From: AlleyCat <katt@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: alt.global-warming,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,can.politics,alt.politics.liberalism,alt.politics.democrats,alt.politics.usa.republican
Subject: Still Believe Snopes Is The Gold Standard In Fact-Checking? - Think Again
Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2024 07:42:27 -0500
Organization: AlleyCat Computing, Inc.
No? Well... you're still stupid for believing ANY fact-checkers, ESPECIALLY
mediabiasfactcheck. (see below)
Should I trust YOUR word over Joe Biden's?
=====
Emails Show Biden WH Pressured Snopes To Change Its Fact-Check Rating On Gas
Stove Ban
Biden administration officials successfully pressured the fact-checking website
Snopes to alter its rating on a fact check it conducted regarding a potential
federal ban on gas stoves, according to internal communications. [emphasis,
links added]
In early January 2023, Snopes issued a "mixture" rating on the claim that the
Biden administration was considering a ban on gas-powered stove-tops, citing
comments made by a senior official overseeing product regulations.
Shortly before the fact check, Richard Trumka Jr., a member of the Consumer
Product Safety Commission (CPSC), said such a ban was "on the table."
"This is a hidden hazard," Trumka told Bloomberg at the time. "Any option is on
the table. Products that can't be made safe can be banned."
A month earlier, Trumka said regulating gas stoves needs to be a priority
"whether it's drastically reducing emissions or banning gas stoves entirely"
because of their climate and health impacts, CBS News reported.
But Snopes, which originally gave its "mixture" rating as a result of Trumka's
statements, changed the rating to "false," stating the CPSC is "not currently
considering a ban on gas stoves."
Snopes' updated article included additional comments from the CPSC and
downplayed Trumka's earlier statement.
However, Snopes only altered its article after pressure from the CPSC,
according to emails exchanged between CPSC and White House communications
officials and obtained by watchdog group Functional Government Initiative (FGI)
through an information request.
Published Jan 10, 2023. Updated Jan 11, 2023, after pressure from the WH.
Cropped images via Internet Archive.
"Sent over tough letter to this writer yesterday when the initial claim was
rated as 'mixed,'" CPSC communications director Pamela Rucker Springs wrote in
an email to White House assistant press secretary Michael Kikukawa Jan. 11,
2023, linking to the updated Snopes fact check.
Kikukawa responded enthusiastically, saying the alteration would be "so helpful
going forward."
"As a routine matter, whenever CPSC identifies factually inaccurate coverage in
any media outlet, we contact the outlet to request a correction. That's what
occurred in this circumstance," Springs told Fox News Digital when asked about
the Snopes fact-check alteration.
"We were glad to see accurate reports that the administration is not trying to
ban gas stoves - and never has," Kikukawa added.
Trumka's comments, meanwhile, sparked widespread outrage among consumer
advocates, Republicans, and some Democrats.
Rep. Kelly Armstrong, R-N.D., even introduced the Gas Stove Protection and
Freedom Act, which would bar federal dollars from going toward regulatory
efforts to ban gas stoves.
Amid the outrage, Trumka walked back his comments about opening the door to a
ban, saying in a social media post that "CPSC isn't coming for anyone's gas
stoves."
In addition, CPSC Chairman Alexander Hoehn-Saric issued a statement clarifying
that he was not "looking to" ban gas stoves, and the White House said President
Biden would not support a gas stove ban.
In March 2023, the CPSC did issue a request for public information about the
health impacts of gas stoves, which ultimately resulted in no regulatory
action.
"A commissioner appointed by President Biden wanted to ban gas stoves, and he
got caught, provoking a public outcry," said FGI researcher and spokesperson
Peter McGinnis. "So, the CPSC staff leaned on Snopes, seeking to counter the
narrative by splitting hairs about commission processes.
"And the White House finds this 'helpful.' Helpful with what? This goes beyond
dysfunction - the government using sympathetic media to censor inconvenient
news," McGinnis said.
"The American people deserve both to keep their gas stoves and to know the
truth about what regulations government officials are considering."
============================================================================
Media Bias/Fact Check has a consumer rating of 1.8 stars indicating that most
customers are generally dissatisfied.
1.8 stars?
LOL
Media Bias/Fact Check ranks 313th among Blog sites.
313th. LOL
How would you rate Media Bias/Fact Check?
Don't trust Fact checkers, especially 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.
=====
Top Comments:
"I read a few of their so-called "Facts" and found they are not facts at all,
but rather blatant lies. That's right, LIES! I Probably won't look into it, but
would be interesting to know who is funding them."
