- Joined
- Feb 12, 2013
- Messages
- 160,900
- Reaction score
- 57,846
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Centrist
lol...considering all you post is garbage, I find those ^ comments rather ironic.
lol...considering all you post is garbage, I find those ^ comments rather ironic.Eh, yore becoming a pest, Fledermouse.
I put you on ignore for welching on your bet offer. Then I took you off to see if I was missing an intelligent debate.
Nah.
Back to ignore with you!
It should be noted that Just Facts Daily wrote a negative article regarding Media Bias Fact Check that was based on a review by a former reviewer, who is no longer affiliated with our organization.Why would you?
Media Bias/Fact Check (MBFC) is a website founded in 2015 by editor Dave Van Zandt. The website has been described as an amateur effort to rate news media sources based on +factual accuracy and political bias.
Media Bias/Fact Check - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
Alexandra Kitty, in a 2018 book on journalism, described MBFC as an apparent "amateur/civic outfit" and wrote that its founder's only qualification was a degree in communications.When Journalism was a Thing. Zero Books. p. 158.
The Columbia Journalism Review describes Media Bias/Fact Check as an amateur attempt at categorizing media bias and Van Zandt as an "armchair media analyst." The Poynter Institute notes, "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."
Here's what to expect from fact-checking in 2019 - Poynter
From person-to-person coaching and intensive hands-on seminars to interactive online courses and media reporting, Poynter helps journalists sharpen skills and elevate storytelling throughout their careers.www.poynter.org
Media Bias Fact Check is either inept and/or dishonest.
Siewert goes on to write that Just Facts is “a deceptive site because they do use facts, but not all the facts in order to mask their right Bias.” As proof of this, she cites two articles that take issue with the Stanford Law Review paper cited by Just Facts. Neither of these articles appeared in a journal, and one of them is from a publication “written and published entirely by Harvard undergraduates.” Siewert does not even attempt to prove whether the critiques have any factual or logical value.
Media Bias Fact Check: Incompetent or Dishonest? - Just Facts
“Media Bias Fact Check,” a media outlet that claims to be “dedicated to educating the public on media bias and deceptive news practices,” is either inept or dishonest.
www.justfactsdaily.com
You misspelled Stalin.People will think of Faucci as they did Sabin.
Vault: UC researcher saved world from polio
Before Dr. Albert Sabin's oral polio vaccine could wipe out the crippling disease worldwide, he set out to give it one final test in Cincinnati in April, 1960.www.wcpo.com
There are certain clues to the website that show it is being deceitful. It starts with 'news-yahoo', but ends with ampproect.org. In other words, the naming convention of the website is designed to make it look like Yahoo, but it is not.Internal Documents Further Contradict Fauci’s ‘Gain-of-Function’ Research Denials
New documents appear to contradict Anthony Fauci's claims that the NIH did not fund gain-of-function research on bat coronaviruses at the Wuhan Institute of Virology.news-yahoo-com.cdn.ampproject.org
Read it and weep, Fauci Fangirls!
There are certain clues to the website that show it is being deceitful. It starts with 'news-yahoo', but ends with ampproect.org. In other words, the naming convention of the website is designed to make it look like Yahoo, but it is not.
Whenever a source does that, RED FLAGS should go up to say that there is a very high likely hood that the source is deceptive and lying.
Wuhan lab documents show Fauci ‘untruthful’ about gain-of-function research: critics
Richard Ebright, a molecular biologist at Rutgers University, said the documents made it clear Dr. Fauci had been “untruthful” about gain-of-function research.nypost.com
New documents suggest Fauci lied about US-funded coronavirus research in China - Washington Examiner
Dr. Anthony Fauci has some explaining to do. Whether the broader press, those that elevated him to sainthood in 2020 during the first year of the coronavirus pandemic, actually pursue the matter is yet to be seen. “Newly released documents provide details of U.S.-funded research on several types...www.washingtonexaminer.com
Internal documents further contradict Fauci’s denial of “gain of function” research
The newly released document appears to be inconsistent with Dr. Anthony Fauci's recurring claim that NIH did not fund the bat coronavirus gain-of-func6park.news
Internal Documents Further Contradict Fauci’s ‘Gain-of-Function’ Research Denials
When is this shyster and his wife going to be fully exposed by our MSM???? If you don't know who his wife is, she is Dr Christine Grady, 68, is a nurse-bioethicist who is currently Chief of the Department of Bioethics at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Clinical Center. Interesting read. N...www.smoaky.com
Internal Documents Further Contradict Fauci’s ‘Gain-of-Function’ Research Denials
New documents appear to contradict Anthony Fauci's claims that the NIH did not fund gain-of-function research on bat coronaviruses at the Wuhan Institute of Virology.www.yahoo.com
Rand Paul says new Wuhan documents show Fauci lied
Sen. Rand Paul says newly public documents on U.S. funding of coronavirus research in Wuhan, China, show that NIAID head Dr. Anthony Fauci lied during his previous testimony to Conrgess.www.foxnews.com
You gotta stop getting your news exclusively from that Chris Cuomo/Don Lemon mancrush show.
