▲ 547 ▼ for fucks sake rule (lemmy.world) submitted 2 years ago by Zekas@lemmy.world to c/196@lemmy.blahaj.zone 37 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[+] dontcarebear@lemmy.world 24 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 child) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Enigma@sh.itjust.works 16 points 2 years ago* (1 child) Wtf, do you have a source for this? Cause like I’m seeing all kinds of claims being thrown around on threads with no one providing sources. ETA: Nonbiased sources. Not just the first article you find. If you don’t know if your source is nonbiased or not, you can always double check on mediabiasfactcheck. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] doingthestuff@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago (2 children) But who honestly trusts mediabiasfactcheck? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Enigma@sh.itjust.works 8 points 2 years ago (1 child) I have been using them for years and have thus far not been steered wrong with nonbiased news sources. They explain in detail their reasoning for labeling a news source as well as explain the algorithm they use. And so far the only people I’ve come across who dont like them are people who prefer to be told how to feel instead of looking for facts. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] doingthestuff@lemmy.world 6 points 2 years ago I just looked up a handful of news sources on there and was overall satisfied with their assessments. My assumption though is that even the "bias checkers" have to have their own internal bias. permalink fedilink source parent [+] Mchugho@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Enigma@sh.itjust.works 16 points 2 years ago* (1 child) Wtf, do you have a source for this? Cause like I’m seeing all kinds of claims being thrown around on threads with no one providing sources. ETA: Nonbiased sources. Not just the first article you find. If you don’t know if your source is nonbiased or not, you can always double check on mediabiasfactcheck. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] doingthestuff@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago (2 children) But who honestly trusts mediabiasfactcheck? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Enigma@sh.itjust.works 8 points 2 years ago (1 child) I have been using them for years and have thus far not been steered wrong with nonbiased news sources. They explain in detail their reasoning for labeling a news source as well as explain the algorithm they use. And so far the only people I’ve come across who dont like them are people who prefer to be told how to feel instead of looking for facts. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] doingthestuff@lemmy.world 6 points 2 years ago I just looked up a handful of news sources on there and was overall satisfied with their assessments. My assumption though is that even the "bias checkers" have to have their own internal bias. permalink fedilink source parent [+] Mchugho@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent
[–] doingthestuff@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago (2 children) But who honestly trusts mediabiasfactcheck? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Enigma@sh.itjust.works 8 points 2 years ago (1 child) I have been using them for years and have thus far not been steered wrong with nonbiased news sources. They explain in detail their reasoning for labeling a news source as well as explain the algorithm they use. And so far the only people I’ve come across who dont like them are people who prefer to be told how to feel instead of looking for facts. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] doingthestuff@lemmy.world 6 points 2 years ago I just looked up a handful of news sources on there and was overall satisfied with their assessments. My assumption though is that even the "bias checkers" have to have their own internal bias. permalink fedilink source parent [+] Mchugho@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Enigma@sh.itjust.works 8 points 2 years ago (1 child) I have been using them for years and have thus far not been steered wrong with nonbiased news sources. They explain in detail their reasoning for labeling a news source as well as explain the algorithm they use. And so far the only people I’ve come across who dont like them are people who prefer to be told how to feel instead of looking for facts. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] doingthestuff@lemmy.world 6 points 2 years ago I just looked up a handful of news sources on there and was overall satisfied with their assessments. My assumption though is that even the "bias checkers" have to have their own internal bias. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] doingthestuff@lemmy.world 6 points 2 years ago I just looked up a handful of news sources on there and was overall satisfied with their assessments. My assumption though is that even the "bias checkers" have to have their own internal bias. permalink fedilink source parent
[+] Mchugho@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent
