WSJ: Ukraine could be forced to compromise. With support for the war against Russia waning in the U.S., the counteroffensive may define a new border.
You're viewing a single thread.
Wall Street Journal
RIGHT-CENTER BIAS
These media sources are slight to moderately conservative in 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 conservative causes. These sources are generally trustworthy for information but may require further investigation.
Analysis / Bias
The Walls Street Journal hasn’t endorsed US political candidates since 1928; however, they are criticized for supporting far-right populist politicians abroad. For example, in South America, they all but endorsed far-right Congressman Jair Bolsonaro in Brazil’s presidential election. They have also written favorably about Chilean Dictator Augusto Pinochet. The WSJ has been strongly criticized for its pro-Trump coverage. According to The Atlantic, there was an alleged conflict about how to cover Trump, resulting in an opinion editor’s departure.
In review, the WSJ utilizes emotionally loaded language in their editorial headlines that favor the right, such as this: “Wrap It Up, Mr. Mueller Democratic dilemma: Impeach Trump for lying about sex?” They also frequently promote anti-climate change messages such as this: “The Phony War Against CO2.” Here is another example from an editorial on Trump’s position on climate change “Not the Climate Apocalypse: The EPA’s power rule won’t save coal and won’t poison the planet.” Further, IFCN fact checker Climate Feedback has cited numerous editorials in which the Wall Street Journal uses very low scientific credibility. The pro-science Climate Science & Policy Watch has also criticized the WSJ for rejecting the 97% consensus of climate scientists. Lastly, The Guardian has an article describing how the WSJ “peddles big oil propaganda” while “disguising climate misinformation as opinion.”
When reporting regular news, the WSJ uses minimally loaded words such as this: China Agrees to Reduce Tariffs on U.S. Autos. News articles are also adequately sourced to credible media outlets like the Financial Times and Washington Post.
more at MediaBiasFactCheck.com
I have a test I like to apply to media bias websites. See how factual known US propaganda rags are rated.
Radio Free Asia: Factual Reporting High
Voice Of America: Factual Reporting High, Bias Rating Least Bias
Glowing reviews saying US government funded media outlets are unbiased and highly factual should trigger alarm bells in the head of anyone looking to get a factual reporting of events. Websites like mediabiasfactcheck don't serve to help people look at news critically: they encourage people to put critical thinking in someone else's hands so they don't need to bother with it themselves.
Radio Free Asia: Factual Reporting High
...
And they also tag it "Left-Center" LMAO
critical analysis dissuades critical thought? that is some impressive doublespeak. orwell would be proud.
A rapist, a snitch, a plagiarist, and a racist walk into a bar.
The bartender asks “How’s the new book coming Mr. Orwell?”
they are criticized for supporting far-right populist politicians abroad
But enough about the USA...
Media Bias Fact Check, the site that makes no distinction between centrism and being unbiased.
your opinion ≠ fact, although you're welcome to attempt to prove your claim.
MediaBiasFactCheck's opinion ≠ fact either. Don't trust other people to do the thinking for you.
Are you saying that being a centrist and being unbiased are the same? Is there no such thing as a centrist bias?
And don’t say I’m putting words in your mouth. You said that my comment isn’t fact, so what about it isn’t factual?
Or are you saying the site does make that distinction? Because their scale of left bias - unbiased - right bias with a complete lack of centrist bias is proof that they don’t. Here’s the proof of my claim, right from their website, the center is labeled “least biased”:
Amazing that a grown adult doesn't understand the concept of bias. Wait till he discovers that what centrist opinions are changes from country to country. Gonna absolutely blow his mind.
And don’t say I’m putting words in your mouth
but that's exactly what you did.
You said that my comment isn’t fact, so what about it isn’t factual?
you expressed an opinion.
Because their scale of left bias - unbiased - right bias with a complete lack of centrist bias is proof that they don’t. Here’s the proof of my claim
all that you've proven is that it is, in fact, you who cannot distinguish centrism from being unbiased because you conflate the center of a bias spectrum with political centrism in a context where the two are only political bias is being discussed and you'e trying to inject political alignment as a:
A straw man fallacy (sometimes written as strawman) is the informal fallacy of refuting an argument different from the one actually under discussion, while not recognizing or acknowledging the distinction.[1] One who engages in this fallacy is said to be "attacking a straw man"
Please tell me where on their bias spectrum a centrist biased source would go. I'm not conflating anything, the site is.
