I said I thought the article could be considered as bias. Other people in the past have claimed previous stories from the Daily Caller as being biased, and i thought this article as being another example representing so. The Daily Caller IS clearly biased, but some would make the argument that they aren't.
Who would make that argument?
And what in the article represents a hitherto unstated bias?
It could be used to show some bias in Fox as well. Why should a 'Fair and Balanced' Fox praise and joke towards the acts of an organization who is undoubtedly biased?
Well, I guess the answer to that depends on who said it and in what context. Just saying "Fox News praised the article" isn't much to go on.
It's not necessarily their bias that allows me to determine whether or not i consider the source valid/invalid. The problem is an organization CAN be biased and ALSO be very misleading.
So what? Sure, they CAN be. And an "unbiased" media source CAN be misleading as well. If they are, point out with specificity exactly HOW they are. Just saying "they're biased!" is, as I said, a logical fallacy.
Depending on the case they make, is also dependent on how the reader interprets a story.
Then it's up to you to point out how they got it wrong. See immediately above.
Do you think if Fox claimed to be a 'right leaning network' that would not have an inherent effect on their credibility?
You would need to do the same heavy lifting to show how what they say is wrong. If it is, then you should be able to show how easily. And if they're truly dishonest, then they should provide you with a lot of grist.
Are all biased Networks and Media outlooks credible irrefutable sources of information?
I said nothing of the sort. If you think I did, then you have a lot of work to do getting up to speed with proper debate, logic, and epistemology.
Bias is an issue and is highly considered a problem of credibility.
Sure, if you claim to be unbiased when you're not. But the Daily Caller never claimed that.
Under your construct, no one could ever advocate for an issue, because advocacy is always biased, and you'd say they're unreliable as a matter of course.
In the actual world of logic, though, it's the actual statements and arguments which are to be evaluated, not the source. To do otherwise is a fallacy. You really should look this stuff up.
If it wasn't all news networks would label themselves as their mean political lean.
The opinion journalists do.