If I can find three reputable sources that say the same thing, I feel pretty confident in accepting it as fact. The real trick is finding reputable sources. Media Bias Fact Check is really helpful for this.
Have you ever tried the 1 Left, 1 center, 1 right source when looking into something? I try to do this myself when I have the time and can find the articles.
How do you define the centre? Do you account for existing wide-spread social biases? E.g. systemic racism, or the neoliberal belief that we can have infinite growth on a finite planet?
They’re referring to the shifting variance between political sides and the range expressed between them. The Overton Window usually.
The Overton window is the range of subjects and arguments politically acceptable to the mainstream population at a given time. It is also known as the window of discourse. The key to the concept is that the window changes over time; it can shift, or shrink or expand. It exemplifies “the slow evolution of societal values and norms”.
Outside of this window you still have Left and Right, but they’re the more extreme beliefs that the general populace doesn’t currently accept. The window shifting over time means something that would have been considered absolutely insane 20 years ago, could be entirely mainstream now.
A current example would be federal deployment of the military to handle local protests when there is no declared State of Emergency and local government doesn’t need or want assistance.
But left and right aren’t absolute positions, they change in time. E.g. democrats now hold a lot of similar positions to what the republicans held in the 1980s (and also a lot of different ones).
Left and right are also a unidimensional approximation of a multidimensional value space… E.g. most people on the left disagree with nearly everything Marjorie Taylor Greene says, but they agree with her that the US should not be supporting Israel’s war on Iran.
There are also people on the left AND the right that oppose global economic liberalisation, but what is often called the “centre” supports it - clearly not a “middle” stance.
So how can you meaningfully define what is led and what is right, for the purpose of your reading?
That it also changes in time and is not absolute. And also, in many ways, that it does it does not exist (in the sense that the “centre” in one dimension might be correlated with extremes in another)
I just showed you an example of where “centre” as commonly defined is not between left and right, but opposed by both…
I guess the point is, I think those definitions are deficient, and using them as a guide to understanding what is good or true is probably a flawed methodology. It’s kind of reminiscent of Fox News’ old “fair and balanced” slogan (which never was, but also just missed the point of what journalism is supposed to be about, which is truth).
They’re incredibly pro-Israel and anti-anything else in the middle east. Reputable information gets a lower reliability rating from them “just because”.
Their problem is that any news agency in the middle east is automatically “untrustworthy” with quotes like “they haven’t been found to report false stories, but we still give them an untrustworthy rating”.
I already gave you the examples, I said that they unfairly represent middle eastern news as untrustworthy. Or are you here to nitpick and “um ackthcshually”?
It is itself extremely biased, you believed an authority that isn’t neutral.
Their problem is that any news agency in the middle east is automatically “untrustworthy” with quotes like “they haven’t been found to report false stories, but we still give them an untrustworthy rating”.
I already gave you the examples, I said that they unfairly represent middle eastern news as untrustworthy. Or are you here to nitpick and “um ackthcshually”?
You have provided 0 examples of a middle eastern news source that is unfairly ranked.
Are you going to keep being combative and waste both of our time refusing to answer a simple good faith question?
Al Jazeera has been a valuable voice for the Palestinians as most Western media favors Israel. While most of its reporting has been factual in covering the conflict they have demonstrated one-sided reporting that tends to denigrate Israel.
Mixed for factual reporting. They cite 2 articles that they have found to be false since forever. They complain about “loaded language”. Yet they say “straight news has minimal bias”. Then they give Times of Israel “high credibility” and speak how unbiased their language is, giving the same examples as they gave in the Al Jazeera one for “biased language”.
High credibility is 2 “levels” higher than the middle of the field “mixed”.
If I can find three reputable sources that say the same thing, I feel pretty confident in accepting it as fact. The real trick is finding reputable sources. Media Bias Fact Check is really helpful for this.
They used to say ALL cholestrol was bad, every doctor said it. But then someone discovered about HDL and LDL
Also, doctors used to say smoking doesn’t cause cancer.
Doctors paid by cigarette companies said that, and they were in a tiny minority of doctors.
There are scientists now who say global warming is a hoax because they have a monetary interest.
Have you ever tried the 1 Left, 1 center, 1 right source when looking into something? I try to do this myself when I have the time and can find the articles.
How do you define the centre? Do you account for existing wide-spread social biases? E.g. systemic racism, or the neoliberal belief that we can have infinite growth on a finite planet?
The center is the middle of the right and left.
I am unsure what you are asking after that.
They’re referring to the shifting variance between political sides and the range expressed between them. The Overton Window usually.
Outside of this window you still have Left and Right, but they’re the more extreme beliefs that the general populace doesn’t currently accept. The window shifting over time means something that would have been considered absolutely insane 20 years ago, could be entirely mainstream now.
A current example would be federal deployment of the military to handle local protests when there is no declared State of Emergency and local government doesn’t need or want assistance.
Yep, that’s a big part of it…
But there’s other aspects too (see my other comment replying to Arkouda)
But left and right aren’t absolute positions, they change in time. E.g. democrats now hold a lot of similar positions to what the republicans held in the 1980s (and also a lot of different ones).
Left and right are also a unidimensional approximation of a multidimensional value space… E.g. most people on the left disagree with nearly everything Marjorie Taylor Greene says, but they agree with her that the US should not be supporting Israel’s war on Iran.
There are also people on the left AND the right that oppose global economic liberalisation, but what is often called the “centre” supports it - clearly not a “middle” stance.
So how can you meaningfully define what is led and what is right, for the purpose of your reading?
What do you think that means for the center?
That it also changes in time and is not absolute. And also, in many ways, that it does it does not exist (in the sense that the “centre” in one dimension might be correlated with extremes in another)
If the center, right, and left change over time how do you expect me to define “center” beyond that which is situated between left and right?
I just showed you an example of where “centre” as commonly defined is not between left and right, but opposed by both…
I guess the point is, I think those definitions are deficient, and using them as a guide to understanding what is good or true is probably a flawed methodology. It’s kind of reminiscent of Fox News’ old “fair and balanced” slogan (which never was, but also just missed the point of what journalism is supposed to be about, which is truth).
It is itself extremely biased, you believed an authority that isn’t neutral.
How so? Seemed reasonable enough for the few things I checked.
They’re incredibly pro-Israel and anti-anything else in the middle east. Reputable information gets a lower reliability rating from them “just because”.
To my knowledge they have been criticized for being biased, but from what I can find their ratings don’t differ drastically from other providers.
Their problem is that any news agency in the middle east is automatically “untrustworthy” with quotes like “they haven’t been found to report false stories, but we still give them an untrustworthy rating”.
Do you have examples of reputable sources from the middle east that have an unfair rating?
I already gave you the examples, I said that they unfairly represent middle eastern news as untrustworthy. Or are you here to nitpick and “um ackthcshually”?
You have provided 0 examples of a middle eastern news source that is unfairly ranked.
Are you going to keep being combative and waste both of our time refusing to answer a simple good faith question?
From their own description of Al Jazeera
Mixed for factual reporting. They cite 2 articles that they have found to be false since forever. They complain about “loaded language”. Yet they say “straight news has minimal bias”. Then they give Times of Israel “high credibility” and speak how unbiased their language is, giving the same examples as they gave in the Al Jazeera one for “biased language”.
High credibility is 2 “levels” higher than the middle of the field “mixed”.
Do you have examples of other bias/fact check sources that contradict the score from MBFS?