One Political Plaza - Home of politics
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Main
DHS Inspector General Knew About Deleted Texts a Year Ago
Page <prev 2 of 2
Aug 1, 2022 16:05:54   #
TruePatriot49 Loc: The Democratic People's Republic Rhode Island
 
BadBoooooob, this is how you Make America Great Again!!!!!

Oops, didn't mean to give Democrats any ideas. I know that they are trying to figure out a way to get F. Joe Biden out of office and not have Heals up Harris be President. The things that keep Schmuck Shumer and Nasty Pelosi up at night.



Reply
Aug 1, 2022 16:20:42   #
Bad Bob Loc: Virginia
 
TruePatriot49 wrote:
BadBoooooob, this is how you Make America Great Again!!!!!

Oops, didn't mean to give Democrats any ideas. I know that they are trying to figure out a way to get F. Joe Biden out of office and not have Heals up Harris be President. The things that keep Schmuck Shumer and Nasty Pelosi up at night.



Reply
Aug 1, 2022 16:41:29   #
Bad Bob Loc: Virginia
 
Justice101 wrote:
What's funny about Judicial Watch? They have done better for rooting out corruption than our Congress has. Is it because you have nothing on your f**e MediaBiasCheck site to b***h and moan about? YOU are apparently laughing at yourself BB. Glad to see it.


https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/judicial-watch/

Factual Reporting: Low - Not Credible - Not Reliable - F**e News - Bias
QUESTIONABLE SOURCE

A questionable source exhibits one or more of the following: extreme bias, consistent promotion of propaganda/conspiracies, poor or no sourcing to credible information, a complete lack of t***sparency, and/or is f**e news. F**e News is the deliberate attempt to publish h**xes and/or disinformation for profit or influence (Learn More). Sources listed in the Questionable Category may be very untrustworthy and should be fact-checked on a per-article basis. Please note sources on this list are not considered f**e news unless specifically written in the reasoning section of that source. See all Questionable sources.

Overall, we rate Judicial Watch Questionable based on extreme right-wing bias, promotion of conspiracy theories, and an abysmal fact check record.

led Report

Reasoning: Conspiracy, Propaganda, Numerous Failed Fact Checks
Bias Rating: FAR RIGHT
Factual Reporting: LOW
Country: USA (45/180 Press Freedom)
Media Type: Website
Traffic/Popularity: Medium Traffic
MBFC Credibility Rating: LOW CREDIBILITY
History

Founded in 1994 by Larry Klayman, Judicial Watch (JW) is an American conservative activist group that files Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuits to investigate government officials’ alleged misconduct. They primarily target Democrats such as the Clinton’s, Obama, and climate scientists as they label climate science “fraud science.” Judicial Watch has made numerous false and unsubstantiated claims, with a “vast majority” of their lawsuits dismissed. They describe themselves as “a conservative, non-partisan educational foundation, promotes t***sparency, accountability, and integrity in government, politics and the law.” The current President of JW is Tom Fitton.

Read our profile on the United States government and media.
Funded by / Ownership

Judicial Watch is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization with contributions from individuals, foundations, and corporations. According to Sourcewatch, JW receives funding from prominent right-wing organizations such as the Carthage Foundation and Scaife Foundation.
Analysis / Bias

Judicial Watch reports news on their website using strong emotional language that is usually pro-right or anti-left. Common topics covered are anti-immigration, in which they highlight crimes committed by i*****l i*******ts such as this: Busy Month for I*****l I*******ts Committing Heinous Crimes or dedicating an entire website to exposing former President Obama’s alleged IRS scandal. They have also promoted debunked conspiracy theories such as this. Further, the founder of JW, Larry Klayman, recently promoted the conspiracy that the Clintons were k*****g people. In general, the majority of content and story se******n is anti-left.
Failed Fact Checks

DHS Quietly Moving, Releasing ‘Vanloads’ of ‘I*****l A***ns’ Away from Border – FALSE
Has Nancy Pelosi spent $100,000 on food, booze, and “partying” during her air travel? – FALSE
Judicial Watch says ISIS operating a camp in Mexico–near El Paso – FALSE
‘Islamic Refugee’ with Gas Pipeline Plans Arrested in New Mexico Border County – FALSE
Did the IRS ‘Fast Track’ Tax-Exempt Status for ‘After School Satan’ Clubs? – FALSE
“More than 100,000 DACA applicants have been arrested—Murder, Rape, DUI.” – MOSTLY FALSE
Did a legal settlement between Judicial Watch and California e******n officials prove that one million illegal v**es were cast in the 2018 e******ns in California? – FALSE (4/29/2020)

Overall, we rate Judicial Watch Questionable based on extreme right-wing bias, promotion of conspiracy theories, and an abysmal fact check record. (7/19/2016) Updated (D. Van Zandt 03/14/2021)
Source: https://www.judicialwatch.org



Reply
 
 
Aug 1, 2022 17:17:51   #
Justice101
 
Bad Bob wrote:
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/judicial-watch/

Factual Reporting: Low - Not Credible - Not Reliable - F**e News - Bias
QUESTIONABLE SOURCE

A questionable source exhibits one or more of the following: extreme bias, consistent promotion of propaganda/conspiracies, poor or no sourcing to credible information, a complete lack of t***sparency, and/or is f**e news. F**e News is the deliberate attempt to publish h**xes and/or disinformation for profit or influence (Learn More). Sources listed in the Questionable Category may be very untrustworthy and should be fact-checked on a per-article basis. Please note sources on this list are not considered f**e news unless specifically written in the reasoning section of that source. See all Questionable sources.

