Uncle Joe is at it again!!

[Munchmasterman]

How ironic. The guy who started a thread about someone plagiarizing some work has done the exact same thing himself. I'm sure your reason is as good as Biden's.

"plagiarism[ pley-juh-riz-uh m, -jee-uh-riz- ]
noun
an act or instance of using or closely imitating the language and thoughts of another author without authorization and the representation of that author's work as one's own, as by not crediting the original author:"

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/plagiarism

I don't see you crediting the majority of your post to anyone.
That means that is your work, right?

Sorry but you know you didn't write it. You copied and pasted. Which is okay as long as you credit the author.

But you didn't do that. I suppose that was just another typo right?

You're no different than Joe.

Also, when you were stealing someone else's work, you only stole the part that backs you up. There is a bunch I could include but I'll just include the link to the article.



"Conservative bias
Certain media outlets such as NewsMax, WorldNetDaily, and Fox News are said by critics to promote a conservative or right-wing agenda.[100][101][102][103][104]

Rupert Murdoch, the owner and executive co-chairman of 21st Century Fox (the parent of Fox News), self-identifies as a "libertarian". Roy Greenslade of The Guardian, and others, claim that Murdoch has exerted a strong influence over the media he owns, including Fox News, The Wall Street Journal, and The Sun.[105][106]

According to former Fox News producer Charlie Reina, unlike the AP, CBS, or ABC, Fox News's editorial policy is set from the top down in the form of a daily memo: "[F]requently, Reina says, it also contains hints, suggestions and directives on how to slant the day's news—invariably, he said in 2003, in a way that was consistent with the politics and desires of the Bush administration."[107] Fox News responded by denouncing Reina as a "disgruntled employee" with "an ax to grind."[107]

According to Andrew Sullivan, "One alleged news network fed its audience a diet of lies, while contributing financially to the party that benefited from those lies."[108]

Progressive media watchdog group Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR) has argued that accusations of liberal media bias are part of a conservative strategy, noting an article in the August 20, 1992 Washington Post, in which Republican party chair Rich Bond compared journalists to referees in a sporting match. "If you watch any great coach, what they try to do is 'work the refs.' Maybe the ref will cut you a little slack next time."[109] A 1998 study from FAIR found that journalists are "mostly centrist in their political orientation";[110] 30% considered themselves to the left on social issues compared with 9% on the right, while 11% considered themselves to the left on economic issues compared with 19% on the right. The report argued that since journalists considered themselves to be centrists, "perhaps this is why an earlier survey found that they tended to vote for Bill Clinton in large numbers." FAIR uses this study to support the claim that media bias is propagated down from the management, and that individual journalists are relatively neutral in their work.

A report "Examining the 'Liberal Media' Claim: Journalists Views on Politics, Economic Policy and Media Coverage" by FAIR's David Croteau, from 1998, calls into question the assumption that journalists' views are to the left of center in America. The findings were that journalists were "mostly centrist in their political orientation" and more conservative than the general public on economic issues (with a minority being more progressive than the general public on social issues).[111]

Kenneth Tomlinson, while chairman of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, commissioned a $10,000 government study into Bill Moyers' PBS program, NOW.[112] The results of the study indicated that there was no particular bias on PBS. Tomlinson chose to reject the results of the study, subsequently reducing time and funding for NOW with Bill Moyers, which many including Tomlinson regarded as a "left-wing" program, and then expanded a show hosted by Fox News correspondent Tucker Carlson. Some board members stated that his actions were politically motivated.[113] Himself a frequent target of claims of bias (in this case, conservative bias), Tomlinson resigned from the CPB board on November 4, 2005. Regarding the claims of a left-wing bias, Moyers asserted in a Broadcasting & Cable interview that "If reporting on what's happening to ordinary people thrown overboard by circumstances beyond their control and betrayed by Washington officials is liberalism, I stand convicted."[114]

Sinclair Broadcast Group, which owns broadcast stations affiliated with the major television networks, has been known for requiring its stations to run reports and editorials that promote conservative viewpoints. Its rapid growth through station group acquisitions—especially during the lead-up to the 2016 presidential elections—had provided an increasingly large platform for its views.[115][116][117][118]