And these 'documents' are, where, exactly? Do you always accept a 'news' item unquestioningly? Oh, and citing a far-right conservative source (National Review), is not exactly going to win you points for unbiased, neutral and non-partisan reporting. Try harder.Internal Documents Further Contradict Fauci’s ‘Gain-of-Function’ Research Denials
New documents appear to contradict Anthony Fauci's claims that the NIH did not fund gain-of-function research on bat coronaviruses at the Wuhan Institute of Virology.news-yahoo-com.cdn.ampproject.org
Read it and weep, Fauci Fangirls!
It's all they have left; fringe sources with no evidence to back up their claims.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 transparency, and/or is fake news. Fake News is the deliberate attempt to publish hoaxes 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 fake news unless specifically written in the reasoning section for that source. See all Questionable sources.
Overall, we rate Project Veritas Right Biased and Questionable based on the promotion of misleading videos and several failed fact checks.
Detailed Report
Bias Rating: RIGHT
Factual Reporting: MIXED
Country: USA (45/180 Press Freedom)
Media Type: Website
Traffic/Popularity: MediumTraffic
MBFC Credibility Rating: LOW CREDIBILITY
History
Founded in 2010, Project Veritas was created by James Edward O’Keefe III, an American conservative political activist. He produces secretly recorded undercover audio and video encounters, some selectively edited to imply its subjects said things they did not, with figures and workers in academic, governmental, and social service organizations, purporting to show abusive or allegedly illegal behavior by employees and/or representatives of those organizations. Project Veritas primarily targets liberals and liberal organizations.
[snip]
On April 7th Mr. Sullivan wrote back, “Thank you for deleting the hyperlink to Politifact’s article. It is greatly appreciated.” He also provided hyperlinks demonstrating that Project Veritas checks Republicans. We felt that was good information and added it to the analysis section below. Finally, on April 9th, after making the changes, Mr. Sullivan wrote, “I appreciate your indulging these requests which, in the end, seek the same goal as your website – to fact check. Your objectivity here is refreshing, and, once again, it is very much appreciated.”
We have not made any changes to this source page since that date. We find it ironic that doing the right thing and correcting mistakes is considered a badge a shame. Perhaps to Project Veritas, striving to be factual is not important, but to us, it is. We are not ashamed at all and proud of our record of correcting mistakes and errors. That is what credible sources do.
Read our profile on the United States government and media.
Funded by / Ownership
James O’Keefe owns project Veritas. Funding primarily comes from donations. However, most of these donations come from the Donor’s Trust. The purpose of the Donor’s Trust Fund is to “safeguard the intent of libertarian and conservative donors.” In other words, it allows the source to receive funds without disclosing who they come from. Needless to say, most funding for Project Veritas comes from conservative and libertarian organizations.
Fauci lied, bats died. Caught in the lie again.
https://news-yahoo-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/news.yahoo.com/amphtml/internal-documents-further-contradict-fauci-142902303.html?amp_js_v=a6&_gsa=1&usqp=mq331AQKKAFQArABIIACAw%3D%3D#aoh=16310401001319&csi=1&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&_tf=From%20%251%24s&share=https%3A%2F%2Fnews...debatepolitics.com
amp project is a fake news website.
Why would you believe a fake news website?
.
