Where aljazeera

Claude! said:

---

713nervy said:

---

Not according to independent researchers whose entire job it is to review and rank these things. Bummer that all of your panties are in a bunch about it but that's a you problem. Maybe do some research before calling it fake.

---

It's interesting, but I'm not sure I'd take it as gospel. From what I can glean, they have analysts from left, right, and center review stories and assign a political bias and a news value/reliability score. What I can't determine is their methodology for determining a left/right bias or for news value/reliability - is there an objective framework the analysts are working from, or is it down to a "looks right to me" judgment call?

---

Let me just guess that their version of "right of center" is the Lincoln project?

That yellow box "SAN" in the Center is the one you want. Straight Arrow News. Events and commentary from both sides, but also with rankings of how each side represented biases in their reporting. Excellent journalism.

Paul Harvey. Not much has happened since 2009, though.

Pornhub

1200 Woai or 680 KKYX were the only 2 radio stations I knew about until high school.

I appreciate that you spent a few minutes reviewing their site. You now have clearance to balk at NPR being considered the middle by Ad Fontes without my harassment.

I'd reviewed their methodology pretty thoroughly at one point, maybe 8 years ago. Back then I felt good about their approach - good enough to trust their charts.

From what I recall, they take an article and assign it to 3 people to read and rate independently and then all 3 get on a call and talk through their scores. One person self identifies as left, middle, and right. They have to come to a consensus on the scoring and those with outliers have an additional review process. I don't remember how they choose the articles / podcasts / live shows / print articles / etc to review but they review them all in separate categories and have different charts for each media type. Then I guess they combine all the ratings for the big overall chart.

San Antonio huh? How did you not know about 760am ZRock?

Every grandpa from the Hill Country to South Texas only listened to AM 680.

Wall Street Journal, Forbes, Newsweek, AP, Reuters, Texags, local tv news, local AM radio, local newspaper.

The Babylon Bee

Mayor West 1 - 713Nervy 0

That seems like something wildly out of context and that the politics board would LOVE.

713nervy said:

---

That seems like something wildly out of context and that the politics board would LOVE.

---

This interpretation of it from USA Today (https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/columnist/2024/05/08/npr-ceo-katherine-maher-congress-media-bias-uri-berliner/73597888007/) doesn't seem to help with the context to me:

Quote:

---

What she meant, as the context of the talk makes clear, is that our insistence that other people accept our interpretation of what's true is a problem, even if we are correct.

---

So we can't insist that facts exist and that truth is undebatable? We have to find a consensus somewhere in the middle between fact and fantasy instead? That doesn't sound ideal for the head of an allegedly unbiased journalistic organization that should be laser focused on sorting out truth from fiction. If you can't start from the facts and work from there, it is all fiction.

But but but…

What if someone "speaks their truth"? We have to accept it, right?

maroon barchetta said:

---

But but but…

What if someone "speaks their truth"? We have to accept it, right?

---

Their truth is more important than yours.

txags92 said:

---

713nervy said:

---

That seems like something wildly out of context and that the politics board would LOVE.

---

This interpretation of it from USA Today (https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/columnist/2024/05/08/npr-ceo-katherine-maher-congress-media-bias-uri-berliner/73597888007/) doesn't seem to help with the context to me:

Quote:

---

What she meant, as the context of the talk makes clear, is that our insistence that other people accept our interpretation of what's true is a problem, even if we are correct.

---

So we can't insist that facts exist and that truth is undebatable? We have to find a consensus somewhere in the middle between fact and fantasy instead? That doesn't sound ideal for the head of an allegedly unbiased journalistic organization that should be laser focused on sorting out truth from fiction. If you can't start from the facts and work from there, it is all fiction.

---

So it WAS out of context. Right on.
She's saying that we hear a fact and we interpret that fact to mean or imply XYZ. Meanwhile, that might be true or it might NOT be true. But we believe it to be true and insist that other people believe it, which takes us away from the fact, itself, which is really the only thing that we empirically know to be true.

Here's an example.
Trump has said that he will implement a 60% tariff on all imported goods from China. He has said this - this is the fact.
What some people interpret this to mean is that this will cost the importer more money, passing along the cost to the buyer, who will pass along the cost to the consumer, therefore increasing the cost for goods. This is the interpretation but we don't know this to be true because it hasn't happened in this circumstance yet. Has it happened before? Maybe. Has it been studied by economists? Maybe. But has it happened under Trump, in the current economy, with all of these current circumstances? No.

