Where I stand on Trump

#252
#252
BowlBrother85 said:
Let me put this in the words of "mediabiasfactcheck.com"

Washington Examiner:

Right Bias: (Included) These media sources are moderately to strongly biased toward conservative causes through story selection and/or political affiliation. They may utilize strong loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes), publish misleading reports and omit reporting of information that may damage conservative causes. Some sources in this category may be untrustworthy.

* Overall, we rate the Washington Examiner Right Biased based on editorial positions that almost exclusively favor the right and Mixed for factual reporting due to several failed fact checks.
Click to expand...

So your source is a fact check organization created by a guy who clerked for a judge appointed by Bill Clinton. LMAO.
 
#254
#254
vols40 said:
So your source is a fact check organization created by a guy who clerked for a judge appointed by Bill Clinton. LMAO.
Click to expand...
For the record, "allsides.com", which is also a media bias/fact check site, says much of the same thing about the Washington Examiner. You aren't going to argue that they aren't a right wing leaning site are you? They are a lot like the Washington Times.
 
#255
#255
BowlBrother85 said:
For the record, "allsides.com", which is also a media bias/fact check site, says much of the same thing about the Washington Examiner. You aren't going to argue that they aren't a right wing leaning site are you? They are a lot like the Washington Times.
Click to expand...

Just stop man. Do yourself a favor and stop. I have exposed you already and you with your first fact check organization and yet you keep spouting "disinformation." See I can toss that word out as well.
 
#257
#257
vols40 said:
Just stop man. Do yourself a favor and stop. I have exposed you already and you with your first fact check organization and yet you keep spouting "disinformation." See I can toss that word out as well.
Click to expand...
You haven't exposed anything but your own stubbornness, if you are claiming that the Washington Examiner doesn't strongly favor the right.
 
#263
#263
vols40 said:
So did you recant your first media fact check assertion ?
Click to expand...
No. mediabiasfactcheck.com is just as critical of media outlets who are biased in favor of the left. They are very critical of MSNBC and Vox and Vanity Fair. They pretty much call it like it is. If you can't admit that the Washington Examiner favors the right? It's probably because you are being stubborn.
 
#271
#271
BowlBrother85 said:
That is a sensational headline (I've read it before), but the text of the article makes the differences between what Russia did and the Ukraine did, very clear. Poltico isn't biased, but read the text of the article. It's not as interesting as the headline.
Click to expand...

Politico is way more left than right. The guy who wrote this now works for the New York times. If he was "right leaning" why didn't he go work for the New York Post? LMAO. You are making this way to easy
 
#272
#272
vols40 said:
CBS once again definitely not right leaning.
Click to expand...
What none of these stories provide evidence of, but is at the heart of the theory involving Alexandra Chalupa, is that the DNC authorized Chalupa's research or that she worked directly with either Ukraine's government or the Clinton campaign.
 
#273
#273
vols40 said:
Politico is way more left than right. The guy who wrote this now works for the New York times. If he was "right leaning" why didn't he go work for the New York Post? LMAO. You are making this way to easy
Click to expand...
I didn't say that he was right leaning. I didn't say that Politico was biased. That article doesn't say what you seem to think it does. It does not support the claims central to the Alexandra Chalupa conspiracy theory.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement





Back
Top