Middle East Eye - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)Information for Middle East Eye:
> MBFC: Left-Center - Credibility: High - Factual Reporting: Mostly Factual - United Kingdom
> Wikipedia about this source
It is absolutely not a reliable source. It’s an amateur operation run by one guy (who describes himself as “an arm chair researcher on media bias”) as a side-gig.[33] The methodology is utter pants[34], and the website changes ratings if users complain or on the basis of user ratings. The methodology is basically nothing more than unknown people clicking a few articles on a website, and then determining bias. How it got mentioned by BBC News and slipped past the fact-checkers, I do not know (that Newsweek covered this site makes more sense given that Newsweek has been awful for years). To what extent it’s been cited by those computer scientists (note that this is not in peer-reviewed research), it’s been as a collection of fake news websites (i.e. not for its determination of media bias in non-fake news websites). The website is such an amateur operation that it can’t even do a proper reference list consistent with any style guide, see the bottom of this link[35]. Every time it’s mentioned on the RS noticeboard as a determinant of RS status, an angel dies.
He’s a grifting liar and traitor to the Republic. The $5mil is just the start. The Smartmatic defamation suit is just getting started and he’s out of money for lawyers.
He probably sold his moustache to pay for bus fare because that’s eventually where everyone who support the felonious king of con ends up.
BBC News - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)Information for BBC News:
> MBFC: Left-Center - Credibility: High - Factual Reporting: High - United Kingdom
> Wikipedia about this source
Bluntly, if you seriously think the BBC—which has been on an anti-left crusade for the past decade—has a “left wing bias”, that Wikipedia’s accuracy is “high”, or that the Communist Party has no left-wing bias(!), you really don’t understand how to assess either reliability or neutrality in Wikipedia terms. There is absolutely no possibility that we’re going to accept this obviously bullshit user-generated site as a reliable source for anything.
I don’t think they’ll pierce his immunity with this one sadly. Judges get absolute immunity that’s very hard to bypass vs executive branch officer qualified immunity.
They will. Persecuting trans people is the test run for persecuting the rest of the lgbtq+ community. That’s why we need to delegitimize the court and introduce reforms.
These people are just childish and petty. I speculate their only goal was as-is, put bugs in democrats food. Something immature adolescents might do. Yet these are adults.
“Chicago Police and the FBI are investigating if saboteurs placed bugs in a breakfast buffet prepared for delegates at the Democratic National Convention on Wednesday.”
They are DNC delegates, according to the article. You think they are scum and you call them genociders?
The Advocate - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)Information for The Advocate:
> MBFC: Left - Credibility: High - Factual Reporting: High - United States of America
> Wikipedia about this source
MBFC is a self-published source, so no, not reliable for any statement in wikivoice, and undue weight for any statement of opinion, even if attributed.
news
Oldest
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.