Perfection shouldn't be the objective. If it's better than what we have then it's worthwhile.
> do tend to lean left
Citation needed.
And if you know of a fact-checking resource that has less bias, please share.
> Citation needed.
I think that this is probably a dangerous game to get into; calling for citations is, I think, only likely to be helpful when there is a mutually recognised authority to cite (and, besides, when the claim to be resolved is a factual one—'biased' is not a characterisation that can be proven or disproven without some really careful definitions, on which two disputing parties are likely to disagree). Here's the first hit in a search for "Snopes biased". I've intentionally mangled the first component of the URL to avoid linking to whatever kind of site this is.
http://d@[email protected]/2016/06/17/fact-checking-snopes-websi...
I don't know Daily Caller, but the title alone makes me fairly confident that it's a biased source; but there it is, a citation to back up the claim that Snopes is biased.
> biased' is not a characterisation that can be proven or disproven without some really careful definitions, on which two disputing parties are likely to disagree)
That happens to be the modus operendi of the propagandists, the liars, to say there is no truth, there's no way to determine it, there's no source more accurate than another. They say 'it's all propaganda', trying to put themselves on equal footing with honest people. It's liars who say, 'everyone lies'.
In fact, humanity has developed many ways of distinguishing truth from lie, fact from superstition, critical thought from ideology, physics from alchemy. That is, in a significant way, the project of the Enlightenment, which led to science, the rule of law, liberty, democracy, and all the things that have been born of them (including the Internet). Not coincidentally, I think, the propagandists are generally enemies of democracy and seek to suppress its effectiveness and the power of the public, in part by undermining its foundation of informed citizenry and open debate by interfering with it and saying it's impossible.
Yes, this was my point. If you (not you personally) are arguing against a propagandist who says that all your sources are biased, then I don't know what is an effective rhetorical strategy—it seems that no-one does, if there even is one—but I'm almost certain that asking for a citation for the claim of bias isn't it, since all it does is shift the question from "who is biased?" to "who can be trusted to judge bias?".
I see your point, but I think the propagandist is only effective if we buy their premise, that there is no way to distinguish between biased and unbiased sources (and information). My point is that there are many ways to respond, that it's not at all a new problem, and that the solution is reason, in the Enlightenment sense. The propagandist says it's all arbitrary faith, but reason always has been their downfall (which is why propaganda often appeals to hatred, to crowd out the application of reason).
(On one had, this comment and my GP comment are written so loosely and broadly that it's a bit embarrassing; on the other, I think my point gets across and I don't have time to write a treatise.)
It is useful, in this regard, to read about the Institute for Propaganda Analysis, and to read Aaron Delwiche's http://propagandacritic.com/ .
In my experience they tend to be biased against truth as it were (and so would happily choose Snopes as a target)— but that’s just the humble opinion of one observer.
The same is true when it comes to source versus fact. A broken watch is still right twice a day
The above "Citation needed." is an opportunity to point out the concrete reasons (if any) why bias is supposed. If the only evidence is from sources that are widely questioned then that itself is something to note.
And as far as bias, a quora post [2] seems to give the impression that Snopes was heavily favoring Hillary Clinton through the campaing.
So I'd like to turn this around: could those that believe Snopes is not biased give some kind of citation?
[1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/kalevleetaru/2016/12/22/the-dai...
[2] https://www.quora.com/Is-Snopes-biased-Why-do-some-people-be...
Disinformation is built on shared assumptions with weak evidence.
When "everybody knows" the media is biased, all the effort by reporters, fact checkers and editors is instantly discredited and disinformation gets equal standing.
"Citation needed" is a challenge to examine the evidence. Sure, you can find citations to disinformation that "substantiates" disinformation.
It's not about the citation, it's about examining the credibility of the evidence.
No, it's not perfect and it never will be. But letting "everybody knows" statements go unchallenged is how we get to a world where "nobody knows" and evidence doesn't matter.
So you want a link snope or politifact link? Even if people provided citations, wouldn't you reject them because it isn't snopes or politifact ( the approved "fact" finders )?
The fact that much of the liberal media and institutions have rallied around snopes should indicate that snopes has a left bias. The fact that you ( likely a left leaning individual working in the media ) support it probably indicates it as well.
> And if you know of a fact-checking resource that has less bias, please share.
Everyone is biased. Especially when politics, money and propaganda is involved.
The issue with news media isn't facts. It's the spin on the facts.
Look at Trump backing out of the NK meeting last week - which is a fact. But look at how CNN and Foxnews spun that.
CNN : "Trump is backing out of NK meeting because he is a bumbling fool failing at NK negotiations"
Foxnews : "Trump is backing out of NK meeting because he a deal making genius who won't let NK screw over the US again."
Same "fact", but wildly different spin. Fact checking is never going to solve this issue because "facts" are only a small part of the news industry. The core of the news industry is to push propaganda and to influence the people to think a certain way.
Also, propaganda isn't necessarily a bad thing. Every country needs propaganda to exist.
If you are interested, here is a former TIME magazine editor speaking on the topic of propaganda, history and news.
Citation needed.
To Trump supporters, The New York Times is an institution that spreads lies with abandon, and they get to operate enforcement agencies at the moment. The belief that it's seeking the truth in good faith is essentially just liberalism. Same for Fox and friends.
Given how incredibly entrenched some power structures based on lies are it looks as if my plan is mostly failing. Education budgets are being cut left right and center and the quality of education has been steadily trending down since ~1950 or so.
Yesterday, twitter was full of pictures of the immigrant kids that Trump put in cages. This morning, we find out that the pictures were taken in 2014. It's a difficult problem because the retractions are never broadcast/retweeted as prevalently as the original fake news.
This is a difficult area, and the stakes are so high that the arms race will doubtless continue. Because the stakes are so high, you are competing with organizations from allied countries as well as non-allied countries, and from multinational corporations and industry groups, all throwing tens of millions of dollars each on think-tanks and lobbying groups, whose main activities are to publish source material that can be used as supporting "facts" for various news stories.