Overall, we rate Judicial Watch Questionable based on extreme right-wing bias, promotion of conspiracy theories, and an abysmal fact check record.

led Report

Reasoning: Conspiracy, Propaganda, Numerous Failed Fact Checks
Bias Rating: FAR RIGHT
Factual Reporting: LOW
Country: USA (45/180 Press Freedom)
Media Type: Website
Traffic/Popularity: Medium Traffic
MBFC Credibility Rating: LOW CREDIBILITY
History

Founded in 1994 by Larry Klayman, Judicial Watch (JW) is an American conservative activist group that files Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuits to investigate government officials’ alleged misconduct. They primarily target Democrats such as the Clinton’s, Obama, and climate scientists as they label climate science “fraud science.” Judicial Watch has made numerous false and unsubstantiated claims, with a “vast majority” of their lawsuits dismissed. They describe themselves as “a conservative, non-partisan educational foundation, promotes t***sparency, accountability, and integrity in government, politics and the law.” The current President of JW is Tom Fitton.

Read our profile on the United States government and media.
Funded by / Ownership

Judicial Watch is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization with contributions from individuals, foundations, and corporations. According to Sourcewatch, JW receives funding from prominent right-wing organizations such as the Carthage Foundation and Scaife Foundation.
Analysis / Bias

Judicial Watch reports news on their website using strong emotional language that is usually pro-right or anti-left. Common topics covered are anti-immigration, in which they highlight crimes committed by i*****l i*******ts such as this: Busy Month for I*****l I*******ts Committing Heinous Crimes or dedicating an entire website to exposing former President Obama’s alleged IRS scandal. They have also promoted debunked conspiracy theories such as this. Further, the founder of JW, Larry Klayman, recently promoted the conspiracy that the Clintons were k*****g people. In general, the majority of content and story se******n is anti-left.
Failed Fact Checks

DHS Quietly Moving, Releasing ‘Vanloads’ of ‘I*****l A***ns’ Away from Border – FALSE
Has Nancy Pelosi spent $100,000 on food, booze, and “partying” during her air travel? – FALSE
Judicial Watch says ISIS operating a camp in Mexico–near El Paso – FALSE
‘Islamic Refugee’ with Gas Pipeline Plans Arrested in New Mexico Border County – FALSE
Did the IRS ‘Fast Track’ Tax-Exempt Status for ‘After School Satan’ Clubs? – FALSE
“More than 100,000 DACA applicants have been arrested—Murder, Rape, DUI.” – MOSTLY FALSE
Did a legal settlement between Judicial Watch and California e******n officials prove that one million illegal v**es were cast in the 2018 e******ns in California? – FALSE (4/29/2020)

Overall, we rate Judicial Watch Questionable based on extreme right-wing bias, promotion of conspiracy theories, and an abysmal fact check record. (7/19/2016) Updated (D. Van Zandt 03/14/2021)
Source: https://www.judicialwatch.org
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/judicial-watch/ br ... (show quote)



Media Bias Check just proved that they are a bulls**t leftwing lying source.
Media Bias/Fact Check (MBFC) is an American fact-checking website founded in 2015 by editor Dave M. Van Zandt.[1] It uses a 0-10 scale to rate sites on two areas: bias and factual accuracy. It has been criticised for its methodology and accuracy.[2]

Methodology

Van Zandt and his team use a 0–10 scale to rate sites for biased wording, headlines, actuality, sourcing, story choices, and political affiliation. There is a criteria for factual accuracy based on failed fact checks.[3] The group has also sorted hundreds of web pages into the ideological categories of: Left, Left Center, Least Biased, Right Center, and Right.[4]

Usage
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 "f**e news" and questionable sources on social media.[5][6][7]

Reception
According to Daniel Funke and Alexios Mantzarlis of the Poynter Institute, "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."[2] In 2018, the Columbia Journalism Review described Media Bias/Fact Check as an amateur attempt at categorizing media bias and characterized their assessments as "subjective assessments [that] leave room for human biases, or even simple inconsistencies, to creep in".[3]

Reply
Aug 1, 2022 17:21:38   #
Parky60 Loc: People's Republic of Illinois
 
Bad Boob, this is for you. You forgot to throw away the key.



Reply
Aug 1, 2022 19:45:23   #
Bad Bob Loc: Virginia
 
Parky60 wrote:
Bad Boob, this is for you. You forgot to throw away the key.



Reply
Aug 1, 2022 20:24:35   #
albertk
 
Bad Bob wrote:
https://www.politicususa.com/2022/07/30/dhs-inspector-general-knew-about-deleted-texts-a-year-ago.html



Reply
 
 
Aug 2, 2022 06:41:30   #
Bad Bob Loc: Virginia
 



Reply
Page <prev 2 of 2
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Main
OnePoliticalPlaza.com - Forum
Copyright 2012-2024 IDF International Technologies, Inc.