Left Wing Sources VS Right Wing Sources.

someone234

There isn't just left wing and right-wing bias in sources.

Some sources will speak much better about certain things regardless of political reasons due to other ulterior corporate ties or audience-preference for or against the reported entity.

SlanderIsNotDebate1995

Ok, then what argument were you trying to say earlier? I can change the title. 

SlanderIsNotDebate1995

Ok, then what was our argument before? I thought you had said that left wing matters were being investigated as not as good or perhaps something like that? What should I change the title of the debate to then?

SlanderIsNotDebate1995

In general, I think both sides have goods and bad. For some reason though, I dislike to see people on the right to have pretty decent debates, only to find their sources include the Daily Mail and Wikipedia. I don't see people on the left doing so as often. Also remember, the chance of a religion as a source for people on the right is a lot more likely than people on the left. Even if religion is not brought up, ultimately, it is where the sourcing is coming from, but if a religious source goes up against a current scientific study, the usual one to win be default of less bias and more modern use is the study. 

someone234

wikipedia is a 6/10 reliability.

daily mail is a 9/10... how can you say they are same level

SlanderIsNotDebate1995

@someone234 Prove it. But here. I'll prove my point. https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/daily-mail/. Wikipedia, I actually favor more because there are some studies saying that it is better than it's rep as shown here, https://digitalscholarship.wordpress.com/2008/09/01/is-wikipedia-becoming-a-respectable-academic-source/, but then again, that is just a word press site and any info on Wikipedia can be changed at anytime. Though, THIS, I'd say would be important to note if you do like Wikipedia. http://www.businessinsider.com/wikipedia-has-banned-the-daily-mail-as-an-unreliable-source-2017-2

SlanderIsNotDebate1995

@someone234 In fact, I'd choose Wikipedia any day over Daily Mail. Only, I would not stick to Wikipedia, but maybe look at it a little, just with a critical eye. Then, move down the page to it's sources and click on those. Just a side note, look at what the Debra analysis says about our two ways of debating so far. See if you can improve upon it in your next defense. You claim to be a better debater. Prove it. 

someone234

Debra AI lol.

I opposed Debra AI from day one don't give me that sh**.

Debra doesn't know a single thing about how to measure debating because AI is coded by biased human beings meaning the very measurement of bias is biased.

Thanks bye.

As for this nonsense, I don't know what on Earth you're trying to get at here but Daily Mail can be legally prosecuted if it states lies in its media (UK holds media up to such laws), Wikipedia can blame the anonymous editors and send the cops to the address if it's consistent defamation happening and a prosecution ensues.

someone234

Look Debra says I'm 96% substantial ^^^^^^^^^^^^^

SlanderIsNotDebate1995

@someone234 Well, I am going off of Debra because nobody else has shown up. It's not absolute, but it's a relative idea. Also, just cause the UK has those laws does not mean The Daily Mail can not show a very extreme bias and my source checked that. It's reported as "right wing extreme" that is can be both true and false,but the wording used is on purpose to trigger emotion. Wikipedia is open source. If rules are not fallowed, than the edit is not allowed. Also, WHERE are your sources for ANY of this? You laugh at what I say, yet fail to provide even a SINGLE source for what you state. More so, I happen to remember a Bible quote on your profile correct? Meaning, you believe in GOD and JESUS right? Cause if so, I would love to have a full out, separate debate on that sort of thing. Getting to the ABSOLUTE source of your ego, willingness to mock, ignorance, and will to not take criticism, it's without surprise you'd claim to be a Christian. This may sound like a sort of diss. It actually sort of is. Because see, we all have a source for our thinking at the very top. And yours, in my hunch, is your own version of God. My guess is, you put God's image how YOU want, but claim that you are a loving, caring Christian and believer in God, in order for people not to see your flaws. You hide behind this mask of do-gooder stuff that, for what part of it IS worth following, you would not follow yourself because of your own greed. It's no wonder you prefer The Daily Mail, a very conservative source with a similar attitude as yours, because as it seems, you do not like different. You want the same. The status quo. What your version of prayer to the God you pretend to do good in the name of would say is acceptable. And anyone else HAS to be wrong, because without you being right on everything, since, god comes in your name, it'd mean GOD is wrong. But GOD as you are taught, CAN NOT be wrong, so YOU can not be wrong. Yet, you ARE. Look outside what you were taught from childhood. Open your eyes. You cannot be right in everything. Your attitude is horrible and you should be truly ashamed to DARE quote something from a "HOLY" book like the BIBLE on your profile. In essence, you are FAKE. Go beyond this for once. Why not? I'm curious to see your response.  But I can only imagine it's somewhere along the lines of  "lolz, loser logic trying to be all religious" or something mocking, insulting, childish, and accomplishes NOTHING than the attempt to fuel your ego and yet, fail at that as well. 

SlanderIsNotDebate1995

@someone234 And by the way, yes, you were 96% substantial on that argument, yet were graded as negative and 35% considerate if even that. One of my first arguments however, 

"Considerate: 93%    Substantial: 99%    Spelling & Grammar: 98%    Sentiment: Positive    Avg. Grade Level: 9.04    Sources: 0  ____________________  Clear (Beta): 92%  

  Relevant (Beta): 99% "

I do not like to brag, but since you brought it up, I have substantially higher grading.  But I am confused as to why you would mention that. I thought you said Debra AI does not matter?

someone234

@SlanderIsNotDebate1995 Yes, the Daily Mail is socially conservative that's true and it adds flavor to its articles. If you're not allowed any bias, you may as well be emotionally dead.