Authors
Several authors have written books on conservative bias in the media, including:

Amy Goodman wrote Standing up to the Madness: Ordinary Heroes in Extraordinary Times (2008).
David Brock wrote The Republican Noise Machine (2004).
Al Franken wrote Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them, (2003), in which he argues that mainstream media organizations have neither a liberal nor a conservative political bias, but there exists a right-wing media that seeks to promote conservative ideology rather than report the news.[119]
Eric Alterman wrote What Liberal Media? The Truth About Bias and the News (2003)[53] in which he disputes the belief in liberal media bias, and suggests that over-correcting for this belief resulted in conservative media bias.[120] Reviewer John Moe sums up Alterman's views:
"The conservatives in the newspapers, television, talk radio, and the Republican party are lying about liberal bias and repeating the same lies long enough that they've taken on a patina of truth. Further, the perception of such a bias has cowed many media outlets into presenting more conservative opinions to counterbalance a bias, which does not, in fact, exist."[121]
Robert W. McChesney and John Nichols wrote Our Media, Not Theirs: The Democratic Struggle Against Corporate Media (2002).
Jim Hightower in There's Nothing in the Middle of the Road but Yellow Stripes and Dead Armadillos (1997; ISBN 0-06-092949-9) uses humor to deflate claims of liberal bias, and gives examples of how media support corporate interests.
Michael Parenti wrote Inventing Reality: the Politics of News Media (1993)"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_..._United_States

Your own caps mock you.

Originally Posted by bb1961

That is no assumption...and you do LOVE facts SPEED!!
You always want facts SPEED...YOU GOT IT!!
Is this one of YOUR LIES...DO TELL SPEED!!

Many critics of the media say liberal (or left wing) bias exists within a wide variety of media channels, especially within the mainstream media, including network news shows of CBS, ABC, and NBC, cable channels CNN, MSNBC and the former Current TV, as well as major newspapers, news-wires, and radio outlets, especially CBS News, Newsweek, and The New York Times.[72] These arguments intensified when it was revealed that the Democratic Party received a total donation of $1,020,816, given by 1,160 employees of the three major broadcast television networks (NBC, CBS, ABC), while the Republican Party received only $142,863 via 193 donations from employees of these same organizations.[73] Both of these figures represent donations made in 2008.

A study cited frequently by those who make claims of liberal media bias in American journalism is The Media Elite, a 1986 book co-authored by political scientists Robert Lichter, Stanley Rothman, and Linda Lichter.[74] They surveyed journalists at national media outlets such as The New York Times, The Washington Post, and the broadcast networks. The survey found that the large majority of journalists were Democratic voters whose attitudes were well to the left of the general public on a variety of topics, including issues such as abortion, affirmative action, social services, and gay rights. The authors compared journalists' attitudes to their coverage of issues such as the safety of nuclear power, school busing to promote racial integration, and the energy crisis of the 1970s and concluded firstly that journalists' coverage of controversial issues reflected their own attitudes and education, and secondly that the predominance of political liberals in newsrooms pushed news coverage in a liberal direction. The authors suggested this tilt as a mostly unconscious process of like-minded individuals projecting their shared assumptions onto their interpretations of reality, a variation of confirmation bias.

Jim A. Kuypers of Virginia Tech investigated the issue of media bias in the 2002 book Press Bias and Politics. In this study of 116 mainstream U.S. papers, including The New York Times, The Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, and the San Francisco Chronicle, Kuypers stated that the mainstream press in America tends to favor liberal viewpoints. They argued that reporters who they thought were expressing moderate or conservative points of view were often labeled as holding a minority point of view. Kuypers said he found liberal bias in the reporting of a variety of issues including race, welfare reform, environmental protection, and gun control.[75] According to the Media Research Center, and David Brady of the Hoover Institute, conservative individuals and groups are more often labeled as such, than liberal individuals and groups.[76]

