this post was submitted on 21 Jun 2023
-4 points (16.7% liked)

Україна | Ukraine 🇺🇦

1464 readers
1 users here now

Welcome to Ukraine!

Ласкаво просимо в Україну!

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] BrooklynMan@lemmy.ml 0 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (3 children)

From MediaBiasFactCheck.com

Wall Street Journal

RIGHT-CENTER BIAS

These media sources are slight to moderately conservative in bias. They often publish factual information that utilizes loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by appeals to emotion or stereotypes) to favor conservative causes. These sources are generally trustworthy for information but may require further investigation.

Analysis / Bias

The Walls Street Journal hasn’t endorsed US political candidates since 1928; however, they are criticized for supporting far-right populist politicians abroad. For example, in South America, they all but endorsed far-right Congressman Jair Bolsonaro in Brazil’s presidential election. They have also written favorably about Chilean Dictator Augusto Pinochet. The WSJ has been strongly criticized for its pro-Trump coverage. According to The Atlantic, there was an alleged conflict about how to cover Trump, resulting in an opinion editor’s departure.

In review, the WSJ utilizes emotionally loaded language in their editorial headlines that favor the right, such as this: “Wrap It Up, Mr. Mueller Democratic dilemma: Impeach Trump for lying about sex?” They also frequently promote anti-climate change messages such as this: “The Phony War Against CO2.” Here is another example from an editorial on Trump’s position on climate change “Not the Climate Apocalypse: The EPA’s power rule won’t save coal and won’t poison the planet.” Further, IFCN fact checker Climate Feedback has cited numerous editorials in which the Wall Street Journal uses very low scientific credibility. The pro-science Climate Science & Policy Watch has also criticized the WSJ for rejecting the 97% consensus of climate scientists. Lastly, The Guardian has an article describing how the WSJ “peddles big oil propaganda” while “disguising climate misinformation as opinion.”

When reporting regular news, the WSJ uses minimally loaded words such as this: China Agrees to Reduce Tariffs on U.S. Autos. News articles are also adequately sourced to credible media outlets like the Financial Times and Washington Post.

more at MediaBiasFactCheck.com

[–] CannotSleep420@lemmygrad.ml 3 points 2 years ago

I have a test I like to apply to media bias websites. See how factual known US propaganda rags are rated.

Radio Free Asia: Factual Reporting High

Voice Of America: Factual Reporting High, Bias Rating Least Bias

Glowing reviews saying US government funded media outlets are unbiased and highly factual should trigger alarm bells in the head of anyone looking to get a factual reporting of events. Websites like mediabiasfactcheck don't serve to help people look at news critically: they encourage people to put critical thinking in someone else's hands so they don't need to bother with it themselves.

[–] edward@lemmy.ml 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Media Bias Fact Check, the site that makes no distinction between centrism and being unbiased.

[–] BrooklynMan@lemmy.ml 0 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

your opinion ≠ fact, although you're welcome to attempt to prove your claim.

[–] edward@lemmy.ml 0 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

Are you saying that being a centrist and being unbiased are the same? Is there no such thing as a centrist bias?

And don’t say I’m putting words in your mouth. You said that my comment isn’t fact, so what about it isn’t factual?

Or are you saying the site does make that distinction? Because their scale of left bias - unbiased - right bias with a complete lack of centrist bias is proof that they don’t. Here’s the proof of my claim, right from their website, the center is labeled “least biased”:

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml -3 points 2 years ago

Amazing that a grown adult doesn't understand the concept of bias. Wait till he discovers that what centrist opinions are changes from country to country. Gonna absolutely blow his mind.

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml -2 points 2 years ago (1 children)

feel free to actually address what the article is saying

[–] BrooklynMan@lemmy.ml 0 points 2 years ago (2 children)

i prefer not to waste my time on speculation from biased sources.

[–] gary_host_laptop@lemmy.ml -1 points 2 years ago

You people always have an issue with any source that differs from the narrative you want to listen. If it's Chinese news, it's because it's Chinese; if it's Russian news it's because it's Russian; if it's some African news it's because Africa doesn't like Europe; if it's some Latinamerican news it's because we're poor and we don't know better; if it's some Usonian news it's because they're right wing or too moderate or the writer something. So basically the only not-biased-source™ is a very niche set of articles written by the Usonian/European center-left/left-wing neoliberals.

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml -2 points 2 years ago (1 children)

That's a nonsensical statement. Every source has biased, so what you're really saying is that you discard any information that doesn't come from your own bubble. Pretty funny how you talk about wasting time, yet you took the time to write these content free comments here.

[–] BrooklynMan@lemmy.ml 0 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

if you have to put words in my mouth to feel better, I can't stop you. but it doesn't change the facts.