The passion and drive that leads one to a career of journalism isn't purely based in logical analysis but in the combination of opinion and fact.

someone234

@SlanderIsNotDebate1995 Do you physically imagine Debra being a mother-figure hugging you and patting you on the head?

SlanderIsNotDebate1995

@someone234 Well, I am not saying no source can be biased as that is quite impossible. It's just like the breads and grains group. I think we can agree it's important to have food from that group, but like any food group, too much is too much. It works the same with journalism. The problem with the Daily Mail is it is TOO biased. The bias results in mixed factual reporting as the bias check site claims from data of multiple users and such. If there is so much bias that it becomes personal opinion, do tell is it always going to be factual? 

someone234

@SlanderIsNotDebate1995 To the biased liberal, DM is too conservatively biased. Yes, I agree.

SlanderIsNotDebate1995

@someone234 No. It is simply AI, as I have stated as before. Have you even read my longest argument? Or did you simply ignore it? It seems liek you did ignore it. You haven't mentioned it once. I think that means I hit a spot. You may be scared to consider talking about God and Jesus. Because maybe, it is not your place to. But, God and Jesus are the roots of certain philosophy in which all of your thinking is at least somewhat attached to. Yet, if you fail to look at those as knowing your place and those are the direction of your life, then what authority do you have on getting basic modern day information? 

someone234

My profile's banner is a quote from the Bible. Don't tell me I have an issue debating religion.

I can do that all day and night. I'm a Theist who believes in alien demigods so bring it on.

SlanderIsNotDebate1995

@someone234 As I have said before, 1) READ my longest argument and respond. 2) Some bias is OK. TOO MUCH bias is not ok. If you are so ok with bias, then why should I not have trouble to convince you that say, because you have the number "2" in your username, you are a horrible person that needs to be stabbed to death. Then resort to a random piece on Kabbalah and how certain numbers are evil. I no doubt would have a bias. A heavy bias. A CONSPIRACY.  But above all, a weird, personal opinion that does not have much evidence at all. 

SlanderIsNotDebate1995

@someone234 I am curious. Are you serious about alien demigods? This is not a joke, but actual fact? I can start another thread tomorrow for this, if you are in fact serious. 

someone234

@SlanderIsNotDebate1995 If you death threat and conspire to murder me based on the 2 being in my username you are a liability to my well-being and I will pursue legal and security corporation means of protecting myself if need be.

A threat to my life will be defeated even if it is in the right, I am much too agile and wise an enemy to handle even if you're right that I am the bad guy.

Don't be confused that I fear you. Go ahead and say the 2 is evil, go ahead and be fallacious. I will let you prove it and then will brand you as a maniac with many more sources agreeing with me and the MAJORITY disagreeing with you is how we render you unreliable.

someone234

@SlanderIsNotDebate1995 I am serious yes.

SlanderIsNotDebate1995

@someone234 YES! I agree with you! Now, apply that to the Daily Mail OK? You did not like my crazy, one sided, threatening, biased, personal opinion, so why like the Daily Mail, who does very similar things?

someone234

@SlanderIsNotDebate1995 whose life has the daily mail threatened?

SlanderIsNotDebate1995

@someone234 I did say SIMILAR did I not? The Daily Mail does not exactly threaten anybody DIRECTLY per say, BUT, they have plenty of pieces beginning with something like "Those liberals...." do they not? Just the line "Those liberals...." is already charged with ready emotion to stereotype an entire wide group of people into one bucket and judge them as if all the same, all the while they are NOT all the same! And that is not even even a few words in. Are there not pieces where, for most of it, there isn't much news at all, but mainly just mocking and insulting certain people? This puts it nicely:
https://www.intelligencesquared.com/events/the-trouble-with-this-country-is-the-daily-mail/
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/jan/10/daily-mail-virgin-trains-hate-brand-identity
https://boingboing.net/2013/08/09/stephen-fry-explains-what-a-ha.html

and, then of course there is this shocking piece here.
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2005/apr/01/pressandpublishing.secondworldwar?guni=Article:in body link
Or is it that shocking given it's current stances on things? 

someone234

Liberal media writers tend to psychologically be more erratic and passionate (it's actually why they are less willing to succeed at the expense of others' suffering resulting in their Liberal left wing outlook).

So, what happens is that you will find the metaphorical 'threat' to the other comes much more often in the wording of liberal media. They truly don't mean it, they just don't know how to be less emotional when they write.

If you take any average communist or at the very least 'democratic socialist' and compare how they word an article written about the leaders and supports of the conservative and right-wing ideologies, you will find a lot of near death-threat and near blood-boiling hatred compared to the opposite.

The reason is that the more cool-headed near-sociopathic mind of the far right conservative prefers to word things in a way that ensures it gets the readers nodding their head whereas the liberal writer wants the reader to FEEL THEIR RAGE AND ANGUISH to the atrocities of the right wing and what it stands for.

someone234

Either way, I appreciate both sides. I'm a centrist and will be until the day I die.

SlanderIsNotDebate1995

@someone234 I have doubts in that. The reason I say that is, because, in order to balance out the right wing extreme that is Daily Mail, then why do you not have an extreme left wing source? You only have center left, Wikipedia, and Extreme right, meaning your sources, on average, lean right. 

someone234

@SlanderIsNotDebate1995 because to you it's not biased since you are biased to think it's correct.