A 2005 study by political scientists Tim Groseclose of UCLA and Jeff Milyo of the University of Missouri at Columbia attempted to quantify bias among news outlets using statistical models, and found a liberal bias.[77][78] The authors wrote that "all of the news outlets we examine[d], except Fox News's Special Report and the Washington Times, received scores to the left of the average member of Congress." The study concluded that news pages of The Wall Street Journal were more liberal than The New York Times, and the news reporting of PBS was to the right of most mainstream media. The report also stated that the news media showed a fair degree of centrism, since all but one of the outlets studied were, from an ideological point of view, between the average Democrat and average Republican in Congress.[79] In a blog post, Mark Liberman, professor of computer science and the director of Linguistic Data Consortium at the University of Pennsylvania, critiqued the statistical model used in this study.[80][81] The model used by Groseclose and Milyo assumed that conservative politicians do not care about the ideological position of think tanks they cite, while liberal politicians do. Liberman characterized the unsupported assumption as preposterous and argued that it led to implausible conclusions.[80][82]

A 2014 Gallup poll found that a plurality of Americans believe the media is biased to favor liberal politics. According to the poll, 44% of Americans feel that news media are "too liberal" (70% of self-identified conservatives, 35% of self-identified moderates, and 15% of self-identified liberals), 19% believe them to be "too conservative" (12% of self-identified conservatives, 18% of self-identified moderates, and 33% of self-identified liberals), and 34% find it "just about right" (49% of self-identified liberals, 44% of self-identified moderates, and 16% of self-identified conservatives).[83] In 2017, a Gallup poll with a similar question found that the majority of Americans view the news media favoring a particular political party; 64% believed it favored the Democratic Party, compared to 22% who believed it favored the Republican Party.[84]

A 2008 joint study by the Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics and Public Policy at Harvard University and the Project for Excellence in Journalism found that viewers believe a liberal media bias can be found in television news on networks such as CNN.[85] These findings concerning a perception of liberal bias in television news—particularly at CNN—were also reported by other sources.[86] The study was met with criticism from media outlets and academics, including the Wall Street Journal,[87] and progressive media watchdog Media Matters. Criticism from Media Matters included studying different media for different lengths of time, lack of context in quoting sources, lack of balance, and a flawed assignment of political positions of sources: the RAND corporation was considered "liberal" while the American Civil Liberties Union was considered "conservative".[88]

Libertarian analyst Daniel Sutter says the conclusions about bias are inconclusive because they ignore local news outlets and are based on surveys of national journalists, content analysis of their stories covered, and anecdotes about stories killed or not pursued to make their case.[89]

According to a study by Lars Willnat and David H. Weaver, professors of journalism at Indiana University, conducted via online interviews with 1,080 reporters between August and December 2013, 28.1% of journalists in the United States identify as Democrats and 7.1% as Republicans, whereas 50.2% identify as independents.[90][91][92][93]

Authors
Several authors have written books on liberal bias in the media, including

Steve Levy—Bias in the Media: How the Media Switches Against Me After I Switched Parties.[94]
Tim Groseclose—Left Turn: How Liberal Media Bias Distorts the American Mind, 2011.[95]
Ben Shapiro—Primetime Propaganda: The True Hollywood Story of How the Left Took Over Your TV, 2011.

[SpeedRacerXXX]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Your fallacious argument is that Trump lies more than hildebeest, Odumbo, etc., and the basis of your argument is lists created by so-called ~fact checkers~ who are in fact biased players -- biased players who are too willing to compile a list of Trump's short comings and who are also too willing to ignore the short comings of their favorites.

Your notion that comparing those lists made by these biased players afford in any way a fair way to make a comparison with the likes of Odumbo and hildebeest is absurdly faulty; thus, meaningless.

You cannot make your case without pointing to their lists, as you just did, and we know damn good and well that the lists these jackasses have created are prima facie rotten and represent their bias and DO NOT represent truth and fact.

It does not matter where the list or lists came from. Trump made the statements. They are wrong. If you try to make an equal list of erroneous statements made by either Obama or GWB you will come up with a woefully short list.

[Munchmasterman]

Bias is the difference between "false" and "pants on fire". Not true and false.

You say fact checkers spend all day looking for lies. That's your take on the subject. Looking to see if something is true isn't the same thing. You've shown your bias right off the bat.

The fact is that bias (and it's degree and what type of bias it is) in any reporting can be seen if you check multiple sources.