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml -2 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Nobody is putting words in your mouth. I'm just unpacking the implications of your statement. The facts are that you keep making content free comments that don't contribute anything to the discussion.

[–] BrooklynMan@lemmy.ml 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

when you "unpack" words i did not say, then yes you are putting words in my mouth. and whether they contribute to the conversation is not measured by how emotional or irrational you become in response.

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml -2 points 2 years ago (1 children)

No, that's not what putting words in somebody's mouth means, but of course it's too much to expect you to understand the terms you throw around. Also, thank you for your psychoanalysis, that's about the level or rationality I've come to expect from you.

[–] BrooklynMan@lemmy.ml 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

moving goalposts and "i know you are but what am I?" is not much of an argument.

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml -2 points 2 years ago (1 children)

You're right it wouldn't be if I actually did did either of those things. 😂

[–] BrooklynMan@lemmy.ml 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

you know that people can see your comment history, right?

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml -2 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Evidently, a lot of you people also lack reading comprehension to actually understand the content of my comment history.

[–] BrooklynMan@lemmy.ml 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

ah, so your inability to make a sound argument is everyone else's fault?

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml -2 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Way to put words in my mouth.

[–] whiskeypickle@lemmy.ml 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

those words are here for everyone to see.

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml -2 points 2 years ago (1 children)

But evidently not everyone has basic reading comprehension to read them as you so helpfully demonstrate.

[–] whiskeypickle@lemmy.ml 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Ad hominem

Ad hominem (Latin for 'to the person'), short for argumentum ad hominem, is a term that refers to several types of arguments, most of which are fallacious. Typically this term refers to a rhetorical strategy where the speaker attacks the character, motive, or some other attribute of the person making an argument rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself. This avoids genuine debate by creating a diversion to some irrelevant but often highly charged issue. The most common form of this fallacy is "A makes a claim x, B asserts that A holds a property that is unwelcome, and hence B concludes that argument x is wrong".

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml -2 points 2 years ago (1 children)

The fact that you linked the description of ad hominem here just further underscores my point. Ad hominem would be me making a personal insult as a way to discredit your argument. Being made fun of is not ad hominem. In all seriousness though, there's nothing funny about having poor reading comprehension skills. Perhaps spend some time working on that instead of trolling here.

[–] whiskeypickle@lemmy.ml 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Moving the Goalposts

Moving the goalposts is an informal fallacy in which evidence presented in response to a specific claim is dismissed and some other (often greater) evidence is demanded. That is, after an attempt has been made to score a goal, the goalposts are moved to exclude the attempt. The problem with changing the rules of the game is that the meaning of the result is changed, too.

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml -2 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Be specific regarding which goalposts you claim were moved.

[–] whiskeypickle@lemmy.ml 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Sealioning

Sealioning (also sea-lioning and sea lioning) is a type of trolling or harassment that consists of pursuing people with relentless requests for evidence, often tangential or previously addressed, while maintaining a pretense of civility and sincerity ("I'm just trying to have a debate"), and feigning ignorance of the subject matter. It may take the form of "incessant, bad-faith invitations to engage in debate", and has been likened to a denial-of-service attack targeted at human beings. The term originated with a 2014 strip of the webcomic Wondermark by David Malki, which The Independent called "the most apt description of Twitter you'll ever see".

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml -2 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Yes, you've sealioned into my post. Congratulations on recognizing that.

[–] whiskeypickle@lemmy.ml 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

“i know your are but what am i?” is not an effective form of argument.

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml -2 points 2 years ago (1 children)

That's not the argument being made, but I guess it would take basic reading comprehension to understand that.

[–] whiskeypickle@lemmy.ml 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Ad hominem

Ad hominem (Latin for 'to the person'), short for argumentum ad hominem, is a term that refers to several types of arguments, most of which are fallacious. Typically this term refers to a rhetorical strategy where the speaker attacks the character, motive, or some other attribute of the person making an argument rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself. This avoids genuine debate by creating a diversion to some irrelevant but often highly charged issue. The most common form of this fallacy is "A makes a claim x, B asserts that A holds a property that is unwelcome, and hence B concludes that argument x is wrong".

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml -2 points 2 years ago (1 children)

It's pretty funny that you still don't know what ad hominem is after linking to it like a dozen times. 😂

[–] whiskeypickle@lemmy.ml 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

"nuh uh!" is not an effective form of argument

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml -2 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Yet here you are using it. 😂

[–] whiskeypickle@lemmy.ml 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

"i know you are but what am i?" is not an effective form of argument.

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml -2 points 2 years ago

sdkl;/fjasdkl;fjasdl;kfjasdkl;fjasdf