Show us these alleged 'documents'.Wuhan lab documents show Fauci ‘untruthful’ about gain-of-function research: critics
Richard Ebright, a molecular biologist at Rutgers University, said the documents made it clear Dr. Fauci had been “untruthful” about gain-of-function research.nypost.com
New documents suggest Fauci lied about US-funded coronavirus research in China - Washington Examiner
Dr. Anthony Fauci has some explaining to do. Whether the broader press, those that elevated him to sainthood in 2020 during the first year of the coronavirus pandemic, actually pursue the matter is yet to be seen. “Newly released documents provide details of U.S.-funded research on several types...www.washingtonexaminer.com
Internal documents further contradict Fauci’s denial of “gain of function” research
The newly released document appears to be inconsistent with Dr. Anthony Fauci's recurring claim that NIH did not fund the bat coronavirus gain-of-func6park.news
Internal Documents Further Contradict Fauci’s ‘Gain-of-Function’ Research Denials
When is this shyster and his wife going to be fully exposed by our MSM???? If you don't know who his wife is, she is Dr Christine Grady, 68, is a nurse-bioethicist who is currently Chief of the Department of Bioethics at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Clinical Center. Interesting read. N...www.smoaky.com
Internal Documents Further Contradict Fauci’s ‘Gain-of-Function’ Research Denials
New documents appear to contradict Anthony Fauci's claims that the NIH did not fund gain-of-function research on bat coronaviruses at the Wuhan Institute of Virology.www.yahoo.com
Rand Paul says new Wuhan documents show Fauci lied
Sen. Rand Paul says newly public documents on U.S. funding of coronavirus research in Wuhan, China, show that NIAID head Dr. Anthony Fauci lied during his previous testimony to Conrgess.www.foxnews.com
You gotta stop getting your news exclusively from that Chris Cuomo/Don Lemon mancrush show.
But you see, his NIAID didn't fund GofF research.If I recall, Fauci was instrumental in writing in the loop hole in Obama's viral 'gain of function' research funding ban which allowed US funding to continue to the Chinese Military Wuhan bio-weapons lab.
More assumptions with no evidence whatsoever? Keep it up!But you see, his NIAID didn't fund GofF research.
As The Fauch will no doubt explain, it's more like funding something that only looks like GofF research in order to be able to recognize the dangers of real GofF research.
Or something.
For one thing the Fauch has already said as much when he was yelling at Rand Paul, and for another I read about the documents that were just released.More assumptions with no evidence whatsoever? Keep it up!
Ah, you read 'about' these alleged documents but you haven't actually seen them or read anything contained in them-but you're still quite happy to make assumptions and condemn Fauci out of hand regardless. Excellent!For one thing the Fauch has already said as much when he was yelling at Rand Paul, and for another I read about the documents that were just released.
Your boy is not coming off well. A real charlatan, he is. You shoulda seen it coming long ago.
There were a couple in the Intercept article. The Intercept is the one that got the docs released. Have you seen it? Maybe you should. Then talk.Ah, you read 'about' these alleged documents but you haven't actually seen them or read anything contained in them-but you're still quite happy to make assumptions and condemn Fauci out of hand regardless. Excellent!
In checking the bona fides and motivations of those attacking or defending Fauci, I find that it has nothing whatever to do with what Fauci has said and done.No, Faucci did not lie.
Check the bona fides and motivations of those attacking him.
I don't want excerpts taken out of context. Let's see the entire thing.There were a couple in the Intercept article. The Intercept is the one that got the docs released. Have you seen it? Maybe you should. Then talk.
No, it's a subjective 'fact' that Fauci allegedly lied-and the usual suspects are conservatives almost exclusively, and who are attacking Fauci from a purely ideological bias. Coincidence? I don't think so.In checking the bona fides and motivations of those attacking or defending Fauci, I find that it has nothing whatever to do with what Fauci has said and done.
If a person declares Al Capone a murderer, for example, the statement is an objective fact, whether the person declaring it so is a saint or a sinner.
In this instance, it is an objective fact that Fauci has lied. That won't change regardless of who says it's so.
Have you seen the Intercept article? Why not?I don't want excerpts taken out of context. Let's see the entire thing.
Did you not read what I posted? There are apparently 900 pages of documentation. Have you read them all in order to reach your conclusion-or are you going to meekly accept what some source tells you without checking for yourself?Have you seen the Intercept article? Why not?
Is Dr. Ebright at Rutgers University a lying right wing zealot? If not I'd say Dr. Fauci appears to have lied about funding gain of function research before Congress.In checking the bona fides and motivations of those attacking or defending Fauci, I find that it has nothing whatever to do with what Fauci has said and done.
If a person declares Al Capone a murderer, for example, the statement is an objective fact, whether the person declaring it so is a saint or a sinner.
In this instance, it is an objective fact that Fauci has lied. That won't change regardless of who says it's so.
Objectively, Fauci has lied, and the evidence in hand demonstrates it.No, it's a subjective 'fact' that Fauci allegedly lied-and the usual suspects are conservatives almost exclusively, and who are attacking Fauci from a purely ideological bias. Coincidence? I don't think so.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?