According to the website Media Bias / Fact Check, the New York Times rates high on credibility. The New York Times, according to the site, has "a slight to moderate liberal bias. They often publish factual information that utilizes loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by appeals to emotion or stereotypes) to favor liberal causes." The site goes on to read, "They are considered one of the most reliable sources for news information due to proper sourcing and well-respected journalists/editors. The failed fact checks were on Op-Eds and not straight news reporting." Reading that, only the opinion writers, once in a while, fail their fact-checking mechanism; but the so-called journalists are perfect when it comes to broadcasting the facts. However, according to Media Bias / Fact Check, the New York Times is simply guilty in the stories they choose to tell and "loaded words." However, examples of "loaded words" would be the New York Times, for example, describing so-called "critics" and "immigration advocates" of the Trump administration in this one article to the administration's immigration policies: "Critics say the focus on deporting unaccompanied children is heartless and impractical. They say many were sent by their parents on long, dangerous treks in the hopes of avoiding poverty, hunger, abuse or death by gangs in their home countries." "Immigration activists have long opposed many of the proposals as draconian or even racist." Although they don't mention the so-called critics and immigration activists by name, there are plenty of leftists who would describe them so, including those on this very forum. So, although it is not necessary to use that line, since, well, who cares what certain people say, it is arguably true and not deceptive. However, doublespeak is not "loaded" language. It is the deliberate bending of the truth to deceive. Take, for instance, these two lines in the New York Times article "Sweeping Raids, Giant Camps and Mass Deportations: Inside Trump’s 2025 Immigration Plans": "Mr. Trump’s rhetoric has more than kept up with his increasingly extreme agenda on immigration. His stoking of fear and anger toward immigrants — pushing for a border wall and calling Mexicans rapists — fueled his 2016 takeover of the Republican Party." This second line is an arguable example of doublespeak. Trump did refer to Mexicans as rapists. But he referred to Mexicans who rape as rapists. There are reports aplenty, even from the New York Times, that document how bad the problem is. By the New York Times omitting that Trump was referring to rapist Mexicans as rapists is clear-cut doublespeak. If they were referring to some other comment, which comment were they referring to? Where is the entire context? They appear to be deliberately omitting fundamental facts that properly contextualize Trump's language. Therefore, it becomes a game of trying to figure out in what context were Trump's remarks made to the critical reader. To the average reader--who mostly just reads the headlines--that phrasing creates an impression that Trump believes all Mexicans are rapists. In consideration of this, I no longer see Media Bias / Fact Check as credible. Furthermore, I wonder, "What is the point of reading the New York Times?" The articles are poorly written. For example, on multiple occasions, I've seen them spell the word Internet as internet and black as Black when referring to black people. So, their grammar sucks, and their reporting is deceptive. Thus, the quality of writing is poor. What is the actual point of reading the New York Times, besides playing "Can you Catch the Doublespeak?" if you are on the right or just having your own viewpoints affirmed if you are on the left? I feel it is a pointless endeavor to read their articles for purposes of erudition, correctly understanding what is actually going on in the world, especially the world of politics.
It's like the internal affairs division of any Police department in the USA when they do something wrong..... " We have investigated ourselves and determined that we are guilty of no wrongdoing " ...... You should just believe us because no one else will do the investigating...
Whereas most right wing media sites fail fact checking again and again and again - eg Faux news having its arse sued off
The main-stream media will always be bias because they are human. They also prove they are human when they claim to be impartial and balanced while they claim some other news organization are right-wing. They never say any news organization is left-leaning.