What she's saying is that by someone insisting that this is what will happen, they are being distracted by what they believe will occur rather than focusing on the facts. The future hasn't happened yet, so it cannot be the truth (yet). Therefore, that person is being distracted by their interpretation of the truth. This is not the same thing as what is actually the truth.

Long story short, it's another way to say that your perception is not always reality and people are being distracted by that and getting away from the facts.

txags92 said:

---

maroon barchetta said:

---

But but but…

What if someone "speaks their truth"? We have to accept it, right?

---

Their truth is more important than yours.

---

You slapdicks just demonstrated her point.

I was just making fun of the phrase "speaking their truth" because it gets used when people want some way to justify their insane ramblings.

maroon barchetta said:

---

I was just making fun of the phrase "speaking their truth" because it gets used when people want some way to justify their insane ramblings.

---

I know, I had added more to my response, but didn't want to take this too far into F16 topics.

Taken in the abstract, 713Nervy's interpretation of what Maher is saying seems innocuous, but when you place it against the backdrop of Maher's other woke and left leaning tweets and comments, it places her into the camp that believes truth or facts are not immutable, but instead are based on perception by individuals. Facts and truth are the linchpin of journalism. You can argue around the edges that the conclusions one side or the other draws from the facts shouldn't be seen as absolute, but reporting the facts and the truth itself should remain the focus of any responsible journalistic organization. I would argue that journalism today has skewed way too far into trying to tell people what to think about any given story than what the facts are, but that is probably a topic for elsewhere.

713nervy said:

---

txags92 said:

---

maroon barchetta said:

---

But but but…

What if someone "speaks their truth"? We have to accept it, right?

---

Their truth is more important than yours.

---

You slapdicks just demonstrated her point.

---

Typical resort to insults when humor sheds light on the ridiculousness of a position.

I had my own page in the mid 90s while at A&M!
Used that until Yahoo Geocities shut down.

Political board on TD's

I know! It still works though.

Not really

txags92 said:

---

maroon barchetta said:

---

I was just making fun of the phrase "speaking their truth" because it gets used when people want some way to justify their insane ramblings.

---

I know, I had added more to my response, but didn't want to take this too far into F16 topics.

Taken in the abstract, 713Nervy's interpretation of what Maher is saying seems innocuous, but when you place it against the backdrop of Maher's other woke and left leaning tweets and comments, it places her into the camp that believes truth or facts are not immutable, but instead are based on perception by individuals. Facts and truth are the linchpin of journalism. You can argue around the edges that the conclusions one side or the other draws from the facts shouldn't be seen as absolute, but reporting the facts and the truth itself should remain the focus of any responsible journalistic organization. I would argue that journalism today has skewed way too far into trying to tell people what to think about any given story than what the facts are, but that is probably a topic for elsewhere.

---

Ugh. I had this nice post and then accidentally deleted it.

I 100% agree with you with what I bolded from your post.

Long story short - you and Maher are saying the same thing. Facts and truth are immutable. What people are passing along as facts and truth are NOT facts and truth, and therein lies the problem.

Citizen Free Press

Excellent thread. And 713Nervy, I am your fan. FACT!

I too, just want the facts. Full disclosure- I have one of those so-called worthless journalism degrees.

Reed McDonald 92 said:

---

Excellent thread. And 713Nervy, I am your fan. FACT!

I too, just want the facts. Full disclosure- I have one of those so-called worthless journalism degrees.

---

She's not gonna sleep with you dude.

I'm guessing.

Probably not.

It's doubtful.

That seems like something wildly out of context and that the politics board would LOVE.

Reed McDonald 92 said:

---

Excellent thread. And 713Nervy, I am your fan. FACT!

I too, just want the facts. Full disclosure- I have one of those so-called worthless journalism degrees.

---

I respect your journalism degree. The program wasn't around when I was there or I might also have one of those!

Orlwm_Ag said:

---

That seems like something wildly out of context and that the politics board would LOVE.

---

This guy gets it.

BBC. Good international focus.