factnotfiction

So potatohead now wants be like his master, Putin, and eliminate reporters who don't fawn over him like fnc.

They stand together and plot on how to steal the 2020 election.



http://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-vladimir-putin-fake-news-press-freedom-1446490

Blade_Runner Loc: DARK SIDE OF THE MOON

"Reporters"???? There are no reporters anymore, they've morphed into ideological sycophants for the progressive movement. Where the hell have you been, on the dark side of the moon?

factnotfiction

What, fox is now Fake News?

What a surprise

elledee

oh wouldn't it be great if Putin could steal another election for Trump and save us from that bumper crop of liberal looney tune dems who think if a empty suit slick talking fraud like ovomit can get elected anyone can

factnotfiction

Get down on your knees, and pray for potato head and pooty to lie, cheat and steal.

archie bunker Loc: Texas

Fact not fiction......
I have just one question.

How can a human head be a potato?

Let's deal with facts here not hate, or hyperbole.

You're about facts, right? Let's talk facts.

Smedley_buzkill

Time for a grammar lesson, archie. Facts and Liberals don't belong in the same sentence, same paragraph, or for that matter, the same zip code.

Blade_Runner Loc: DARK SIDE OF THE MOON

Sierra Tango Foxtrot Uniform.

steve66613

I’ll take “potato head”, over the “pot head” ovomit, any day!

Liberty Tree

How about the way libs prayed and stoked multiple congressional election in California? You definition of good reporting is MSNBC, CNN, HUFFPOST, DAILKOS, ETC.

archie bunker Loc: Texas

We weren't taught no grammer here in Texas. We was just taught to beware of wordy wanna be wordsmith reptiles with dentures for fangs.

Common_Sense_Matters

Daily Kos is less than reliable, yes, MSNBC and CNN have guest pundits on their shows that may be less than factual, though CNN at least is rated high for their actual news content, mixed when you factor in their guest pundits. Huffington Post however is rated as high for factual reporting and they don't have guest pundits.



Non-vetted content? A fail fact check? Misleading claims? Not looking good for this source, my recommendation, check for other sources to back what this one says and you should be fine maybe.

Source: https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/daily-kos/



Misinformation from the MANY guest pundits? They should vet their guest pundits maybe. Fact check the pundits and perhaps the actual news here.

Source: https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/msnbc/



Fact check the pundits, the news seems fine I guess.

Source: https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/cnn/



Looks as though this one should be readable.

Source: https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/huffington-post/


One has to wonder how the conservative side stacks up. Liberty Tree gave us 2 televised sources and 2 print/internet print sources, why don't we go with 2 and 2 on conservative media, I know of Fox news and OAN for televised and we can do Breitbart and Natural News for print/internet print since I know those 2 are quite popular.




Oops, conspiracy theories, yikes.

Source: https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/fox-news/



Wow, goes from bad to worse, here we have conspiracy theories and we raise with a few failed fact checks. That's okay, television rots your brain anyways, let us see how print/internet print turns out.

Source: https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/one-america-news-network/



Shit, "numerous false claims"? I guess we hang all our hopes on Natural News then huh?

Source: https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/breitbart/



The picture becomes quite clear, this goes far in explaining why the right is so misinformed. They ignore legitimate sources of information for so much misinformation.

Source: https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/natural-news/

Sorry that I have such a poor memory and there are sssoooo many conservative sources that these are the ones that jumped to mind. Perhaps you can let me know which ones you go by and I can perhaps locate some much better examples of factual conservative media.

The Critical Critic Loc: Turtle Island

Common_Sense_Matters

The Columbia Journal piece reads as an opinion piece written by someone with a low opinion of fact checkers in general and MB/FC in particular. Yes, I went to the actual site of the article that portion of the Wikipedia page referenced. The specific portion of the opinion piece mentioning MB/FC.



That is the entirety of what she said of MB/FC. She did not go into any detail to describe MB/FC's methodology or what flaws she sees in their methodology. I suppose if one were to assume that was the entirety of his methodology, they may consider it deeply flawed, which is why one must look deeper. Perhaps she could have too. I would have expected better from such a well respected institution.