"Amateur Site Masquerading as a Reputable Fact-Checking Service"
=====
Pushes mainstream media, and favors fake news
October 2nd, 2020
LIARS - February 11th, 2021
=====
Some fact check resource... NOT!
I was recently doing some research online, when I noticed mediafactcheck.com.
I read a few of their so-called "Facts" and found they are not facts at all,
but rather blatant lies. That's right, LIES! I Probably won't look into it, but
would be interesting to know who is funding them.
=====
As biased as they come
May 9th, 2020
Media Bias Fact Check is supposed to give "objective" ratings to news sites.
Well, I did a little experiment. At random, I checked out 10 sources that they
rated at one end of the political spectrum. We'll call this Set A. Then I
checked out 10 sources they rated to be at the OPPOSITE end of the spectrum,
which we'll call Set B.
For Set A, they listed all the sources as "mostly factual" or "highly factual."
For Set B, however, they listed all the sources as "mixed" (meaning having
"mixed" factual content).
Does that sound "objective" to you? And could their OWN bias not be any more
obvious?
This site appears to be a total joke.
=====
Amateur Site Masquerading as a Reputable Fact-Checking Service
December 17th, 2020
Discounted and dismissed by real fact-checking outfits like Poynter,
Mediabiasfactcheck is a small group of amateurs pretending - with varying
degrees of success - to be a fact-checking site.
=====
This site appears to be a total joke.
Amateur Site Masquerading as a Reputable Fact-Checking Service
December 17th, 2020
Discounted and dismissed by real fact-checking outfits like Poynter,
Mediabiasfactcheck is a small group of amateurs pretending - with varying
degrees of success - to be a fact-checking site.
The website has been described as an amateur effort to rate news media sources
based on factual accuracy and political bias. - wikipedia
Mediabiasfactcheck.org is just as biased and flawed as any other
The flagrant and simplistic nature of these bogus critiques suggests that Media
Bias Fact Check is either inept and/or dishonest.
Media Bias/Fact Check: Just Another Bogus Leftist Media Watchdog
Spreading Leftist propaganda in the guise of fighting fake news.
The people that say it's unreliable almost invariably use the same 2 articles
as their source. Both sites are listed in various places as reliable. Also,
both articles are listed on the the Wiki page above.
Media Bias/Fact Check is a widely cited source for news stories and even
studies about misinformation, despite the fact that its method is in no way
scientific.
Scam Site "Media Bias Fact Check" Caught Cribbing Its Ratings From Wikipedia
"MEDIA BIAS/FACT CHECK" Site Fails Fact Check
Discredited self-styled 'fact checker' website is served with a 'cease and
desist' legal notice today for publishing unsubstantiated and defamatory claims
Media Bias/Fact Check has a consumer rating of 1.8 stars
'Media Bias/Fact Check' Site Served With Cease And Desist, Gets Fact-Checked
Media Bias Fact Check: Incompetent or Dishonest?
Can you trust what "Media Bias/Fact Check" says about PolitiFact?
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).
=====
Mediabiasfactcheck.Org Is Just As Biased And Flawed As Any Other
I spent some time on this site because GWB likes to tout it out every once in a
while as if it is the end-all-be-all of final say in which websites should be
trusted and which should not be.
All you have to do is spend a little time on the site and you'll see sites like
Vox and Salon as "mostly factual" even though MBFC does list them as left wing.
Pick some right wing sites and you'll get words like "nationalistic" and
"conspiratorial" or "extreme right wing", and a ton of other warnings.
But the adjective used for polar opposite (extreme left wing) sites are just
"left wing". In fact, many sites on the left have no adjectives used at all.
For example, Al Jazeera - the news site owned by Qatar:
https://www.elitetrader.com/et/attachments/upload_2020-11-17_16-24-1-
png.244296/
That's it. The language will say things like "These sources are generally
trustworthy" where a similar right wing site with "mixed" will get language
like "rarely are stories fact-checked before publishing" etc.
A good site to go to is Just Facts Daily, though I'm sure even they have bias.
They issued a complaint and story on MBFC. It is a long read, but very valuable
as it shows how MBFC incorrectly labeled them and, only when challenged,
actually reversed some of the review and labeled them truthy. The article:
Media Bias Fact Check: Incompetent or Dishonest?
Here is another article where Politifactbias.com investigates MBFC for their
shoddy reporting.