CYDdharta

SlanderIsNotDebate1995 said:

@someone234 Well, I am going off of Debra because nobody else has shown up. It's not absolute, but it's a relative idea. Also, just cause the UK has those laws does not mean The Daily Mail can not show a very extreme bias and my source checked that. It's reported as "right wing extreme" that is can be both true and false,but the wording used is on purpose to trigger emotion. Wikipedia is open source. If rules are not fallowed, than the edit is not allowed. Also, WHERE are your sources for ANY of this? You laugh at what I say, yet fail to provide even a SINGLE source for what you state. More so, I happen to remember a Bible quote on your profile correct? Meaning, you believe in GOD and JESUS right? Cause if so, I would love to have a full out, separate debate on that sort of thing. Getting to the ABSOLUTE source of your ego, willingness to mock, ignorance, and will to not take criticism, it's without surprise you'd claim to be a Christian. This may sound like a sort of diss. It actually sort of is. Because see, we all have a source for our thinking at the very top. And yours, in my hunch, is your own version of God. My guess is, you put God's image how YOU want, but claim that you are a loving, caring Christian and believer in God, in order for people not to see your flaws. You hide behind this mask of do-gooder stuff that, for what part of it IS worth following, you would not follow yourself because of your own greed. It's no wonder you prefer The Daily Mail, a very conservative source with a similar attitude as yours, because as it seems, you do not like different. You want the same. The status quo. What your version of prayer to the God you pretend to do good in the name of would say is acceptable. And anyone else HAS to be wrong, because without you being right on everything, since, god comes in your name, it'd mean GOD is wrong. But GOD as you are taught, CAN NOT be wrong, so YOU can not be wrong. Yet, you ARE. Look outside what you were taught from childhood. Open your eyes. You cannot be right in everything. Your attitude is horrible and you should be truly ashamed to DARE quote something from a "HOLY" book like the BIBLE on your profile. In essence, you are FAKE. Go beyond this for once. Why not? I'm curious to see your response.  But I can only imagine it's somewhere along the lines of  "lolz, loser logic trying to be all religious" or something mocking, insulting, childish, and accomplishes NOTHING than the attempt to fuel your ego and yet, fail at that as well. 

Actually, wiki has a pretty hard bias,

And then there’s Wikipedia — astroturf’s dream come true. Billed as the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit, the reality can’t be more different. Anonymous Wikipedia editors control and co-opt pages on behalf of special interests. They forbid and reverse edits that go against their agenda. They skew and delete information, in blatant violation of Wikipedia’s own established policies, with impunity — always superior to the poor schleps who actually believe anyone can edit Wikipedia, only to discover they’re barred from correcting even the simplest factual inaccuracies. Try adding a footnoted fact, or correcting a factual error on one of these monitored Wikipedia pages, then poof! Sometimes within a matter of seconds you’ll find your edit is reversed.

https://evolutionnews.org/2017/11/wikipedia-and-astroturf/

SlanderIsNotDebate1995

@CYDdharta While that article seems to have some points, the name of the site seemed a bit off. I think Wikipedia at least ATTEMPTS to keep what they can to be accurate, but I am not sure on what exactly there policies are. As I said before, stuff like The Daily Mail has been banned as a source from Wikipedia, and I am sure other sources are too. Also, I decided to do a bias check on your source. You can see the results here. 

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/evolution-news-and-views/

What I found quite alarming, was this note at the end: "Evolution News and Views is a part of The Discovery Institute which is a non-profit Christian public policy think tank based in Seattle, Washington, best known for its advocacy of the pseudo-scientific principle of intelligent design. (1/29/2017)"

So as you see, if your source is based on religion, it can not be fully accurate at all. Religion gives automatic bias. Please use another source next time. 

SlanderIsNotDebate1995

@someone234 "Liberal media writers tend to psychologically be more erratic and passionate (it's actually why they are less willing to succeed at the expense of others' suffering resulting in their Liberal left wing outlook"

Proof? No? Just opinion? Ok, then.

"So, what happens is that you will find the metaphorical 'threat' to the other comes much more often in the wording of liberal media. They truly don't mean it, they just don't know how to be less emotional when they write."

Again, no proof, just opinion. Where is your sourcing? This is a strong biased opinion, but there is NO SOURCING!

"If you take any average communist or at the very least 'democratic socialist' and compare how they word an article written about the leaders and supports of the conservative and right-wing ideologies, you will find a lot of near death-threat and near blood-boiling hatred compared to the opposite."

Still, NO PROOF. I ask you in your next argument to PLEASE provide proof for such a strong opinion.

"The reason is that the more cool-headed near-sociopathic mind of the far right conservative prefers to word things in a way that ensures it gets the readers nodding their head whereas the liberal writer wants the reader to FEEL THEIR RAGE AND ANGUISH to the atrocities of the right wing and what it stands for."

Strong opinion. But again, just opinion. That's all you wrote the ENTIRE time is opinion! I can, however, prove that actually, the VIVE VERSA is true. I think actually, a lot of what you said is true for CONSERVATIVES. Reason being in particular, is a LOT comes from the bible and religion. In order to beleive in that, it has to do a lot with FEELINGS even though, there is no physical proof. 

