Quote:So-called nonpartisan fact-checking outlet PolitiFact spent President Joe Biden’s first 100 days defending the president from inaccurate Facebook posts instead of fact-checking his numerous falsehoods.

A report from the right-leaning Media Research Center found that PolitiFact was eight times more likely to defend Biden than to fact-check him in his first 100 days, a vast difference to how the outlet treated former President Donald Trump. For Trump’s first 100 days, “PolitiFact offered 52 fact checks with a ‘Truth-O-Meter’ ruling of Donald Trump in his first 100 days (January 20 to April 30, 2017), while in the same period this year, PolitiFact offered just 13 fact checks of President Biden,” the MRC found.

As the MRC noted, “the media insist Trump’s in his own category on truth and falsehood,” so the outlet decided to see how often PolitiFact defended Biden as opposed to fact-checking him. The MRC found that for Biden’s first 100 days, PolitiFact fact-checked Biden just 13 times while it defended him from claims made about him 106 times.

“In other words, they’re much more sensitive about someone ‘lying’ about Biden than they are about Biden lying,” the MRC reported. “Many of the fact checks about Biden are about ‘Facebook Posts,’ ‘Viral Images,’ or ‘Tweets.’ Those rulings often translate into content warnings. But there were two ‘Pants on Fire’ rulings for House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, and one each for Fox News and for Tucker Carlson. Liz Cheney got the Flaming Pants for insisting that less than six percent of Biden’s infrastructure package is about infrastructure.”

Surprisingly, the MRC’s report found that even though PolitiFact chose to fact-check Biden far less than it did Trump, the percentage of falsehoods between the two presidents was about the same.

“Perhaps the surprising measurement here is that the percentage of PolitiFact ‘Truth-O-Meter’ rating of Biden and Trump were the same – 61.5 percent. Trump just had four times as many evaluations. Thirty-two of 52 Trump evaluations were defined as ‘Mostly False,’ ‘False,’ or ‘Pants on Fire.’ Eight of 13 Biden evaluations landed on the False side. Biden had zero ‘Pants on Fire’ ratings in the first 100 days. In 2017, Trump had two,” the MRC found.

The fact checks about Biden, however, were overwhelmingly found by PolitiFact to be false, with 91 out of 106 total (which includes pages other than the one simply labeled “Fact Checks About Biden”) labeled as “Mostly False” or worse. That’s an 86% false rating for what PolitiFact chose to fact check.

“There were 24 ‘Pants on Fire’ ratings for Biden critics, 45 ‘False’ ratings, and 22 ‘Mostly False.’ Ten were ‘Half True,’ three were ‘Mostly True’ and two were ‘True,’” the MRC reported.

“Overall, Biden’s PolitiFact page shows he’s been put on the ‘Truth-O-Meter’ 169 times in the website’s history beginning in 2007, and was found to be on the True/Mostly True side 67 times (almost 40 percent) and Mostly False or worse 78 times (46 percent). By contrast, Donald Trump has 931 of these fact-checks, and 692 of them Mostly False or worse (74.3 percent). Trump has 161 ‘Pants on Fire’ ratings. Biden has six,” the MRC concluded.

The outlet didn’t break down the details of the fact checks, including whether they were accurate or left out pertinent information that would change the rating or if if they determined something was false when it, in fact, wasn’t or vice versa.

Link

Raise your hand if you’re shocked by this. No one?

What concerns me is the obvious media bias which no one tries to hide any more. Except CNN, lol.

Honestly, how do you fact check someone who cant speak clearly or coherently to even know whether they are lying or not? Dementia Joe is a tard who falls into that category

Can we get a fact check on that?

Quote:Overall, we rate Media Research Center strongly right biased based on advocacy for a conservative agenda and Mixed for factual reporting due to the promotion of propaganda, pseudoscience, and a poor fact check record by their primary sources.

MBFC Credibility Rating: LOW CREDIBILITY

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/media-res...enter-mrc/

(05-06-2021 10:04 AM)MemTigers1998 Wrote:  Honestly, how do you fact check someone who cant speak clearly or coherently to even know whether they are lying or not? Dementia Joe is a tard who falls into that category

"Jerry, just remember. It's not a lie if *you* believe it." ~ George Costanza

Why does anyone try to pretend anymore. That's what North Koreans do. Everyone should just accept and present the reality of the bias as is and for what it is.

(05-06-2021 10:03 AM)TripleA Wrote:  What concerns me is the obvious media bias which no one tries to hide any more. Except CNN, lol.

If CNN is actually trying to "hide" that, they are not very good at it. I bet my 5 year old could find them playing hide and go seek in about 20 seconds........