Can you trust what "Media Bias/Fact Check" says about PolitiFact? (Updated)
Another really good read. In it, the following excerpt:
Media Bias/Fact Check rates PolitiFact as a "Least-biased" source of
information. How does MB/FC reach that conclusion? The website has a
"Methodology" page describing its methods:
The method for (rating bias) is determined by ranking bias in four different
categories. In each category the source is rated on a 0-10 scale, with 0
meaning without bias and 10 being the maximum bias(worst). These four numbers
are then added up and divided by 4. This 0-10 number is then placed on the line
according to their Left or Right bias. This system makes PolitiFact's "Truth-O-
Meter" almost look objective by comparison. An 11-point scale? To obtain
objectivity with an 11-point scale would require a very finely-grained system
of objective bias measures something that probably nobody on the planet has
even dreamed of achieving.
It comes as no surprise that Van Zandt lacks those objective measures:
The categories are as follows (bold emphasis added):?
Biased Wording/Headlines- Does the source use loaded words to convey emotion to
sway the reader. Do headlines match the story.
Factual/Sourcing- Does the source report factually and back up claims with well
sourced evidence.
Story Choices: Does the source report news from both sides or do they only
publish one side.
Political Affiliation: How strongly does the source endorse a particular
political ideology? In other words how extreme are their views. (This can be
rather subjective)
Likely Van Zandt regards only the fourth category as subjective. All four are
subjective unless Van Zandt has kept secret additional criteria he uses to
judge bias. Think about it. Take the "biased wording" category, for example.
Rate the headline bias for "PolitiFact Bias" on a scale of 0-10. Do it. What
objective criteria guided the decision
There is nothing to go on except for one's own subjective notion of where any
observed bias falls on the 0-10 scale.?
Right. In fact, there are a whole host of websites that point out flaws with
MBFC, though you will have to use a search engine like Duckduckgo that doesn't
bury these reviews and challenges like Google does - or use Google but go
through pages of results until you start to find the negative ones (which is
something Google does to change the narrative, of course).
The fact of the matter is that much of this so-called fact checking is
subjective in nature. If someone says something that is easy to prove, it is
easy to fact check. Someone saying something that requires a journalist to
actually investigate - well, that's another thing entirely. And MBFC seems to
source Wikipedia as proof that it has fact checked items, when Wikipedia is
nothing more than crowd sourced info in many cases.
At the end of the day, a lot of this stuff can be avoided if people actually
challenge the ideas and data presented and spend their energy on devising and
developing solid arguments founded in the Scientific Method rather than just
leaping to discredit and slander a source simply because they don't like the
conclusion reached.
Hope you're listening, GWB. But I doubt you are.
=====
'MEDIA BIAS/FACT CHECK' Site Fails Fact Check
Date: 05/20/21 09:48 PM
'MEDIA BIAS/FACT CHECK' Site Fails Fact Check
Published on March 13, 2020
Written by John O'Sullivan
Discredited self-styled 'fact checker' website is 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.
According to MEDIA BIAS FACT CHECK Principia Scientific International CIC is:
"CONSPIRACY-PSEUDOSCIENCE Sources in the Conspiracy-Pseudoscience category may
publish unverifiable information that is not always supported by evidence.
These "
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/?s=principia+scientific+international
So, who is fact-checking the 'fact checkers'?
Today, PSI has issued Media Bias/Fact Check (MB/FC) site owner, Dave Van Zandt
with a pre-action legal notice to take down the defamatory and false smear.
Ironically, the self-styled 'MEDIA BIAS/ FACT CHECK' (MB/FC) which negatively
fact-checked PSI admits it relies on subjective bias to decide how biased
others are. In other words MB/FC is a pseudo-scientific fact checker!
Apart from unlawfully smearing PSI Mr Van Zandt has smeared other websites that
publish scientific articles critical of man-made global warming claims. Among
the unfairly smeared are:
climatechangedispatch.com
Climate Depot
CFACT
WUWT
Below we help readers to fact check the pseudo fact checker. We put Dave Van
Zandt the faceless fact checker under the microscope and discovered the
following:
Van Zandt cites no scientific qualifications at all
Van Zandt was exposed by WND as a fraud and a liar
Van Zandt's website (MB/FC) does not apply any objective scientific method
Van Zandt relies on unverifiable subjectivity (own bias) to make judgments
In a 2017 WND Exclusive 'Phony baloney: The 9 fakest fake-news checkers'
Chelsea Schilling uncovered that Van Zandt was a seasoned systemic faker. She
wrote:
"WND was unable to locate a single article with Van Zandt's byline.