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/304662727_Ideological_Reactivity_Political_Conservatism_and_Brain_Responsivity_to_Emotional_and_Neutral_Stimuli
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/4996917_Slanted_Objectivity_Perceived_Media_Bias_Cable_News_Exposure_and_Political_Attitudes
https://www.researchgate.net/post/What_is_the_liberal_media

CYDdharta

SlanderIsNotDebate1995 said:

@CYDdharta While that article seems to have some points, the name of the site seemed a bit off. I think Wikipedia at least ATTEMPTS to keep what they can to be accurate, but I am not sure on what exactly there policies are. As I said before, stuff like The Daily Mail has been banned as a source from Wikipedia, and I am sure other sources are too. Also, I decided to do a bias check on your source. You can see the results here. 

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/evolution-news-and-views/

What I found quite alarming, was this note at the end: "Evolution News and Views is a part of The Discovery Institute which is a non-profit Christian public policy think tank based in Seattle, Washington, best known for its advocacy of the pseudo-scientific principle of intelligent design. (1/29/2017)"

So as you see, if your source is based on religion, it can not be fully accurate at all. Religion gives automatic bias. Please use another source next time. 

Um, that's not the actual source of the quote.  The actual source is Sharyl Attkisson's TED Talk.  I used that article solely for Sharyl Attkisson's transcript.  That being the case, arguments in your post are irrelevant.

SlanderIsNotDebate1995

I would not say Wikipedia is the best source, but I would say that sources at the bottom of their pages often are actually ok. This policing you speak of that they do is likely for the purpose of ATTEMPTING to keep it reliable. Also, I did a bias check on your source. Although, the article you posted didn't seem to be be too off, the bias check is quite suspicious. https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/evolution-news-and-views/

There was even this note: "Evolution News and Views is a part of The Discovery Institute which is a non-profit Christian public policy think tank based in Seattle, Washington, best known for its advocacy of the pseudo-scientific principle of intelligent design. (1/29/2017)"

I can not fully trust any site affiliated with any religion because there are then way too many biases. Any good debater, scientist, etc., would likely say the same. Please keep this in mind whenever looking at sources. Please use another source. Thank you. 

SlanderIsNotDebate1995

I would not say Wikipedia is the best source, but I would say that sources at the bottom of their pages often are actually ok. This policing you speak of that they do is likely for the purpose of ATTEMPTING to keep it reliable. Also, I did a bias check on your source. Although, the article you posted didn't seem to be be too off, the bias check is quite suspicious. https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/evolution-news-and-views/

There was even this note: "Evolution News and Views is a part of The Discovery Institute which is a non-profit Christian public policy think tank based in Seattle, Washington, best known for its advocacy of the pseudo-scientific principle of intelligent design. (1/29/2017)"

I can not fully trust any site affiliated with any religion because there are then way too many biases. Any good debater, scientist, etc., would likely say the same. Please keep this in mind whenever looking at sources. Please use another source. Thank you. 

someone234

Wikipedia is unreliable and doesn't lean to either wing which is what I'm getting at earlier on.

BBC leans to the right wing in UK standards but is reliable.

someone234

Guardian is a very left wing UK paper that's extremely reliable

someone234

Washington Post favors Dems but is reliable.

CYDdharta

SlanderIsNotDebate1995 said:

I would not say Wikipedia is the best source, but I would say that sources at the bottom of their pages often are actually ok. This policing you speak of that they do is likely for the purpose of ATTEMPTING to keep it reliable. Also, I did a bias check on your source. Although, the article you posted didn't seem to be be too off, the bias check is quite suspicious. https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/evolution-news-and-views/

There was even this note: "Evolution News and Views is a part of The Discovery Institute which is a non-profit Christian public policy think tank based in Seattle, Washington, best known for its advocacy of the pseudo-scientific principle of intelligent design. (1/29/2017)"

I can not fully trust any site affiliated with any religion because there are then way too many biases. Any good debater, scientist, etc., would likely say the same. Please keep this in mind whenever looking at sources. Please use another source. Thank you. 

There you go again, shooting the messenger and ignoring the message.  Why did you feel the need to post the same fallacy twice?  Evolution News and Views had ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH THE QUOTE I USED!!!  They wouldn't allow author Phillip Roth to correct an entry of one of his own books because Wikipedia didn't consider him a credible source of his own work.  Obviously it has nothing whatsoever to do with keeping it reliable.


An Open Letter To Wikipedia

someone234

@CYDdharta
that agrees with what I said except about BBC. BBC leans to the UK's right, that has it in a completely wrong placing.

(there was an image that I replied to that has been deleted)

CYDdharta

someone234 said:

@CYDdharta
that agrees with what I said except about BBC. BBC leans to the UK's right, that has it in a completely wrong placing.