@Xyce ""In consideration of this, I no longer see Media Bias / Fact Check as credible." Yea... there are a lot of folks who have done their homework that do not see Media Bias / Fact Check as credible. Media Bias Fact Check Literally is a written opinion site by a man with a ""Communications Degree in college"" Dave Van Zandt The flagrant and simplistic nature of these bogus critiques suggests that Media Bias Fact Check is either inept and/or dishonest. https://www.justfactsdaily.com/media-bias-fact-check-incompetent-or-dishonest Discredited, self-styled ‘fact-checker’ website was served with a ‘cease and desist’ legal notice today for publishing unsubstantiated and defamatory claims against Principia Scientific International (PSI). MEDIA BIAS/FACT CHECK site owner admits he is unqualified and misrepresented himself as a seasoned journalist. https://climatechangedispatch.com/media-bias-fact-check-site-served-cease-and-desist/ Media Bias/Fact Check bills itself as "The most comprehensive media bias resource." It's run by Dave Van Zandt, making it fair to say it's run by "some guy" ("Dave studied Communications in college" is his main claim to expertise). We have nothing against "some guy" possessing expertise despite a lack of qualifications, of course. One doesn't need a degree or awards (or audience) to be right about stuff. But is Van Zandt and his Media Bias/Fact Check right about PolitiFact? https://www.politifactbias.com/2017/10/can-you-trust-what-media-biasfact-check.html Media Bias Fact Check Is a Major SCAM to Silence the Right https://www.independentsentinel.com/media-bias-fact-checking-scam-silence-right/ Don't trust Fact checkers, especially not this one. It favors fake news on the left, and to true sites that are not on the mainstream media, it labels as conspiracy theory and junk pseudo science, when the truth is just the opposite. This website is as biased and as full of lies as you get. https://www.sitejabber.com/reviews/mediabiasfactcheck.com Conservatives have criticized the liberal "fact-checking" website for being subjective and often outright false.[19][20][21] On their "10 Best Fact Checking Sites," they list several objectively false and generally inaccurate left-wing "fact-checkers," including PolitiFact, Snopes, and the Fact Checker by the Washington Post.[22] Media Bias Fact Check sources its information from the Anti-Defamation League and the left-wing Southern Poverty Law Center in order to inaccurately label right-wing websites and organizations as "questionable" sources according to Robert Spencer, who wrote to Media Bias/Fact Check's editor describing the attacks on his website, Jihad Watch, as "pure libel," afterward claiming he received no response from the editor.[23] https://conservapedia.com/Media_Bias_Fact_Check Perhaps the most jarring instance of these scams is a site called “Media Bias Fact Check” which turns out to be just one guy making up whatever he feels like about news outlets, based on what he admits is his personal opinion, while typically providing no evidence – and then altering the ratings of news outlets who point out his scam. https://www.palmerreport.com/politics/palmer-report-exclusive-media-bias-fact-check/2115/ Overall, such fallacious attacks on outsider-opinion represent an effort to strangle social discourse from the top down. In this writer’s opinion, sites like Media Bias Fact Check constitute a desperate retaliatory measure in the wake of the legacy media’s loss of collective attention, and seek to reinforce narrative control in the hands of organizations like the Atlantic Council while smearing reliable sources of scientific journalism like WikiLeaks. https://www.investmentwatchblog.com...ikileaks-supports-western-propaganda-machine/ If Media Bias Fact Check were to be given a rating, they would be “Left” with “Mixed” honesty. Interestingly enough, they don’t rate themselves. Not that it matters, they’d certainly put themselves squarely in the middle as “Least Biased” with “High” ratings for honesty, neither of which are even remotely true https://www.tnvalleytalks.com/topic/media-bias-fact-check-incompetent-or-just-dishonest
Fake news is not simply the deliberate reporting of misinformation or disinformation; it is also misleading information, information taken out of context, doublespeak, etc. If a so-called news organization continually does this, they should not be considered credible. I wouldn't mind the New York Times lying to me if they can simply do it eloquently. Instead, it is poorly written propaganda. Like the Ivy League schools, the New York Times is a shell of what is once was, hanging on the coattails of its former prestigious reputation. When Donald Trump referred to the New York Times as the "failing New York Times," I think he meant just that.