I just explained how that's not what this spectrum illustrates. your lack of comprehension is not my responsibility.
What does the spectrum illustrate if not bias? Because it sure looks like it's a scale of bias: Extreme Left Bias, Left Bias, Left-Center Bias, Least Bias, Right-Center Bias, Extreme Right Bias. And it sure seems to correspond with the part of the article right below it that explicitly says "Right-Center Bias"
And again, where would a centrist biased source go on that spectrum?
Also: ad hominem if you want to just link logical fallacies.
And it is your responsibility. You are trying to disprove what I said but have offered no proof otherwise.
I already explained how that’s not what this spectrum illustrates. your lack of comprehension is not my responsibility.
What, political bias vs political alignment? Again, where would a heavily biased, centrist aligned source go on their graph? You haven't answered that.
Sealioning (also sea-lioning and sea lioning) is a type of trolling or harassment that consists of pursuing people with relentless requests for evidence, often tangential or previously addressed, while maintaining a pretense of civility and sincerity ("I'm just trying to have a debate"), and feigning ignorance of the subject matter. It may take the form of "incessant, bad-faith invitations to engage in debate", and has been likened to a denial-of-service attack targeted at human beings. The term originated with a 2014 strip of the webcomic Wondermark by David Malki, which The Independent called "the most apt description of Twitter you'll ever see".
feel free to actually address what the article is saying
i prefer not to waste my time on speculation from biased sources.
I'm not discussing the veracity of the claims made by the article, but what do you consider to be unbiased news sources?
fair question, but I'm sorry that I may disappoint you in saying that I doubt any news source is (or even could be) completely unbiased. major newswire sources do try by only reporting raw facts, but even they let bias slip in when editors choose which facts to report.
It just sounds like you don't believe anyone or anything which feels bizarre.
So what criteria do you use to decide which stories to believe and which to discard due to source bias? How can you have any valid criteria when all the information you have on any given subject is tainted with unavoidable bias?
I'll start by addressing your second question first: bias isn't a binary; it exists on a spectrum. there's a difference between a tiny bit of bias and extreme bias. So, though previous research and experience, I have come to trust some sources more than others and come to expect certain sources to have more or less bias in one direction or another. that, combined with comparative analysis of multiple sources, one can come closer to factual reporting through one's own critical analysis of the reporting itself-- however, depending on what's reported and the sources available, sometimes... one can only be so certain that one is getting the truth.
it can be frustrating trying to find accurate reporting of a story, even from previously trusted sources. I encourage people to read their news from multiple sources whose backgrounds they've investigated and to critically analyze the facts presented, and that they apply their own critical analysis to try their best to arrive as close as they can to the facts. Also, to realize that, in the world of corporate media, that being certain that the news you're consuming is 100% accurate my not be possible.
A tiny bit of bias relative to what; where is the zero-point on your bias spectrum? Objective truth? Even objective facts can be presented in a biased manner. You're suggesting I can arrive closer to objective truth by comparing and analyzing data from various sources but also saying I should ignore this source because its biased. Would that not also bias my analysis?
as I said before, I don't think there is a "zero point" of bias in news reporting. even the organization I cited, mediabiasfactcheck, only rates bias on a scale of "least biased" to "extremely biased".
to be clear, I never said that WSJ should be ignored. I just quoted from the analysis of an independent organization which is dedicated to analyzing the bias in media/news sources-- which, I'll point out, reports WSJ as having a high level of factual reporting. With regards to this specific article: it's an opinion piece-- pieces which, by their nature, are almost always very biased. This one is also highly speculative, loaded with equivocation and hypotheticals which is clearly pushing an agenda more than attempting to inform. You're free to disagree, but discussing the subject therein doesn't interest me in the context of this article.
And regardless of the subject or the source, just because of the fact that you are human, of course your analysis would be biased towards your own interests and beliefs. So would anyone's. If everyone was impartial and free of bias, there would never be any conflict, war, or argument. Everyone would agree on everything.