(there was an image that I replied to that has been deleted)

The image screwed up the thread for me, so I deleted it.  I'll try reposting it here;

SlanderIsNotDebate1995

@CYDdharta If my message sent three times over the EXACT SAME, I apologize. It was done in error. It should not have repeated like it did. I could not respond sooner because this page had been messed up for some reason yesterday. And ok, fair enough, that site was specifically for Mrs. Attkisson's transcript. I actually did some research on her.
https://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2014/03/sharyl-attkisson-resigns-from-cbs-news-184836
She quit CBS because supposedly, they were too liberal. Which I have a bi of doubt on. According to this, CBS is left center. 
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/cbs-news/
They do get a bit of emotion into what they say, but they are quite factual. Now, I got some info on where exactly Mrs Attkisson is now. 
https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/sharyl-attkisson-fake-news-propaganda-sinclair-rumors-q-a-1038707
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/hollywood-reporter/
You see, her herself does not seem that bad, HOWEVER, she does now work for Sinclair. And look here what is found about Sinclair. 
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2017/aug/17/sinclair-news-media-fox-trump-white-house-circa-breitbart-news
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/sinclair-broadcasting-puts-partisan-tilt-trusted-local-news

So, basically, Mrs Attkisson is a bit of a hypocrite. Though winning awards for certain things while at CBS, the "liberal bias" they have, which really, is not too much, was too much for her. Therefore she turned to Sinclair. Sinclair though, reportedly has a MUCH deeper bias. So, basically, if it's a bit biased NOT how she likes, she leaves. And she leaves for a company that's MORE biased, but in her favor. That's highly hypocritical and she is not a fully reliable source. She seems to prefer a moderate right bias than a slight left, so it is no wonder she would not like Wikipedia, which actually, pretty non biased. 

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/wikipedia/

So, a you see, I think your source is still biased. You quoted Mrs. Attkisson, who doesn't like bias unless it's of her own, and you just happened to "get the transcript" from a psuedo science, christian, conservative likely site. I have doubts that it was used just for her transcript. After Googling it myself, your source didn't pop up once. 
https://www.google.co.il/search?rlz=1C1GGRV_enIL748IL748&ei=wuafWq_ZF4S4kwXn4b-oBg&q=sheryl+attkisson+astroturf+ted+talk+transcript&oq=sheryl+attkisson+astroturf+ted+talk+transcript&gs_l=psy-ab.3...2181.7663.0.8132.19.19.0.0.0.0.284.2416.0j17j1.18.0....0...1c.1.64.psy-ab..1.1.131...35i39k1j0i8i13i30k1.0.FN986J0z9z4

So do you have a sort of bias? I would say so. More so than me I think. I would still in conclusion, work on that if I were you if you want a true debate. 

SlanderIsNotDebate1995

@CYDdharta And I read the part about Phillip Roth. Did some research. 
"But in this instance, Wikipedia’s editors nailed it. They held the line against the wishes of a popular author, who had requested special treatment, and whose request was wholly without merit."
It mentions both Roth and Attkisson. 
https://wikistrategies.net/philip-roth/

And now, look at this.
http://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-arts-and-culture/books/83205/the-grapes-of-roth
https://rageagainstthemanchine.com/2008/06/13/philip-roth-a-real-american-asshole/

I come to conclusion that Roth was kind of an asshole. He wanted special treatment on WIkipedia and complained when they refused. Then Attkisson, a known hypocrite, came along and defended him as an example.

And know this. Roth I know, is Jewish. But, so am I. And I know full well how much of an asshole Jews can be as I live in Israel, surrounded by them 24/7. Supposed to be one as a Jewish people, yet never feeling more distant from others in my life. 

CYDdharta

SlanderIsNotDebate1995 said:

@CYDdharta If my message sent three times over the EXACT SAME, I apologize. It was done in error. It should not have repeated like it did. I could not respond sooner because this page had been messed up for some reason yesterday. And ok, fair enough, that site was specifically for Mrs. Attkisson's transcript. I actually did some research on her.
https://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2014/03/sharyl-attkisson-resigns-from-cbs-news-184836
She quit CBS because supposedly, they were too liberal. Which I have a bi of doubt on. According to this, CBS is left center. 
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/cbs-news/
They do get a bit of emotion into what they say, but they are quite factual. Now, I got some info on where exactly Mrs Attkisson is now. 
https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/sharyl-attkisson-fake-news-propaganda-sinclair-rumors-q-a-1038707
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/hollywood-reporter/
You see, her herself does not seem that bad, HOWEVER, she does now work for Sinclair. And look here what is found about Sinclair. 
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2017/aug/17/sinclair-news-media-fox-trump-white-house-circa-breitbart-news
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/sinclair-broadcasting-puts-partisan-tilt-trusted-local-news

So, basically, Mrs Attkisson is a bit of a hypocrite. Though winning awards for certain things while at CBS, the "liberal bias" they have, which really, is not too much, was too much for her. Therefore she turned to Sinclair. Sinclair though, reportedly has a MUCH deeper bias. So, basically, if it's a bit biased NOT how she likes, she leaves. And she leaves for a company that's MORE biased, but in her favor. That's highly hypocritical and she is not a fully reliable source. She seems to prefer a moderate right bias than a slight left, so it is no wonder she would not like Wikipedia, which actually, pretty non biased. 

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/wikipedia/

So, a you see, I think your source is still biased. You quoted Mrs. Attkisson, who doesn't like bias unless it's of her own, and you just happened to "get the transcript" from a psuedo science, christian, conservative likely site. I have doubts that it was used just for her transcript. After Googling it myself, your source didn't pop up once. 
https://www.google.co.il/search?rlz=1C1GGRV_enIL748IL748&ei=wuafWq_ZF4S4kwXn4b-oBg&q=sheryl+attkisson+astroturf+ted+talk+transcript&oq=sheryl+attkisson+astroturf+ted+talk+transcript&gs_l=psy-ab.3...2181.7663.0.8132.19.19.0.0.0.0.284.2416.0j17j1.18.0....0...1c.1.64.psy-ab..1.1.131...35i39k1j0i8i13i30k1.0.FN986J0z9z4

So do you have a sort of bias? I would say so. More so than me I think. I would still in conclusion, work on that if I were you if you want a true debate. 