(05-06-2021 10:04 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Can we get a fact check on that?

Quote:Overall, we rate Media Research Center strongly right biased based on advocacy for a conservative agenda and Mixed for factual reporting due to the promotion of propaganda, pseudoscience, and a poor fact check record by their primary sources.
MBFC Credibility Rating: LOW CREDIBILITY

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/media-res...enter-mrc/

So, a left-leaning source rates a right-leaning source low on credibility, just as that right-leaning source would rate that left-leaning source low on credibility.

That's the problem now. Used to be we had one set of facts and everyone could form an opinion around basically agreed facts. Now we form opinions first and then fit facts to those opinions. And make no mistake, both sides do it equally.

Take the question of whether the 2020 election was "stolen." One side insists that it was, and the other insists that it was not. The truth is that we don't know, and can never know, because our controls to prevent fraud are ineffective or nonexistent. And once ballots are in the box, they're not coming back out. There was no way to verify that the large batches of mail-in votes that were dumped into the ballot box in several states were in fact legitimate. Maybe they were all legitimate, maybe they weren't. We don't know, because we can't know, because there is no way to know. And recounts don't address that issue.

I don't know whether the 2020 election was stolen, and neither do you, and there is no way for either one of us to know. We just have to trust, and take steps to ensure that 2022 and subsequent elections are not subject to the same uncertainty.

(05-06-2021 10:04 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Can we get a fact check on that?

Quote:Overall, we rate Media Research Center strongly right biased based on advocacy for a conservative agenda and Mixed for factual reporting due to the promotion of propaganda, pseudoscience, and a poor fact check record by their primary sources.

MBFC Credibility Rating: LOW CREDIBILITY

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/media-res...enter-mrc/

Sometimes it's good to check the checkers.

(05-06-2021 11:01 AM)VA49er Wrote:  

(05-06-2021 10:04 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Can we get a fact check on that?

Quote:Overall, we rate Media Research Center strongly right biased based on advocacy for a conservative agenda and Mixed for factual reporting due to the promotion of propaganda, pseudoscience, and a poor fact check record by their primary sources.

MBFC Credibility Rating: LOW CREDIBILITY

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/media-res...enter-mrc/

Sometimes it's good to check the checkers.

Sometimes it's good to check the checkers checking the checker.

(05-06-2021 11:11 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(05-06-2021 11:01 AM)VA49er Wrote:  

(05-06-2021 10:04 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Can we get a fact check on that?

Quote:Overall, we rate Media Research Center strongly right biased based on advocacy for a conservative agenda and Mixed for factual reporting due to the promotion of propaganda, pseudoscience, and a poor fact check record by their primary sources.

MBFC Credibility Rating: LOW CREDIBILITY

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/media-res...enter-mrc/

Sometimes it's good to check the checkers.

Sometimes it's good to check the checkers checking the checker.

I agree which is why it's silly to use that source and think there's no bias behind it. I'm not sure any of those "media bias" checker sites are non-biased in some way or another. They obviously aren't to be used to "win a debate", etc.

(05-06-2021 11:41 AM)VA49er Wrote:  

(05-06-2021 11:11 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(05-06-2021 11:01 AM)VA49er Wrote:  

(05-06-2021 10:04 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Can we get a fact check on that?

Quote:Overall, we rate Media Research Center strongly right biased based on advocacy for a conservative agenda and Mixed for factual reporting due to the promotion of propaganda, pseudoscience, and a poor fact check record by their primary sources.

MBFC Credibility Rating: LOW CREDIBILITY

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/media-res...enter-mrc/

Sometimes it's good to check the checkers.

Sometimes it's good to check the checkers checking the checker.

I agree which is why it's silly to use that source and think there's no bias behind it. I'm not sure any of those "media bias" checker sites are non-biased in some way or another. They obviously aren't to be used to "win a debate", etc.

That was the point of my foray here.

Why don't you tell us what you think of the actual CONTENT in the article.

Quote:One of the most trusted names in research has found that President Joe Biden has received less negative coverage from the legacy media than any president in 30 years.

Among other surprising findings, the Pew Research Center notes that half of all stories about the Biden administration mention former President Donald Trump.

Pew also finds that conservatives follow political news more closely than liberals — and that Americans as a whole think the media spend too much time covering systemic racism and not enough time talking about the illegal immigrant crisis on the U.S.-Mexico border.

The Pew Research Center has analyzed the media coverage of the first 60 days of every presidency since Bill Clinton. There most recent findings suggest that media coverage of the Biden-Harris administration ranks among the most favorable, and the least critical, it’s ever seen.

“While the media landscape has changed dramatically since Clinton’s presidential inauguration, the Center has been able to conduct a long-term comparison for each of the recent administrations,” it says.

