http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/tv/cnn/
-
Archived from the IMDb Discussion Forums — Politics
WellHung — 9 years ago(February 08, 2017 07:59 AM)
http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/tv/cnn/
LOL
http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/tv/fox/ -
DeepConvection — 9 years ago(February 08, 2017 08:08 AM)
PolitiFact is owned by a newspaper. And just like every other newspaper, it is slanted and biased.
Politifact has been found to have a heavy left wing bias. In fact, I bet you can't guess who it's parent newspaper endorsed for President in 2016. Yep, Hillary Clinton.
Relying on Politifact is like relying on a New England Patriots fan to tell you how good the Miami Dolphins are."All great truths begin as blasphemies."
- George Bernard Shaw
-
WellHung — 9 years ago(February 08, 2017 08:16 AM)
Sigh, more unverified facts and skewed opinions. Lets look at a few facts shall we.
You keep saying newspaper:
The Tampa Bay Times, previously named the St. Petersburg Times through 2011, is an American newspaper published in St. Petersburg, Florida. It has won twelve Pulitzer Prizes since 1964, and in 2009, won two in a single year for the first time in its history.
PolitiFact.com was awarded the Pulitzer Prize for National Reporting in 2009 -
DeepConvection — 9 years ago(February 08, 2017 08:29 AM)
Tampa Bay Times recommends: Hillary Clinton for president
http://www.tampabay.com/opinion/editorials/times-recommends-hillary-clinton-for-president/2296789
PolitiFact Denies Its Own Left-Wing Bias [with several examples included]
http://www.dailywire.com/news/8215/politifact-denies-its-own-left-wing-bias-robert-kraychik
PolitiFact Says Republicans Lie Three Times More Often Than Democrats, According To New Study
http://www.mediaite.com/online/politifact-says-republicans-lie-three-times-more-often-than-democrats-according-to-new-study/
I noticed Politifact's bias nearly a decade ago during the 2008 presidential campaign. I was checking into Dr. Ron Paul because he seemed like an honest guy. So I went to Politifact to see what they said of his statements. I not only found very few ratings, nearly all of them called him a liar. One of the ratings I found I knew for a fact was wrong. They called him a pants on fire liar for something he never even said. What they did was twist is words out of context, probably so they could make him look as bad as possible. From that point forward, I knew that site couldn't be trusted. It wasn't until later I found out that it was actually owned by a newspaper."All great truths begin as blasphemies."
- George Bernard Shaw
-
WellHung — 9 years ago(February 09, 2017 07:37 PM)
Sure you were very special when you found an alleged error missed by the internet. Link me to that statement, couldn't be that hard to find.
Later why don't (didn't) you write an article about it on breitbart and make an alternative site that will be just as award winning, established and credible.
And pfft, Ron Paul for President? -
DeepConvection — 9 years ago(February 09, 2017 08:21 PM)
Looks like they deleted it. They probably got complaints about it.
That still hasn't stopped them from their bias though. For example, when Hillary (AKA who they told you to vote for president) said 17 intelligence agencies concluded that the Kremlin was behind cyber attacks on the election, they said that was true. Completely true.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/oct/19/hillary-clinton/hillary-clinton-blames-russia-putin-wikileaks-rele/
In reality, it was mostly false at best. First of all, the 17 'intelligence agencies' in her claim include the Treasury Department, the Energy Department, and the Drug Enforcement Administration. All well known for investigating Russian hack attacks, right?
It wasn't 17 intelligence agencies, it was only 2the DNI and DHS.
Hillary Clinton in last nights presidential debate tried to avoid talking about the substance of the damaging WikiLeaks disclosures of DNC and Clinton campaign officials by claiming 17 U.S. intelligence agencies determined that Russia was responsible for this. After Clinton made this claim, she scolded Trump for challenging U.S. intelligence professionals who have taken an oath to help defend this country.
What Clinton said was false and misleading. First of all, only two intelligence entities the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) have weighed in on this issue, not 17 intelligence agencies. And what they said was ambiguous about Russian involvement. An unclassified October 7, 2016 joint DNI-DHS statement on this issue said the hacks
. . . are consistent with the methods and motivations of Russian-directed efforts. These thefts and disclosures are intended to interfere with the US election process. Such activity is not new to Moscow the Russians have used similar tactics and techniques across Europa and Eurasia, for example, to influence public opinion there. We believe, based on the scope and sensitivity of these efforts, that only Russias senior-most officials could have authorized these activities.
Saying we think the hacks are consistent with the methods and motivations of Russian-directed efforts is far short of saying we have evidence that Russia has been responsible for the hacks. Maybe high-level officials would have authorized them if Russian hackers were responsible, but the DNI and DHS statement did not say there was evidence Russia was responsible
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/441266/hillary-clinton-democratic-emails-hacked-russia
You'll find things like this scattered all over the place on their website. As pointed out previously and as a study has found, Politifact is just about as biased as any other newspaper is; significantly to the left.
Another tactic they use is cherry picking. Candidates make thousands of claims. To call 1 candidate more truthful than another, all they have to do is cherry pick more lies from 1 side than the other. Then, bam, you have people who don't know any better perpetuating the lie, saying "hey look, candidate X is 60% more truthful than candidate y"!!!!"All great truths begin as blasphemies."
- George Bernard Shaw
-
jon-gwynne — 9 years ago(February 08, 2017 11:06 AM)
Fox beats CNN in the "true" category by 4 and loses all others interesting.
Ummm No.
True: CNN: 17% - Fox: 10%
Mostly True: 37% - 12%
Half True: 21% - 19%
Mostly False: 9% - 21%
False: 13% - 29%
POF: 4% - 9%
Put another way:
True/Mostly True/Half True: CNN: 74% - Fox: 41%
Mostly False/False/POF: CNN: 26% - 59%
-I don't watch Fox 'News' for the same reason I don't eat out of the toilet -
WellHung — 9 years ago(February 09, 2017 07:46 PM)
I'm still confused why people are on CNN's ass. Fox News makes beep up all the time. What's more CNN didn't make that pee beep up, it's in the dossier which has been verified to exist, and verified to be more credible after the Rosneft deal, CNN just reported on it.
-
infinityinterrupt — 9 years ago(February 17, 2017 11:36 AM)
Depends on your metric.
In a straight up comparison of only true statements, from both fox and CNN, not accounting for any other statements, made by either, fox has 4 more than CNN.
In a comparison of all statements, in all categories, made by fox, 10% are true, whereas CNN has 17% true rating.
So we are both right, actually
"the absence of evidence is the actual evidence." Tcob44