You dismiss Politifact out of hand while quoting Newsbusters. A site as far right as they come. Each "fact" stands or falls on its own merits.
And Politifact does update incorrect ratings. Does Newsbusters?

I doubt it.

Why does it surprise you trump gets fact-checked so often? He constantly runs his mouth and constantly tweets.

Since Politifact rates Pence in the mid-20s %wise for false statements and rates McCarthy, McConnell, Pelosi, and Schumer in the same ballpark, your lack of examples about all these supposed lies doesn't hold water.

And how can you claim liberal bias, no conservative bias, and not acknowledge any of trump's lies? You claim trump is unfairly treated which is bullshit. There is a noticeable point where trump kicked the lie machine into high gear in an attempt to desensitize America and to overwhelm any fact-checking.

Remember that Politifact called Obama's "If you like your doctor...." Lie of the year".

Until you show examples and admit trump has lied many times your claims of bias are a joke. You make it sound like you can't confirm a quote (or a tweet for God's sake).

You quote polls that are also far right. You claim all we do is quote fact-checking sites. You offer no proof those fact-checks are wrong other than some bullshit about the site being biased.

If only you could show proof the fact-check is wrong. I do my own checking to see if the fact is fact or not. Stop being so lazy and check each (or any) fact.

Again, quotes are very easy. Tweets even easier.

I don't post that often.

Originally Posted by eccielover

It's all about what the "fact" checkers choose to fact check and how they do it.

It's well documented and even merited at least one study on the bias of the fact checkers. If you spend your whole day looking to find only the lies told by a politician, there is not one that wouldn't fail miserably. I'm not saying that's good, but Trump is overly vilified by the media. Obama lied his ass off, but wasn't called out. Pelosi's statements are often so full of lies or over the top statements as to be laughable.

But the lefties latch onto the biased reporting of the "fact" checkers each and every day.

This is slightly dated but still applicable today if you watch the trends.

https://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs...st-republicans




And.

https://www.newsbusters.org/fact-checkers



But I guess Speedy is one of those 38%'ers that believe that there is no bias in the "fact" checking world. Pretty coincidental that that same 38% number also maps largely to the pablum eating die hard lefties that want to believe the liberal media.

And in the end it's a distraction to justify Biden by comparing him to Trump, but people are seeing through Biden's repeated plagiarism and failure to have an original thought.

[SpeedRacerXXX]

Originally Posted by eccielover

What part of Mid to end of his two terms did you have trouble understanding? I, in no way, alluded to just his 8th year, but basically his whole second term. Re-read what I wrote. 9/11 had Bush in a unique place for much of the first term. After that, the vilification and biased "fact checking" resumed against him and other republicans full force for his second term.

I cited 3 sources of mis-statements of facts in the press made by Trump. I challenge you to cite similar sources made by "Fact Checkers" that vilified GWB while he was in office.

Here is one I found:

A whopping 4 statements made by GWB that were fact-checked, only 1 of which was deemed to be untrue.

https://www.politifact.com/personali...statements/by/

[eccielover]

Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

I cited 3 sources of mis-statements of facts in the press made by Trump. I challenge you to cite similar sources made by "Fact Checkers" that vilified GWB while he was in office.

Here is one I found:

A whopping 4 statements made by GWB that were fact-checked, only 1 of which was deemed to be untrue.

https://www.politifact.com/personali...statements/by/

It's ridiculous watching you double down with Politifact as your "fact" checking source only. And to "search" Politifact to prove Politifact didn't vilify GW is absolutely hilarious.

You do realize Politifact wasn't launched until 2007 and didn't really gain traction/etc. in national reporting until 2010. So I would absolutely expect their coverage of GW(which I hope you do know was the POTUS from Jan 2001 through Jan 2009) to be very limited.

Nice try, but a swing and a miss with Politifact yet again.

Other fact checkers and news agencies vilified GW through much of his second term, but I see you are happy to pretend that didn't happen. Enjoy the dream.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

It does not matter where the list or lists came from. Trump made the statements. They are wrong. If you try to make an equal list of erroneous statements made by either Obama or GWB you will come up with a woefully short list.