That portion goes on further but no further mention of MB/FC.

Source: https://www.cjr.org/innovations/measure-media-bias-partisan.php



This piece also seems a bit more of an opinion piece than an in-depth factual look into fact checkers in general and specifically MB/FC, though it does provide sources, one to MB/FC's home page, one linking to a newsweek article and one liunking to a twitter tweet by one of the article's authors showing his bias against MB/FC. While MB/FC's methodology isn't some sort of super sophisticated, incomprehensible algorithm, it does appear to be a decent way to judge a site based on it's content. It also seems to do a pretty decent job in categorizing web sites based on biases and legitimacy of facts/sources.

Source: https://www.poynter.org/fact-checking/2018/heres-what-to-expect-from-fact-checking-in-2019/

Did you notice that neither article pointed out any errors made or even where they found flaws in MB/FC's methodology. You would think that an expert giving their expert opinion/assessment would at least show where they find an unresolved issue, wouldn't you? They both offered an opinion of MB/FC's work or lack thereof but neither point out any specific issues. I will ignore them both since both are clearly just the writers own opinion without them even bothering to back up their opinions.



Now for the Wikipedia page for MB/FC. Wikipedia is typically a very fine source for information, sometimes it fails due to A. Nobody has written a page concerning what you want to research, B. Someone has but they were too closely affiliated with what they were writing the page on and it is hardly more than an advertisement for the individual, company or organization the page was written on or C. Someone or several someones have written a page for what you want to research but they either have an agenda(s) or perhaps don't know much on the subject matter and the information may either be biased or severely lacking or perhaps even both. The wikipedia page for MB/FC DOES have a page so it isn't A. in this situation, the page does NOT come off as an advertisement so it isn't B. either, The page is severely lacking and it does in some ways come off as a hatchet job on MB/FC so perhaps C. MAY apply here.

I have often times gone to Wikipedia to quote some of what they say on certain subjects and in many cases, what I quote, often times in just one of several quotes taken from same Wikipedia page is often times larger than the entirety of the Wikipedia page for MB/FC. The page for MB/FC is definitely severely lacking information and it doesn't appear that the information it does actually contain shines a fair and balanced/unbiased light on the site. Hopefully more contributors will happen by and add to it and confirm the information or reject inaccuracies.

As for the last link you provided... Absolutely NO sources provided, the writer comes off as someone angry with MB/FC over something though I couldn't tell you what that could be considering MB/FC's review of his site which seems to be a decent review if somewhat inaccurate if you only look at the article you linked to.

The writer, Bill Palmer, wrote this about the "Notes" section of the Cosmopolitan review MB/FC did:



Here is the ACTUAL "Notes" section from that review:



To help you spot the discrepancies I have chosen to bold the text from before the discrepancy until after the discrepancy in both articles and in both spots to make it easier for you to spot them. The article blasting MB/FC was written 12:32 am EDT April 18, 2017, the review was written (D. Van Zandt 11/21/2016), see an issue here? The review has something in it that isn't in the article and the article has something in it that isn't in the review. the review was written first, the article later.

Overall, since it all appears to be based on opinion with no real criticisms nor errors pointed out, I lend no credence to these claims. If they had pointed out errors made or even errors in the methodology used, then maybe I would have to reconsider my opinion of this site's accuracy, no such evidence was given though. Would you care to show where MB/FC has made an error of judgement on one of their reviews? Of course even if you do find one or even several errors in judgement, they would have to be weighed against the volume of reviews the site has done to figure out a percentage of errors to reviews to decide just how accurate/inaccurate the site is. Another consideration to take into account is that sites get re-reviewed periodically if there is reason to suspect circumstances have changed significantly enough that a re-review is justified.

If you would like to try to find errors in that site's judgement, fact check some sites that they have reviewed and get back to me.

Big Kahuna

Fictionnotfact thinks reporters are those that are bought and sold by the demorat party like hitlery bought the Steele dossier to frame Trump. He needs someone to model for him what a real unbiased reporter or journalist looks like and it certainly isn't his favorite leftist, clinton bought journalist midget George Stepalloverus or sexually confused Rachael Madcow!