Ironically, the "fact checker" fails to establish his own credibility by
disclosing his qualifications and training in evaluating news sources.
Asked for information concerning his expertise in the field of journalism and
evaluating news sources, Van Zandt told WND: "I am not a journalist and just a
person who is interested in how media bias impacts politics. You will find zero
claims of expertise on the website."
Concerning his purported "25+ years" of experience writing for print and web
media, he said: "I am not sure why the 25+ years is still on the website."
With the increasing scourge of fake news reports, especially on matters of
wider scientific interest, Principia Scientific International (PSI) has become
a recognized source of highly-qualified scientific opinion. That scoundrels
like Mr Van Zandt get such traction with his bogus 'fact checking' website is
testimony for the need for more diligence and push back from honest scientists
and citizens sickened by endless scientific fraud and misinformation.
Below we share with readers the take down letter issued today to Mr Van Zandt:
Mr Dave Van Zandt
Media Bias/Fact Check
(mediabiasfactcheck.com)
Greensboro, NC
Editor@Mediabiasfactcheck.com
Dear Mr Dave Van Zandt,
Re: Notice to Cease and Desist Libelous Conduct
Please accept this communication as a Cease and Desist Notice prior to legal
action under 28 U.S. Code § 4101(1).
It has been drawn to our attention that your business, MEDIA BIAS FACT CHECK
is libeling our business, Principia Scientific International(PSI) by posting
the following (recorded on March 13, 2020)
On your site at: https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/methodology/ you state:
"Conspiracy/Pseudoscience
The Conspiracy/Pseudoscience designation is reserved for sources that publish
unverifiable information that relates to known conspiracies such as the New
World Order, Illuminati, False Flags, Aliens, etc. Pseudoscience is determined
by publishing unverified health and scientific claims. In order to be
classified in this group the central theme of the source must revolve around
conspiracies or pseudoscience."
On the same webpage you add the following disclaimer:
"Disclaimer: The methodology used by Media Bias Fact Check is our own. It is
not a tested scientific method. It is meant as a simple guide for people to get
an idea of a source's bias. Media Bias Fact Check will always review and change
any factual errors when brought to our attention. We make every effort to be as
factual as possible. Our goal is to have MBFC rated as least biased by our own
criteria."
According to Merriam-Webster online dictionary the term 'pseudoscience' is
defined as: "a system of theories, assumptions, and methods erroneously
regarded as scientific."
You thus taint our scientific organization as unscientific - a palpable lie
provable in a court of law.
It is our belief you have made the above published statement with intention
of causing damage to the reputation of our legally regulated UK non-profit
scientific association which is scrupulously regulated under law as a community
interest company (CiC).
By law a CIC is prohibited from political bias i.e. it cannot advocate for
any political point of view. To engage in such action would render us likely to
be struck off the register or be prosecuted.
Contrary to the false impression you give your readers, we are an
international body of 5,500+ members, many of whom are credentialed science
professionals, engineers and STEM academics, including award-winning
scientists, government experts, etc.
Our published work is not pseudoscience but premised on established
scientific methods. A select list of some of our distinguished member is here:
A Selection Of Member Biographies.
In conclusion, not only do you admit your own methodology is unscientific,
but because you also fail to cite which specific PSI posts are pseudoscience,
you condemn all our members, which compounds your own bias.
As per 28 U.S. Code § 4101(1) we regard the words below civilly actionable
and demand removal of them within 28 days:
"CONSPIRACY-PSEUDOSCIENCE Sources in the Conspiracy-Pseudoscience category
may publish unverifiable information that is not always supported by evidence.
These "
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/?s=principia+scientific+international
If you persist in maintaining this false assertion against us to jeopardize
our legal standing, I hereby require you to provide substantiation of your
accusation. You may do so by providing us a selection of hyperlinks from
published material on our website(s) which you claim are 'conspiracy-
pseudoscience.'
Such evidence may then be considered for submission to a court of law for
adjudication of the veracity of your claims.
If you are unwilling/unable to provide us the evidence you rely on to make
your claims then you are hereby required to remove your false statement.
https://principia-scientific.com/why-psi-is-proposed-as-a-cic/
I await your reply.
Sincerely,
John O'Sullivan CEO
Principia Scientific International CIC (No: 10824140) Fully incorporated in
the UK for charitable purposes. http://principia-scientific.org/