Acceptable Humour from an earlier time.

[firedog]

7 hours ago, gmgraves said:

I wouldn’t believe Snopes if they told me that the sun rose in the east! That man and wife team has a political agenda.

Their politics are irrelevant. The issue is whether their fact checking is accurate. It seems generally to be accurate. In this case,it also seems pretty good, and the issue here isn't political. 

[firedog]

14 hours ago, christopher3393 said:

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2018/07/18/snopes_and_editorializing_fact_checks_137551.html

 

 

12 hours ago, Samuel T Cogley said:

 

 

not exactly the smoking gun I was expecting

Yeah, the article says 

Quote

We have found that since we started our project, Snopes has fact-checked opinions only 2 percent of the time. In other words, 98 percent of the time it sticks to matters of verifiable fact.

So pretty hard to say Snopes has a "liberal bias". Maybe here and there among the 2 percent of their fact checks that have to do with subjective evaluations.  An occasional mistake or an occasional "liberal" comment doesn't mean the site has a "bias" or is unreliable.

Only in an atmosphere like the highly polarized one in the US would such a thing be looked at as "bias" and "unreliable".

[firedog]

On 1/31/2020 at 3:07 AM, Kimo said:

 

Snopes is slightly left according to this analysis.

 

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/snopes/

 

The Washington Post is only "left center" according to the same analysis.  

 

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/washington-post/

 

Frankly, as a Jeremy Bentham inspired independent INTJ, i find just about everyone politically repulsive, at this point, and am rooting for the next meteor, or the aliens. Not sure where I end up on the scale.

And if you actually read what they said about Snopes: 

Overall, we rate Snopes on the left side of Least Biased based on infrequent stories that favor the left. We also rate them High for factual reporting based on transparency and proper sourcing of information.

and from the detail in the description, they think Snopes is highly accurate. 

 

The WP is also rated as "factual", if more left leaning.

 

Basically that analysis proves my point. Snopes is a factual and reliable site. 

Even the WP, that whipping boy for conservatives, is rated as factual. 

 

As I said, only the highly polarized atmosphere like that in the US would anyone claim that either aren't reliable sources of information. 

Left or right leaning editorials at newspapers are not necessarily an indicator of left leaning bias in news stories. Many papers (like the NY Times) have an editorial board independent from and not part of, the news desks. 

 

[firedog]

1 hour ago, Kimo said:

Basically, you only proved your point to yourself.

 

If the Washington Post is "more left leaning" than Snopes, than what does that say about the placement of Snopes?  If you feel the chap from Isis was an "austere cleric" than yes this analysis could help prove your point.  As well, your response proved my point.  

 

And stop with the snide US bashing.  The whole world is polarized.  

 

There's no snide US bashing.
In case you didn't know, there are countries where the various political factions actually work together to get something done some of the time. 
It's pretty obvious that political discourse in the US is broken, and many basic problems can't even be discussed rationally and no compromises between the sides can be brokered. What's snide about that observation? Criticism isn't by definition snide.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[firedog]

49 minutes ago, firedog said:

 

Sorry. screwed up my previous post, so posted again...

There's no snide US bashing.
In case you didn't know, there are countries where the various political factions actually work together to get something done some of the time. 
It's pretty obvious that political discourse in the US is broken, and many basic problems can't even be discussed rationally and no compromises between the sides can be brokered. What's snide about that observation? Criticism isn't by definition snide.

[firedog]

41 minutes ago, Kimo said:

 

First, a two party system like that found in the USA, does not openly appear to function the same as a multi party system.  We have a long history of not giving a third party too much power directly, unless you are counting Trump as a party on to himself, though their ideas have been adopted or swiped at times.  Certainly, a two party system will appear to be more polarizing for rather obvious reasons,  Alas, that is the way many of the founding fathers envisioned this thing.  These educated men engaged in duels and fist fights and some pretty rough language, and they were the progressives of their time.  Now it is tweeting.

 

Second, it may be "obvious" to you, but you are missing the obvious.  Incivility is actually a fairly normal and productive for open government.   We all owe a debt to Jefferson and Hamilton, and Jackson and just about anyone he differed with that he did not shoot, and let's just say the discourse was often very unpleasant and the contempt quite real.  

 

So, you would get a low C for the politically correct but superficial analysis, which I will adjust to a B using modern US grading standards, if you were being truly sincere.  I doubt it though.  Your snide "in case you didn't know [stupid yank]" implies otherwise.

 

 

 

I was being totally sincere, including the snide remark to you. Not snide about the US, though.

 

Politically correct? The last thing I am. But of course you had to throw that irrelevant label in, as such comments are part of the non-functional nature of political discourse in the US today: Label your political adversary and disqualify his position, without really dealing with issues. 

Your analysis is superficial and also wrong on almost every point. The references to the politics of 200 years ago are irrelevant. Political and societal discourse changed over the years, as have methods of communication. Maybe restrict your references to post WWII, where they'd have some relevance, and the changes for the worse in how politics are conducted are obvious. 

 

The situation has zilch to do with how many parties are in the system, as it hasn't been part of the US scene at all times and therefore isn't a built in part of the system. Multi-party systems can also be highly antagonistic and uncivil. It's a matter of culture, which also includes how modern politics are financed and run, and not a matter of the number of parties.
Furthermore it's not what the Founders envisioned, as  the founding fathers didn't really envision political parties as we know them. Hence the original situation of the VP being the person who came in second in the election, among other indicators of that. That would never been a part of the Constitution if they had envisioned such warring political parties. 

And BTW, I'm a US citizen and taxpayer. Yes, an expat, but certainly not someone who needs lessons in US history and politics as you seem to be implying.  If anything is snide, it's comments like yours giving me  "grades". Again, that's a good example of a lowering of the level of discussion, and the type of thing that makes political compromise impossible in US political culture. But maybe it's become so ingrained in the culture that you don't even realize when you are doing it - or even what it is.