Jump to content


Media Bias


Recommended Posts

On 9/8/2023 at 12:26 PM, RedDenver said:

The Breakthrough Institute has a history of questionable and misleading claims about climate change, so I'd take this academic whistleblower with a grain of salt:

https://ethics.harvard.edu/blog/breakthrough-institutes-inconvenient-history-al-gore

 

I'm sure there is an entire wing of highly competent scientists who resent or at least roll their eyes at the simplistic doomsday treatment of climate change in the mainstream media. Even the Breakthough guys are advocating for a bit more complexity and nuance to the research reporting. While I'm sure it's true that scientists fighting to get published study publishing trends just like novel writers do, it's also true that contrarians can secure a niche by staking out a partisan political stance. 

 

Global air temp and sea level rise are pretty unambiguous measures. But one of the reasons natural disasters seem more disastrous than decades ago is that there at 5 billion more people to kill and displace. 

  • TBH 1
Link to comment
  • 2 weeks later...

Wow. Listen to the reporter squirm. A food reporter no less tried to get his advertisers to backout of a fund raising event. For those who don't know, Portnoy raised a lot of money for small pizza businesses during the pandemic. 

 

 

 

 

  • Plus1 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
1 hour ago, nic said:

Wow. Listen to the reporter squirm. A food reporter no less tried to get his advertisers to backout of a fund raising event. For those who don't know, Portnoy raised a lot of money for small pizza businesses during the pandemic. 

 

 

 

 

The journalist probably didn’t have her catalog of notes in front of her to make sure she could get the facts correct. It looks like Dave, despite trying otherwise, doesn’t have legal standing to dispute her intro email claims. She probably wanted to be well prepared in case of probable legal action taken against her for which he has legally accepted and she wanted to accurately quote and reference with her colleague.

 

https://www.axios.com/2023/02/02/dave-portnoy-withdraws-appeal-lawsuit-insider#

 

  • Haha 2
  • TBH 1
Link to comment

17 hours ago, deedsker said:

The journalist probably didn’t have her catalog of notes in front of her to make sure she could get the facts correct. It looks like Dave, despite trying otherwise, doesn’t have legal standing to dispute her intro email claims. She probably wanted to be well prepared in case of probable legal action taken against her for which he has legally accepted and she wanted to accurately quote and reference with her colleague.

 

https://www.axios.com/2023/02/02/dave-portnoy-withdraws-appeal-lawsuit-insider#

 

She scheduled a call with him for the next day so she could prepare, and then cancelled it. Seems like if a story is about to go out in 24 hours she would want to talk with the person she is writing about to at least warn them and cover her bases...but maybe not. I don't think anyone took her story seriously after this anyway.

  • Plus1 1
  • TBH 1
Link to comment
13 hours ago, Lorewarn said:

 

 

 

Probably "f#&% FOX News and to a lesser extent MSNBC" amongst many other things.

I would guess he would have critical things to say about everyone. FOX, MSNBC, CNN, The Times, The Wash Post, The WS Journal, The NY Post you name it. 

  • Plus1 1
  • TBH 1
Link to comment
  • 4 weeks later...
10 minutes ago, Archy1221 said:

I wonder if people here will ever question NYT as a legit source on political matters…

 

 

 

Might I have repeated this as fact, having just read it in the Times?

 

Probably. They should know better, and their integrity has been taking a hit for years.

 

Here's how the AP handled it:

 

https://apnews.com/article/israel-palestinians-gaza-hamas-war-biden-rafah-e062825a375d9eb62e95509cab95b80c

 

But I do prefer multiple sources. Let's see how this plays out. Each side has a good reason to lie. 

 

If you had to assume the New York Times agenda, given its readership and history, you wouldn't expect an anti-Israel hitjob. 

  • Plus1 1
Link to comment

28 minutes ago, Guy Chamberlin said:

 

Might I have repeated this as fact, having just read it in the Times?

 

Probably. They should know better, and their integrity has been taking a hit for years.

 

Here's how the AP handled it:

 

https://apnews.com/article/israel-palestinians-gaza-hamas-war-biden-rafah-e062825a375d9eb62e95509cab95b80c

 

But I do prefer multiple sources. Let's see how this plays out. Each side has a good reason to lie. 

 

If you had to assume the New York Times agenda, given its readership and history, you wouldn't expect an anti-Israel hitjob. 

Much better headline by the AP.  

  • Plus1 1
Link to comment
45 minutes ago, Guy Chamberlin said:

 

I totally agree. But I do wish you would apply your disinformation radar less selectively. 

The disinformation from right leaning or far right sources gets posted about by 4 or 5 people here already but usually no one but nic and I show the same level of disinformation from these left leaning and far left sources.  
 

It’s not selective radar, it’s being the one that has to shine light on the disinformation spewed by those who are deemed “quality sources of information”.   When someone posts FoxNews or Hannity or whoever else giving out false or misleading info, I generally don’t push back at all unless there is  a reason to. 

  • Haha 2
  • TBH 2
Link to comment
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...