It's funny how Sharyl Attkisson wasn't biased prior to Obama's election.  Back during the Bush administration, she was one of the fiercest voices in the media about the war in Iraq.  She starts looking into the Obama administration, and suddenly she's partisan; amazing how that works. 

And again, with the shoot the messenger/ignore the message fallacy.  It seems without relying on that fallacy takes up more than 2/3 of your posts.  In case you have forgotten, this is a debate site, you're supposed to try to avoid committing logic fallacies.  How about I try my hand at this; 

Media Bias/Fact Check bills itself as "The most comprehensive media bias resource." It's run by Dave Van Zandt, making it fair to say it's run by "some guy" ("Dave studied Communications in college" is his main claim to expertise).

We have nothing against "some guy" possessing expertise despite a lack of qualifications, of course. One doesn't need a degree or awards (or audience) to be right about stuff. But is Van Zandt and his Media Bias/Fact Check right about PolitiFact?

Media Bias/Fact Check rates PolitiFact as a "Least-biased" source of information. How does MB/FC reach that conclusion? The website has a "Methodology" page describing its methods:
The method for (rating bias) is determined by ranking bias in four different categories. In each category the source is rated on a 0-10 scale, with 0 meaning without bias and 10 being the maximum bias(worst). These four numbers are then added up and divided by 4. This 0-10 number is then placed on the line according to their Left or Right bias.

This system makes PolitiFact's "Truth-O-Meter" almost look objective by comparison. An 11-point scale? To obtain objectivity with an 11-point scale would require a very finely-grained system of objective bias measures--something that probably nobody on the planet has even dreamt of achieving.
http://www.politifactbias.com/2017/10/can-you-trust-what-media-biasfact-check.html

...so Media Bias/Fact Check is little more than one guy's opinion about bias.  At least he's extremely qualified, right?

MediaBIasFactCheck.com describes itself as “the most comprehensive media bias resource in the Internet.” The site is owned by Dave Van Zandt from North Carolina, who offers no biographical information about himself aside from the following: “Dave has been freelancing for 25+ years for a variety of print and web mediums (sic), with a focus on media bias and the role of media in politics. Dave is a registered Non-Affiliated voter who values evidence based reporting” and, “Dave Van Zandt obtained a Communications Degree before pursuing a higher degree in the sciences. Dave currently works full time in the health care industry. Dave has spent more than 20 years as an arm chair researcher on media bias and its role in political influence.”

WND was unable to locate a single article with Van Zandt’s byline. Ironically, the “fact checker” fails to establish his own credibility by disclosing his qualifications and training in evaluating news sources.Asked for information concerning his expertise in the field of journalism and evaluating news sources, Van Zandt told WND: “I am not a journalist and just a person who is interested in how media bias impacts politics. You will find zero claims of expertise on the website.”Concerning his purported “25+ years” of experience writing for print and web media, he said: “I am not sure why the 25+ years is still on the website. That was removed a year ago when I first started the website. All of the writing I did was small print news zines from the ’90s. I felt that what I wrote in the ’90s is not related to what I am doing today so I removed it. Again, I am not a journalist. I simply have a background in communications and more importantly science where I learned to value evidence over all else. Through this I also became interested in research of all kinds, especially media bias, which is difficult to measure and is subjective to a degree.”WND asked: Were your evaluations reviewed by any experts in the industry?“I can’t say they have,” Van Zandt replied. “Though the right-of-center Atlantic Council is using our data for a project they are working on.”

http://mobile.wnd.com/2017/02/phony-baloney-the-9-fakest-fake-news-checkers/


Anybody could could have come up with a Media Bias/Fact Check website and been as accurate.  Dave Van Zandt has no training and the only experience he has is what he gained after starting his website.  Hmmm, I wonder if Dave Van Zandt has a bias. 

MBFC always seeks out nonpartisan data sources whenever possible. Such sources often include government agencies like the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the Congressional Budget Office, Tax Policy Center, the Tax Foundation and the Center for Effective Government, etc.

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/methodology/


The Center for Effective Government?  Hmmm,

The Center for Effective Government, formerly OMB Watch, was a liberal think tank and advocacy group based in Washington, D.C.[1] It was focused on government transparency. Founded in 1983, the organization ceased operations in 2016, folding its work into the Project On Government Oversight.[2]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center_for_Effective_Government

Apparently Mr. Van Zandt believes liberals, and only liberals (as there is no similar conservative organization listed as a "nonpartisan data source") are nonpartisan.  There appears to be a distinct bias to Media Bias/Fact Check.

CYDdharta

SlanderIsNotDebate1995 said:

@CYDdharta And I read the part about Phillip Roth. Did some research. 
"But in this instance, Wikipedia’s editors nailed it. They held the line against the wishes of a popular author, who had requested special treatment, and whose request was wholly without merit."
It mentions both Roth and Attkisson. 
https://wikistrategies.net/philip-roth/

And now, look at this.
http://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-arts-and-culture/books/83205/the-grapes-of-roth
https://rageagainstthemanchine.com/2008/06/13/philip-roth-a-real-american-asshole/

I come to conclusion that Roth was kind of an asshole. He wanted special treatment on WIkipedia and complained when they refused. Then Attkisson, a known hypocrite, came along and defended him as an example.

