they like him now either. I watch both but take them with a grain of s̶a̶l̶t̶ morphine.
Very much agreed on NPR and BBC, including on the slight liberal bias. When I hear people say they are hard liberal, I just learned something about that person.

 

[glutitis]

I am deeply embarrassed for my country that he was elected once and is now getting yet another chance.
Keep in mind that only about 30% of the American people actually support this buffoon.
Our biggest problem here is apathy. When 66% of eligible voters actually show up to vote, it's considered a huge turnout.

Of course, I know, you are not stupid enterly .
There has to be reason. I mean, look at your history , man.
Americans liberated, germany, thank god.
Care packets on the way, without thinking, even feeding Berlin, by planes, throwing chocolate bars for children.
This is what , I saw in american people. Little bit of glorification in my thoughts. All the lives in France.

And then this bullie comes along.
I cant believe it, like ever.