Forums Discussion v2 - GO TO PAGE 109 FOR SOMETHING NEAT
4,995 replies, posted
i cant fucking believe tudd is dead
time to go to his profile and post offensive visitor messages to create more drama
How's it Tudding? heh
RIP Tudd, forum superstar and all around beloved poster
What the fuck is a Tudd?
[QUOTE=Wiggles;52223515]What the fuck is a Tudd?[/QUOTE]
A type of amphibian that lives in enclosed, moist environments. Found commonly under bridges scaring children.
[video]https://youtu.be/MdN0NXgjsn8[/video]
[QUOTE=CunningHam;52223964]I'm collecting for a Tudd funeral fund, paypal me five dollars at [email]callmekrishmael@gmail.com[/email] for a chance to be a pallbearer[/QUOTE]
Oh fuck I actually donated $5 fuck fuck I'm gonna be so poor
[QUOTE=CunningHam;52223964]I'm collecting for a Tudd funeral fund, paypal me five dollars at [email]callmekrishmael@gmail.com[/email] for a chance to be a pallbearer[/QUOTE]
This is like giving someone a funeral for being in a coma for a week
Tudd left us to join the Badage Boys.
He left to move on to bigger and better things. Expect him in the white house in 2020.
if tudd actually debated more in threads with news that go against with his views instead of only making threads with news that caters to his views, he would have been a lot less controversial as an FP member.
Let me make this clear, its not so much his views and opinions, it is his intellectual dishonesty when it comes to expressing and debating them
He should just be regarded as a normal FP member, not a meme
[QUOTE=MissingGlitch;52224174]He left to move on to bigger and better things. Expect him in the white house in 2020.[/QUOTE]
new press secretary?
[QUOTE=Judas;52224325]new press secretary?[/QUOTE]
Depends. What is Tudd's opinion on dippin dots?
[QUOTE=Oicani Gonzales;52224302]i'll only donate if it's called Tuddneral[/QUOTE]
You mean Tudd Fudderal?
did Heineken really make dav0r rich
Updated the source selection guidelines in the Politics subforum. Any suggestions?
[editline]13th May 2017[/editline]
Copy paste
[B][U]Selecting a Good Source[/U][/B]
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American]We no longer maintain an explicit list of banned sources, because it's just not possible for us to curate a comprehensive list like that with our limited time and manpower. There are countless publications and websites out there. However, we still expect you to produce reliable, honest, accessible, and relatively unbiased sources. Obviously, some bias is inescapable, but take care not to use something that wears it on its sleeve, like Breitbart.
If you want to do some checking into your source, we're unofficially using the following website as a guideline right now:
[url]https://mediabiasfactcheck.com[/url]
Our criteria are that a source must have a bias rating no farther than [I]Center Left[/I] or [I]Center Right[/I], and that it [I]must[/I] have a [I]High[/I] rate of factual reporting. This not only eliminates propaganda rags like Breitbart outright, but pretty neatly trims out some of the more extreme main stream sources like Fox News and Huffington Post. If your source isn't listed on this website, use your best judgment. Look at other articles on your source's site to see if an obvious trend emerges, check the "About Us" section for potential agendas or backing, or do some searches on the source in Google to try to attempt to verify its reliability.
If you cannot produce a source for your article that is reliable, honest, accessible, and relatively unbiased, then chances are pretty good that there's something fishy about it. In this case, it is likely better not to post it at all.[/quote]
[B][U]Non-English Sources[/U][/B]
[quote=Big Dumb American]Given that this is an English-speaking forum, English language sources are always preferred, even if only as a secondary source (IE-- your primary source is non-English, but you post a secondary English language source to supplement it).
If no English source exists for your article yet, for any reason, then it is of course permitted to use a non-English article as your only source so long as you make a reasonable effort to provide a competent translation. Do take care to adhere to the guidelines on choosing a [I]good[/I] source, though. It must be reliable, honest, accessible, and with a minimum of bias.[/quote]
Tudd got banned for 7 days with 7777 posts
Neat
What's wrong with Fox articles? They spin the same amount CNN does. Mediabias likes to point out CNN talk shows like Don Lemon =/= news reporting but doesn't do the same for Fox and treats it like all of Fox is like Hannity.
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;52224463]Updated the source selection guidelines in the Politics subforum. Any suggestions?[/QUOTE]
I'd like if it encouraged users to link multiple articles from different sources which preferable doesn't link back to the same main source in the end.
After all, cross referencing between multiple sources with various viewpoints helps the reader boil down the essential of the news article while helping to sort out any mild bias that got through the filter.
[QUOTE=-nesto-;52224824]What's wrong with Fox articles? They spin the same amount CNN does. Mediabias likes to point out CNN talk shows like Don Lemon =/= news reporting but doesn't do the same for Fox and treats it like all of Fox is like Hannity.[/QUOTE]
Fox local is generally fine, but the "Fox news" as in the national media source is laughably biased
[video=youtube;cAvq12Sa3VE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cAvq12Sa3VE[/video]
(this is a classic)
I view fox as more "clean" than the likes of brietbart, but they do have a heavy bias historically.
