If you didn't only read conservative news maybe you'd know about canceled leftists. Actually you wouldn't know about canceled leftists since there is no left wing popular media. We have corporate media and equally powerful far right media. That's it.
You reference the dailywire so much when even your own source (mediabiasfactcheck) rates them just short of "extreme right" and rates their "Factual Reporting" as "MIXED"?
Why would anyone take the time to respond to each of your points any more than they would a random Facebook post?
This is part of what makes political discourse so challenging today. It's really easy to conjure up evidence in the form of poorly written articles with bad sources (or outright fabrications), but exponentially more difficult to go and fact check every one of these sources any time they are trotted out.
And, from your own wikipedia article: " A study published in Scientific Reports wrote: "While [Media Bias/Fact Check's] credibility is sometimes questioned, it has been regarded as accurate enough to be used as ground-truth." Thanks for the source! I love being given more material that backs my claims!
What does it mean to rigorously and objectively classify a news site as on the left or on the right? More importantly, what's your alternative classification system that is more objective and rigorous? It's so easy to criticize, and yet so hard to come up with something better. Again, you bring absolutely nothing to the conversation. How do you intend to convince anyone of anything?
>Thanks for the source! I love being given more material that backs my claims!
None of your dailywire claims have been backed up. You keep dodging that fact.
>Again, you bring absolutely nothing to the conversation.
All I'm trying to "bring to the conversation" is the fact that your "sources" are just links to a site nobody could possibly trust. But since that's clearly good enough for you to take as fact, you're exactly the kind of person they hope to rope in.
You're assuming the Daily wire is not a trustworthy source. I do not share that assumption. If you want to debunk them, do it yourself. Otherwise, they stand as solid supporting evidence!
>You're assuming the Daily wire is not a trustworthy source.
I'm not assuming anything, remember? That's according to the source you were crowing about.
>Thanks for the source! I love being given more material that backs my claims!
The folks at mediabiasfactcheck (which you've continuously defended) gave the Daily Wire a "Mixed" ranking for Factual Reporting. They couldn't even make it to "mostly factual" (which seems like a pretty low bar).
You're being very dishonest, and we both know it. If a news source is legitimately mixed in factual reporting, that would mean you can't assume what they are saying is false, because some of what they say is true by definition. But you just outright dismissed the entire site!
Anyways, you didn't actually catch me on anything. I knew long before that Daily Wire had a "mixed" rating on that site. I had also already clicked on all their examples of false reporting, and all of them were climate change-related articles from years ago where they found a scientist who disagreed with the reporting. So, uh, don't trust Daily wire for climate change articles?
From NPR: "The articles The Daily Wire publishes don’t normally include falsehoods (with some exceptions), and the site said it is committed to “truthful, accurate and ethical reporting.”"
Please come talk to me again when you're willing to have an honest discussion about a topic, and not when you're just trying, and failing, to score points.
I'll never understand how people can justify seeing the world in such binary terms. You don't honestly think someone is "bad" or "good" based on political ideology, do you?
It's easy to summarize the world in binary terms based on empirical evidence that comes from your own experiences. In my experience, conservatives are far more likely to back up their claims with evidence than those on the left. Is it always true? Of course not. But it certainly is a generalization I am convinced that is supported by reality.