And know this. Roth I know, is Jewish. But, so am I. And I know full well how much of an asshole Jews can be as I live in Israel, surrounded by them 24/7. Supposed to be one as a Jewish people, yet never feeling more distant from others in my life. 

Why are you drawn to the completely irrelevant?  He probably is an asshole.  That matters as much as your religion, which is not a wit. 

What I get from Wiki's reply is that they don't care about what is true, only what is popular.  There is no excuse for saying an author is "not a credible source" of his own writings.  None.

SlanderIsNotDebate1995

@CYDdharta So far things I have pointed out are, A) one of your sources is puedo science Sheryl Attkisson went to SINCLAIR which is quite biased (I have seen them myself, they DEFINITELY attack certain people, personal as they can) because CBS(slight biased) was "too biased" for her. C) Phillip Roth seems like a selfish asshole. It's a bit hard to know the whole situation, but I mention the Jewish part because I don't want a fallacy like "anti semite" thrown my way. I guess I could have left that out. However, your tone seems to also be turning a bit sour. I will warn you now that my 3 strikes rule is in full effect. I will let a mod know of any and all foul mouthiness and I will close this debate or not respond if thing gets out of hand. I want a clean, respectful debate. It is only debate, not a fight to the death match. Now,  I could only find so many clear sources on him, but a seeming hypocrite criticizing a barely biased sourced and using a seeming asshole as part of the reason why.... seems... off. Mediafactcheck and politifact of course will not be perfect, but, if you actually looked at the link I gave you, you will see that the site 1) has polling of what people think and 2) has signed a truth pledge. Now, I do not see right wing sources doing that.... at all. And the site you used? A "non partisan" site pointing out liberal bias? Yah, and I am a not on Planet Earth. I am on the third planet from the sun. I stated your sources may be biased and that maybe you should look into others. That is what I was getting at. Instead, you had to go out and try to get, presumably biased, info about how my fact check sites are "too biased." Thing is, the right can 100% make a fact checking site for news. It is completely possible But the ones you listed? OBVIOUS bias. Instead of giving a balanced comprehension of why they truly believe they are biased, they go with "its so left" and "it hates trump" and all this stuff that they don't really have proof of, but it seems just want to lash at. MY question is, if these sites do SO BAD at fact checking, why not go create a BETTER one yourself? If nine out there already exist and are supposedly left leaning, why not create a 100% non biased one? Better than all? Nope? Just criticism. Just like you were ready to do to me. I merely pointed out that I think your sources are biased. If you would have had more sources that seemed a bit more trustworthy, I would maybe believe you a bit more.  However, you, yourself, after ALL THIS TIME, saying that Wikipedia has SO MANY faults, USE WIKIPEDIA! This, is HYPOCRITICAL! You are telling me Wikipedia is not that great? THEN DO NOT USE IT? I don't use it once in my sourcing! But don't tell me it's not good when you yourself JUST used it! You are no more special than me sir. I did not even know Vann Zandt had RIGHT of center people use his data. Also, "MBFC always seeks out nonpartisan data sources whenever possible. Such sources often include government agencies like the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the Congressional Budget Office, Tax Policy Center, the Tax Foundation and the Center for Effective Government, etc." Yes, The Center for Effective Government may be left leaning, BUT, his data is STILL used for right of center research and 2. YOUR SOURCE FOR THIS CENTER WAS WIKIPEDIA!!!!!!!!!!! Also, If the BLS and CBO are not non partisan, I am not sure what is. Let me remind you though, that I need more sources on what you are saying. It sounds like you just giving mostly opinion. Try to use a Gov't data center or something slight right of center at most. I worked hard to keep to sources like The Guardian because it's biased, but only so much. I expect the same from you. 

CYDdharta

SlanderIsNotDebate1995 said:

@CYDdharta So far things I have pointed out are, A) one of your sources is puedo science Sheryl Attkisson went to SINCLAIR which is quite biased (I have seen them myself, they DEFINITELY attack certain people, personal as they can) because CBS(slight biased) was "too biased" for her. C) Phillip Roth seems like a selfish asshole. It's a bit hard to know the whole situation, but I mention the Jewish part because I don't want a fallacy like "anti semite" thrown my way. I guess I could have left that out. However, your tone seems to also be turning a bit sour. I will warn you now that my 3 strikes rule is in full effect. I will let a mod know of any and all foul mouthiness and I will close this debate or not respond if thing gets out of hand. I want a clean, respectful debate. It is only debate, not a fight to the death match. Now,  I could only find so many clear sources on him, but a seeming hypocrite criticizing a barely biased sourced and using a seeming asshole as part of the reason why.... seems... off. Mediafactcheck and politifact of course will not be perfect, but, if you actually looked at the link I gave you, you will see that the site 1) has polling of what people think and 2) has signed a truth pledge. Now, I do not see right wing sources doing that.... at all. And the site you used? A "non partisan" site pointing out liberal bias? Yah, and I am a not on Planet Earth. I am on the third planet from the sun. I stated your sources may be biased and that maybe you should look into others. That is what I was getting at. Instead, you had to go out and try to get, presumably biased, info about how my fact check sites are "too biased." Thing is, the right can 100% make a fact checking site for news. It is completely possible But the ones you listed? OBVIOUS bias. Instead of giving a balanced comprehension of why they truly believe they are biased, they go with "its so left" and "it hates trump" and all this stuff that they don't really have proof of, but it seems just want to lash at. MY question is, if these sites do SO BAD at fact checking, why not go create a BETTER one yourself? If nine out there already exist and are supposedly left leaning, why not create a 100% non biased one? Better than all? Nope? Just criticism. Just like you were ready to do to me. I merely pointed out that I think your sources are biased. If you would have had more sources that seemed a bit more trustworthy, I would maybe believe you a bit more.  However, you, yourself, after ALL THIS TIME, saying that Wikipedia has SO MANY faults, USE WIKIPEDIA! This, is HYPOCRITICAL! You are telling me Wikipedia is not that great? THEN DO NOT USE IT? I don't use it once in my sourcing! But don't tell me it's not good when you yourself JUST used it! You are no more special than me sir. I did not even know Vann Zandt had RIGHT of center people use his data. Also, "MBFC always seeks out nonpartisan data sources whenever possible. Such sources often include government agencies like the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the Congressional Budget Office, Tax Policy Center, the Tax Foundation and the Center for Effective Government, etc." Yes, The Center for Effective Government may be left leaning, BUT, his data is STILL used for right of center research and 2. YOUR SOURCE FOR THIS CENTER WAS WIKIPEDIA!!!!!!!!!!! Also, If the BLS and CBO are not non partisan, I am not sure what is. Let me remind you though, that I need more sources on what you are saying. It sounds like you just giving mostly opinion. Try to use a Gov't data center or something slight right of center at most. I worked hard to keep to sources like The Guardian because it's biased, but only so much. I expect the same from you. 

