Sorry, thought I'd provided the link: https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/washington-free-beacon/ABV 8.3% wrote: ↑Sat Aug 03, 2019 10:20 amYou are NOT making sense. I apologize in advance if it wasn't you who had never heard of the decades old Free Bacon, but, suddenly you post something you found on the internet as the final judge and jury? Without knowing who runs whatever source you got the quote from. (media bias???) Does your source provide examples of the claim that they lie? If not, why do you value it? Just because they said so? Again, consider who is paying the bills?MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Sat Aug 03, 2019 9:55 am
ABV, the essence of bias is to twist a piece of truth into a claim hurtful to the target.
Yup, the site is down for a bit. But that wasn't the claim being made by the article, for which they offer not a shred of basis.
The issue on the credibility of the source is whether they actually practice journalistic ethics, and this one doesn't.
Which is not to say that there isn't benefit of reporters scrambling around looking for a scoop...even the most unethical can sometimes find a pony in all that poop. Not often, but yes sometimes they do!
Who says the Bacon doesn't practice journalistic ethics? Do you even know what they are?
Regardless, you make NO such claims about bias of other media outlets. Don't read your comments of MSM ignoring actual news stories, like a US Marine getting beating up, wallet stolen at a McDonalds next to the fbi HQ. Or the more recent one of a white guy getting beaten up by a group of black "kids" Journalistic ethics doesn't apply to the washPost, who sat on these stories, HAS ignored these type of stories for decades.
Where did you get the idea that Free Bacon does what you think it does regarding ethics? You make some bold claims with NO citations. Guess you don't like your own views because you don't practice journalistic ethics.
Nothing wrong with being biased, slanted And reading all perspectives, don't you think.
There are a number of such sites that look at media bias and accuracy. They all rate the Free Beacon pretty much the same.
I get it that you think the MSM editorially eliminates covering stories that you think are worth reporting on because they are conservative in nature. I don't think that's rampant, as they certainly do report on major stories that don't make liberal points of view or people look good. But, sure, all journalism makes decisions about what is actually newsworthy and what is not, whether that's placement on the front page above the folks or on page 16 or not at all.
The issue of journalistic ethics is whether a paper or site makes claims it knows is false, or upon learning are false they correct the prior reporting. When that's not a priority for a paper or site, it's not merely slanted editorially, it's actually not trustworthy. Of course all news reporting should be viewed with some degree of skepticism, but you are certainly better off absorbing information from a collection of sources who actually value their credibility over a particular right or left point of view.