Yeah, it does matter who the fuck made the lists, for the same reason Ford has its own advertising department and doesn't depend on Toyota to represent Ford fairly in the advertising market.

This was evidenced by Politifact's ignoring Odumbo's recent and blatant lies about American gun laws in Brazil and the lame-stream media quibbling and calling Trump a liar over .02% difference in real numbers regarding the percentage of immigrant women being raped during their trek to the United States. Trump said a "third of all women" (33.3%) were raped and the math is actually 31%, but the bullshit fact checkers in the media were quick to call Trump a liar for a .02% rounding of the number in a public speech.

So it fucking matters that die hard Odumbo and hildebeest supporters self-appoint themselves to fact check Trump. It matters that too many on the left are so gullible that they swallow what they are told without questioning what these biased fact checkers are doing.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

. Trump said a "third of all women" (33.3%) were raped and the math is actually 31%, but the bullshit fact checkers in the media were quick to call Trump a liar for a .02% rounding of the number in a public speech.

.

1,224 Complaints Reveal a Staggering Pattern of Sexual Abuse in Immigration Detention. Half of Those Accused Worked for ICE.



https://theintercept.com/2018/04/11/...abuse-ice-dhs/

[Munchmasterman]

They rated "half-true".
Why do you make stuff up? That's why you don't post links.
And this isn't an issue about whether politifact is right or wrong.
This issue is about YOU lying. You just lied about what the website said.

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...-assaulted-jo/

Of course getting caught lying means nothing to you or your ilk. You're one of the best people that could argue for that side.
We'll still rely on you lying.

Fact-checks stand until you can prove, on an individual basis, they are not factual.
Your complaints mean nothing. Y'all want to discredit politifact while citing newsbusters and redstate? Give me a break.

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Yeah, it does matter who the fuck made the lists, for the same reason Ford has its own advertising department and doesn't depend on Toyota to represent Ford fairly in the advertising market.

This was evidenced by Politifact's ignoring Odumbo's recent and blatant lies about American gun laws in Brazil and the lame-stream media quibbling and calling Trump a liar over .02% difference in real numbers regarding the percentage of immigrant women being raped during their trek to the United States. Trump said a "third of all women" (33.3%) were raped and the math is actually 31%, but the bullshit fact checkers in the media were quick to call Trump a liar for a .02% rounding of the number in a public speech.

So it fucking matters that die hard Odumbo and hildebeest supporters self-appoint themselves to fact check Trump. It matters that too many on the left are so gullible that they swallow what they are told without questioning what these biased fact checkers are doing.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by Munchmasterman

They rated "half-true".
Why do you make stuff up? That's why you don't post links.
And this isn't an issue about whether politifact is right or wrong.
This issue is about YOU lying. You just lied about what the website said.

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...-assaulted-jo/

Of course getting caught lying means nothing to you or your ilk. You're one of the best people that could argue for that side.
We'll still rely on you lying.

Fact-checks stand until you can prove, on an individual basis, they are not factual.
Your complaints mean nothing. Y'all want to discredit politifact while citing newsbusters and redstate? Give me a break.

FYI, you just proved the fucking point! Without offering any substantive figures other than the 31.4% figure from Doctors Without Borders and some equivocation and innuendo, Politifact couldn't bring itself to declare Trump was telling the truth when he put the figure at 33.3%.

[Munchmasterman]

I proved my point. And so did you. Because if there is no proof of the numbers and the white house ignored the request to provide where the numbers they used came from they could say it was a lie. Which they didn't do.

But that is beside the point.

You flip-flopped and lied.

You went from lying about the rating to whining about the rating being too low. Looks like they gave him the benefit of the doubt.


Out of all the fact-checks on their site, the one you used as an example of a lie by them turned out to be a lie by you.
All the people claiming their info can't be trusted aren't ahowing any proof they're right
Out of the thousands of checked facts.
If it's as bad as you and others say, you should be able to throw many examples at me.

Since they keep coming up with claims you can't refute, then the claims about the methodology used to arrive at the answers they give are wrong too.
Empirical data and a lack of examples pretty much prove the claims by the naysayers to be wrong.
This wasn't even an okay try. Just the same one as before. You still have no example when there should be many.