More than one of every four media stories about Biden has been positive (27%), tying Clinton in 1993 — when there was only the legacy media. Both fell well behind the media’s adulatory coverage of Barack Obama in 2009 (42%).

The media ran more than five times as many positive stories about Joe Biden’s first days in office than it did about President Trump in 2017.

Donald Trump received just 5% positive stories, as the media often fixated on lurid — and ultimately discredited — details of his dalliances with Russian prostitutes in the Steele dossier. Most of Biden’s coverage has focused on his ideology and agenda, Pew says.

Now, even though he’s out of office, the media can’t stop talking about Donald Trump.

“Trump himself was mentioned in about half the stories about the new Biden administration,” the study states. Pew finds “virtually no difference in the frequency of those mentions [of Trump in Biden stories] across outlets with left-leaning audiences (50% of stories), outlets with right-leaning audiences (47% of stories) and outlets with a mixed audience (47% of stories).”

One reason may be that the media hope to juice sagging ratings, because Joe Biden is boredom personified.

Overall, Pew says that “news coverage of President Joe Biden’s early days in office was modestly more negative than positive” during his first 100 days, by nine percentage points.

But Pew reveals that the perception of viewers is that pro-Biden stories outnumber stories critical of Biden four to one.

Its accompanying survey of 12,045 adults finds that “the public’s sense of news coverage of the Biden administration is more positive than the study of the news coverage reveals.”

“46% of U.S. adults say that the early coverage they’ve seen about the Biden administration offered mostly positive assessments, far more than the 14% who say they’ve seen mostly negative ones,” Pew reports.

The study confirms that conservatives are likely more informed about the Biden administration than the president’s liberal/progressive supporters. Pew finds that “Americans who turn only to outlets with left-leaning audiences [are] least likely to be following news about the Biden administration very closely (16%) – and their counterparts on the right almost twice as likely to do so (30%).”

Finally, the Pew study finds that most major news outlets don’t deliver the news Americans want. Viewers say the legacy media focus too much on racial inequality — “the topic that the highest percentage of Americans say is getting too much attention” — and not enough on the economy and illegal immigration, according to the survey.

Link

Really, how can anyone say anything bad about a mentally and morally deficient congenital racist liar who is "elected" president by 80 million imaginary voters?

(05-06-2021 10:58 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(05-06-2021 10:04 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Can we get a fact check on that?

Quote:Overall, we rate Media Research Center strongly right biased based on advocacy for a conservative agenda and Mixed for factual reporting due to the promotion of propaganda, pseudoscience, and a poor fact check record by their primary sources.
MBFC Credibility Rating: LOW CREDIBILITY

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/media-res...enter-mrc/

So, a left-leaning source rates a right-leaning source low on credibility, just as that right-leaning source would rate that left-leaning source low on credibility.

That's the problem now. Used to be we had one set of facts and everyone could form an opinion around basically agreed facts. Now we form opinions first and then fit facts to those opinions. And make no mistake, both sides do it equally.

Take the question of whether the 2020 election was "stolen." One side insists that it was, and the other insists that it was not. The truth is that we don't know, and can never know, because our controls to prevent fraud are ineffective or nonexistent. And once ballots are in the box, they're not coming back out. There was no way to verify that the large batches of mail-in votes that were dumped into the ballot box in several states were in fact legitimate. Maybe they were all legitimate, maybe they weren't. We don't know, because we can't know, because there is no way to know. And recounts don't address that issue.

I don't know whether the 2020 election was stolen, and neither do you, and there is no way for either one of us to know. We just have to trust, and take steps to ensure that 2022 and subsequent elections are not subject to the same uncertainty.

What is needed here is just a great amount of common sense. The Demons insist that this Senile Old Fool got more votes than the man who had many Republicans, Blacks and Fence sitters when in fact he couldn't even get twenty people to his "rallies". That's one.

The next give away is the way the votes were counted in that fact checkers from the Right were not given equal access to the counting. In fact, those same counters were putting cardboard on windows to prevent looking in, and the few that were allowed had to use binoculars because they were placed so far away which would make it almost if not impossible to witness.

Three: With this pandemic scare perpetrated by the MSM and people like TopoJijo (Faux-Xi) continuing the scare some states (mostly Demon ruled) resorted to the mail in ballots which can't be verified as to its authenticity.

...and now in places like Arizona why are the Demons so intent on stopping the audit?

Maybe there's more examples but I think you get the picture. If "YOU" want to accept the votes then "knock yourself out" but in my mind (feeble as it is) I say that this election was stolen by the Evil Demoncraptic Party aka Union of Socialist America, USA for short.