CNN has gotten worse of the years, particularly with things concerning Clinton, but I dont really see them going out at silly lengths like this.
Like i said, fox articles aren't as retarded as something like Hannity's tv show. Theres a massive difference between garbage like Hannity and Judge Jeanine and their online reporting.
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;52224463]Updated the source selection guidelines in the Politics subforum. Any suggestions?[/QUOTE]
This might be a little too far but there's a page that shows [URL="https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/center/"]least biased[/URL] news networks here.
Here's a list of well known center sources too:
ABC News Australia
Associated Press
Big Think
C-SPAN
Gallup
Pew Research
Politifact
Reuters
Snopes ([URL="https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/2017/02/26/snopes-is-a-least-biased-source-despite-what-you-may-have-read/"]I'm surprised too![/URL])
USA Today
Wikipedia was listed as a news source for some reason, but they probably meant [URL="https://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Main_Page"]Wikinews[/URL].
[url]http://insider.foxnews.com/2017/05/11/tom-macarthur-town-hall-angry-man-calls-him-single-greatest-threat-his-family[/url]
Here's an example from a thread in polidicks. Their articles are straight reports.
[QUOTE=-nesto-;52224940][url]http://insider.foxnews.com/2017/05/11/tom-macarthur-town-hall-angry-man-calls-him-single-greatest-threat-his-family[/url]
Here's an example from a thread in polidicks. Their articles are straight reports.[/QUOTE]
[img]http://i.imgur.com/hXZu58L.png[/img]
[url]http://insider.foxnews.com/about[/url]
I think it's worse.
[url]http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/05/13/warren-takes-jabs-at-trump-in-amherst-commencement-address.html[/url]
Heres a front page article on Warren lets see the bias
Oh there isnt any. Its a regular ass report. Weird.
[QUOTE=-nesto-;52224984][url]http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/05/13/warren-takes-jabs-at-trump-in-amherst-commencement-address.html[/url]
Heres a front page article on Warren lets see the bias
Oh there isnt any. Its a regular ass report. Weird.[/QUOTE]
[quote]These media sources are moderately to strongly biased toward conservative causes through story selection and/or political affiliation. [B]They may[/B] 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 [B]that may[/B] damage conservative causes. Some sources in this category may be untrustworthy.[/quote]
Not all Fox News stories are riddled with bias, but there's a well-portioned chance that it will be. Breitbart on occasion will have an article that is bias free and completely truthful.
In a perfect world, an article-by-article basis would be the superior option, but no one has the patience and time to analyse every news article and actually search for the truth.
[QUOTE=-nesto-;52224824]What's wrong with Fox articles? They spin the same amount CNN does. Mediabias likes to point out CNN talk shows like Don Lemon =/= news reporting but doesn't do the same for Fox and treats it like all of Fox is like Hannity.[/QUOTE]
FOX is incredibly right-leaning and there is no denying that bias. CNN is extremely center, however they're also extremely sensationalist. Their articles are more shit-leaning than any political lean. They used to be quite liberal for a while, but under the Bush administration is when they really started becoming middle of the road. As an example, CNN played quite a large role in Trump's rise to political rise in both fame and infamy. They switch to whatever side gives them the better viewership.
[editline]13th May 2017[/editline]
[QUOTE=-nesto-;52224984][url]http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/05/13/warren-takes-jabs-at-trump-in-amherst-commencement-address.html[/url]
Heres a front page article on Warren lets see the bias
Oh there isnt any. Its a regular ass report. Weird.[/QUOTE]
Not every FOX News article is bias. They are a real news network. However, because of their heavy right-leaning bias, they're much more likely to push an agenda on many of their stories, but it's never consistent. They have so many writers and staff there's no way they could uniformly do such a thing.
The reason they're a bad source is because there's no way to really immediately tell if an article or video is going to have that bias, there is no indicator on the page that says 'this shit is bias as fuck' before you read or watch.
[QUOTE=da space core;52224885]Fox local is generally fine, but the "Fox news" as in the national media source is laughably biased
[video=youtube;cAvq12Sa3VE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cAvq12Sa3VE[/video]
(this is a classic)
I view fox as more "clean" than the likes of brietbart, but they do have a heavy bias historically.
CNN has gotten worse of the years, particularly with things concerning Clinton, but I dont really see them going out at silly lengths like this.[/QUOTE]
[video=youtube;ixEahmx0Btw]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ixEahmx0Btw[/video]
(this is a classic)
[sp]and actually under a week old too[/sp]
Multiple studies have confirmed that the viewership of Fox News are actually [I]less[/I] informed than people who don't watch the news at all. That's really all that needs to be said on that subject. Fox News may be accessible, but it is not reliable, honest, or without significant bias. It is disallowed as a primary source, and that is not ever likely to change. The only exception for that may be for minor local stories that have not been covered by bigger networks, such as the angry town hall dad thread linked above.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.