[Redacted] V ______ is really going to be setting a somewhat odd precedent. Like the SCOTUS has argued things in secret but they've never had to rule in a way that can affect the law in total secrecy before.
Leaving this open if someone can link a non cnn exclusive source that also fits within the rules(no big left or right bias and no mixed factual). You can continue discussing however.
??????
CNN isn't crazy left, like fox is crazy right.
What is a good source then????
Use common sense when selecting your sources. They should be no more than center left or center right biased on https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/. Posting parody articles as news may get you banned.
READ THIS BEFORE YOU POST
https://aus.chie.club/i/1a403213-cf83-4246-bed7-cd0bec91fddf.png
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
CNN is only left by American standards tbh. Mixed factual defo tho.
"CNN is left wing" is a viewpoint pushed by alt right manipulators, I'm disappointed to see mediabiasfactcheck falling for that lie.
ya but this is such a basic story "hey the scotus is doing this" there'w no opinion no large story here
wack that CNN is considered to be as left wing and as factually sound as Fox News
I remember when it was considered slightly left of center on mbfc. How times have changed(?).
Yeah this seems to be a recent development, last I checked it was center-left. I wouldn't use it as a primary source for posting an article here beforehand but that seems new.
https://files.facepunch.com/forum/upload/215204/94132cd5-bcc9-407a-bfcb-8a9307e4c742/cnn.png
Gonna go out on a limb and say there's some shenanigans going on right now. I specifically remember CNN being center left the last time I checked, which was not long ago.
I think you all are massively misremembering, because CNN was never allowed in Polidicks, even on Oldpunch. They always were marked as Left on MBFC. I remember running into that problem before and needing to find a non-CNN source to corroborate it.
Considering CNN is very corporate left, "Extreme left" is just absurd
You might want to read their "about" page...
https://files.facepunch.com/forum/upload/599/80a0791b-9189-46e6-93db-c1c75c3679f0/image.png
I thought the bias element was less relevant, and the main issue is the mixed factual reporting. Everybody's got a bias, but what matters is that the individual articles are factual. Maybe a news source with a bias over-reports on things that support their bias, but for spreading news articles, what matters is that the article itself isn't misconstruing things. SH and Polidicks are more or less news aggregates, so whether an individual source is biased doesn't really matter, since we have lots of sources. An individual source having mixed factual reporting absolutely IS a problem, though.
https://files.facepunch.com/forum/upload/235930/8967e74e-784d-418c-8c5c-61222798a8a7/image.png
The wayback machine shows as of Feb 11th of last year (because that's as far back as I care to look), it's been left
Oh come on, CNN is shitty but is not that bad ( at least not like RT ), and there's no way it is left, let alone far-left.
Ironic enough the explanation for the bias is correct, but liberal issues are actually things of the right lol ( unless they mean on the american sense of being progressive, which is likely ). I would say they tend to go many times for the clickbait and hold the USA too much of consideration when on international topics, however.
Reminder that MediaBiasFactCheck is literally run by some dude™ and, while not a useless resource, is a far cry from being an authority on anything,
Also blindly trusting one website as a means to not blindly trust websites seems silly
Using MBFC has its flaws, but I think its good to have a reliable set of rules to follow when it comes to posting guidelines. If there were a better resource, I would say go for it, but its really the only one that's useful. It gets less useful when dealing with iffy sources like Buzzfeed News and CNN, but it also stops a lot of shitty sources from being posted, like I see on Reddit all the time. If it changed to "common sense", then the enforcement is likely going to be pretty arbitrary with some shitty sources being allowed and others not. I think its better that the rules are clear.
Even then, it shouldn't be difficult to find a HIGH fact reporting source in addition to the MIXED one. If the story is worth reporting, then other reliable sources will write about it.
CNN has had a left bias for years, how is this shocking to anyone? It's not far left obviously, but it's certainly never been center left.
I'd say it's democrat bias. Overall not very left wing
Never really felt so left-based, but I guess that's because right-wing in the US is extremely right-winged from a Nordic point of view.
We should ditch the left/right rule entirely to be honest. It assumes that being centrist means being unbiased, which is absurd.
The only thing that should matter is whether reporting is factual. Maybe some disclaimer about the source's overall bias, but we shouldn't ban sources on that basis.
To actually discuss the topic at hand, we'd heard about this case being appealed to the Supreme court a month or two ago. What does it mean that they've actually taken the case instead of dismissing the appeal? Is that a sign it may go poorly for Mueller? Given how the court is stacked right now.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