You say there's no zero point but at least theoretically there must be if one source can be "less biased" than another. Even if in reality it can only asymptotically approach zero there still must be a zero to approach.
I agree that it's important to recognize one cannot be unbiased which is why it's useful to examine one's biases and challenge them through analysis of media that may not confirm those biases. You're telling me that you're not trying to dismiss this source due to bias but also that you don't want to engage in a good faith analysis of the claims within. Rather than trying to debunk the claims you're simply taking a shortcut to arrive at a conclusion that confirms your own biases.
You say there’s no zero point but at least theoretically there must be if one source can be “less biased” than another. Even if in reality it can only asymptotically approach zero there still must be a zero to approach.
you're welcome to that opinion. I've explained my position.
I agree that it’s important to recognize one cannot be unbiased which is why it’s useful to examine one’s biases and challenge them through analysis of media that may not confirm those biases. You’re telling me that you’re not trying to dismiss this source due to bias but also that you don’t want to engage in a good faith analysis of the claims within.
that's not what I said.
Rather than trying to debunk the claims you’re simply taking a shortcut to arrive at a conclusion that confirms your own biases.
incorrect. I urge you to re-read what I've said rather than see what you wish to. I find it curious that you accuse me of applying my biases when you have, in fact, twisted my words so badly to only hear what you wish and conclude something quite different that what I've expressed.
and, perhaps more sophisticated than most, in retrospect, this was a clear attempt at
Sealioning (also sea-lioning and sea lioning) is a type of trolling or harassment that consists of pursuing people with relentless requests for evidence, often tangential or previously addressed, while maintaining a pretense of civility and sincerity ("I'm just trying to have a debate"), and feigning ignorance of the subject matter. It may take the form of "incessant, bad-faith invitations to engage in debate", and has been likened to a denial-of-service attack targeted at human beings. The term originated with a 2014 strip of the webcomic Wondermark by David Malki, which The Independent called "the most apt description of Twitter you'll ever see".
have a good night.
You people always have an issue with any source that differs from the narrative you want to listen. If it's Chinese news, it's because it's Chinese; if it's Russian news it's because it's Russian; if it's some African news it's because Africa doesn't like Europe; if it's some Latinamerican news it's because we're poor and we don't know better; if it's some Usonian news it's because they're right wing or too moderate or the writer something. So basically the only not-biased-source™ is a very niche set of articles written by the Usonian/European center-left/left-wing neoliberals.
that which is demonstrably false is just that, your personal offense notwithstanding. the facts do not care about your feelings.
Then demonstrate it, with evidence, not with third-party opinion columns. Or are you just going off your feelings about WSJ to back up your hot air?
Moving the goalposts is an informal fallacy in which evidence presented in response to a specific claim is dismissed and some other (often greater) evidence is demanded. That is, after an attempt has been made to score a goal, the goalposts are moved to exclude the attempt. The problem with changing the rules of the game is that the meaning of the result is changed, too.
Y'know, your insufferability, and your willful ignorance-- it reminds me of a certain DNC-paid twitter shill. BrooklynDadDefiant, is that you? I don't acknowledge wikipedia link-dumping. Show the cold, hard, evidence of what you speak, or for the love of whatever settler-colonial god you worship, quit inconveniencing the electrons.
Or y'know what, don't. I'm not wasting my time 'debating' some redditor pissant.
and yet you keep coming back.
That's a nonsensical statement. Every source has biased, so what you're really saying is that you discard any information that doesn't come from your own bubble. Pretty funny how you talk about wasting time, yet you took the time to write these content free comments here.
if you have to put words in my mouth to feel better, I can't stop you. but it doesn't change the facts.
Nobody is putting words in your mouth. I'm just unpacking the implications of your statement. The facts are that you keep making content free comments that don't contribute anything to the discussion.
when you "unpack" words i did not say, then yes you are putting words in my mouth. and whether they contribute to the conversation is not measured by how emotional or irrational you become in response.
No, that's not what putting words in somebody's mouth means, but of course it's too much to expect you to understand the terms you throw around. Also, thank you for your psychoanalysis, that's about the level or rationality I've come to expect from you.