Better luck next time.

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

FYI, you just proved the fucking point! Without offering any substantive figures other than the 31.4% figure from Doctors Without Borders and some equivocation and innuendo, Politifact couldn't bring itself to declare Trump was telling the truth when he put the figure at 33.3%.

So that means when they something is true, you'll know they didn't say that because they felt sorry for trump.

It's strange you talk shit about the only evidence there is that kept his statement from being a lie.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by Munchmasterman

I proved my point. And so did you. Because if there is no proof of the numbers and the white house ignored the request to provide where the numbers they used came from they could say it was a lie. Which they didn't do.

But that is beside the point.

You flip-flopped and lied.

You went from lying about the rating to whining about the rating being too low. Looks like they gave him the benefit of the doubt.


Out of all the fact-checks on their site, the one you used as an example of a lie by them turned out to be a lie by you.
All the people claiming their info can't be trusted aren't ahowing any proof they're right
Out of the thousands of checked facts.
If it's as bad as you and others say, you should be able to throw many examples at me.

Since they keep coming up with claims you can't refute, then the claims about the methodology used to arrive at the answers they give are wrong too.
Empirical data and a lack of examples pretty much prove the claims by the naysayers to be wrong.
This wasn't even an okay try. Just the same one as before. You still have no example when there should be many.

Better luck next time.


So that means when they something is true, you'll know they didn't say that because they felt sorry for trump.

It's strange you talk shit about the only evidence there is that kept his statement from being a lie.

You and fucking Politico completely failed to show that Trump spoke anything other than the complete and unvarnished truth, and, as any literate and educated individual can see, Politico's equivocating analysis otherwise is nothing less than a steaming pile of bullshit.

[Munchmasterman]

Politico? You are either illiterate or failing in the memory area. You don't even remember what site we're talking about. Or that you've been caught lying while trying to discredit a valid source.
It's easy to see for anybody not a trump apologist.
He made a specific claim. He has no evidence to prove his claim.

You lied and said "Politifact" called his statement a lie.

You forgot what site we were talking about and you forget your crude and easily debunked attempt at cheating and
trying the old "last word" win.
This one is over for you. Go clean yourself up.

[Kristine]

Any adds to this? Too funny...
Uncle Joe,China Joe Sleepy Joe ,Hidin' Joe Biden

Anyone see yesterday's press conference where President Trump said, "I'm always right" (when responding to the press)
Gotta' love it that he "toots his own horn".
I know there are serious matters,but,
I do find it highly entertaining and you guys here keep me in stitches!!

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by Munchmasterman

Politico? You are either illiterate or failing in the memory area. You don't even remember what site we're talking about. Or that you've been caught lying while trying to discredit a valid source.
It's easy to see for anybody not a trump apologist.
He made a specific claim. He has no evidence to prove his claim.

You lied and said "Politifact" called his statement a lie.

You forgot what site we were talking about and you forget your crude and easily debunked attempt at cheating and
trying the old "last word" win.
This one is over for you. Go clean yourself up.

Per your post, you obviously understood that the reference was about Politifact which was lying when it didn't offer substantive proof that "one out three" isn't close enough to 31.4% to rate Trump as telling the whole truth.

Originally Posted by Kristine

Any adds to this? Too funny...
Uncle Joe,China Joe Sleepy Joe ,Hidin' Joe Biden

Anyone see yesterday's press conference where President Trump said, "I'm always right" (when responding to the press)
Gotta' love it that he "toots his own horn".
I know there are serious matters,but,
I do find it highly entertaining and you guys here keep me in stitches!!

“Gropin' Joe” and "Creepy Joe". I'm partial to calling Biden "Gropin' Joe".

[dilbert firestorm]

Originally Posted by Kristine

Any adds to this? Too funny...
Uncle Joe,China Joe Sleepy Joe ,Hidin' Joe Biden

Anyone see yesterday's press conference where President Trump said, "I'm always right" (when responding to the press)
Gotta' love it that he "toots his own horn".
I know there are serious matters,but,
I do find it highly entertaining and you guys here keep me in stitches!!

at least we have a bonafide happy customer.


no stitches required.