You’re going to report my foul mouthiness?!? About what??? You have repeatedly called Phil Roth an asshole, and when I agree with you you want to run to the moderators?!? That is the height of hypocrisy. Other than that, what I’ve done was point out the logic fallacies you continue to commit. You have committed the very same logic fallacy in every single reply to me in this thread. I guess if relying on fallacies is the only way to make your point you have to go with it, although that says a lot about the “point” you’re making. I find it ironic that with all the fallacies you’re committing, you’d be so worried about being called anti-semetic.

You keep calling Sharyl Attkinson a hypocrite; that appears to be nothing more than deflection. Other’s in the media and at Wikipedia don’t like her; that stands to reason as she’s calling them on their bias and sloppy procedures. She reports on stories no matter where she finds them.  My suggestion is for you to check Full Measure News and see for yourself if there is a bias.  Instead, so far you have relied on sources like Politifact (who’s bias is verifiable) and Media Bias Fact Check (which rates China’s state-run Xinhua News Agency as being least biased). Xinhua News Agency has been called “The World’s Biggest Propaganda Agency” by Reporters Without Borders, but they sign a pledge, useless as it is.

So you think conservatives could come up with their own fact checking site?!? It’s an ironic suggestion coming from you. Let’s see how well received it would be;

http://www.conservapedia.com/Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia

Your complaints about me using Wikipedia fail on three accounts;

First; Wikipedia, as bad as it is, has become a defacto standard much like Google. As much as I’d like to find a more reliable source, there are none that are nearly as prolific.

Second; I don’t trust Wikipedia to be unbiaed, but you do, so it’s a source you’ll pay attention to.

Third and most importantly; Wikipedia’s bias is to the left. When a left wing source says an organization is left-wing the bias is undeniable (at least to anyone but MBFC).

someone234

CYDdharta said:

Even though they placed BBC wrong  (and in my opinion WSJ is much further right than the middle right they've shown) they generally are accurate here.

So my point on this whole thread, to you @SlanderIsNotDebate1995, is that CNN and Wall Street Journal are very reliable sources, so is Daily Mail and The Washington Post. At the same time Huffington Post and Fox News, while on opposite ends of the spectrum are unreliable to a huge degree.

ABC is semi-reliable while Bloomberg is extremely reliable despite both being on similar wing-strengths.

I'm fairly sure that this image is trying to go from least to most reliable (bottom-up) but towards the top it's made some extreme errors and the right wing is ordered very wrong indeed. 

someone234

@anonymousdebater no, don't reword what I said and then lie  AI controlling our media is the last thing we need.

CYDdharta

anonymousdebater said:

In short, the ideal is nonbiased sources. However, nonbiased sources can only come from nonbiased people, which is practically impossible. News should be done by robots is the logical conclusion.

That wouldn't eliminate the bias, it would just leave it up to the programmers.

SlanderIsNotDebate1995

@someone234 When did I ever say CNN, Wall Street Journal, and the Washington Post are unreliable? I never did. It's unfair thought to say you trust Daily Mail but not the Huff Post. That's favoritism. Daily Mail on most bias rating sites is far more right then showed on the picture you have. But again, that picture is from this Sheryl person that seems like a complete hypocrite and not trustworthy as a source. Again, she can NOT be trusted because for her working for a LEFT biased station is bad, but working for a FAR RIGHT company is ok. Except, that's not right, it's hypocrisy. She has biases shown A LOT just with that. She appears praised in CYDdharta's Puedo-science Christian biased source so I'm thinking it's no wonder. If you said right wing is ordered wrong on the pic, why are you relying on it?  @CYDdharta And yes, I know I haven't been here in a while but yes, I can and will report you. I critisized your SOURCES not you. You DIRECTLY criticized me AND acted very condescending. ALSO, you said "Why are you drawn to the completely irrelevant?" as if I typed THIS MUCH and yet it means NOTHING to you!?!? THEN WHY DEBATE ME? WHY ARE YOU WASTING MY TIME? If my words mean NOTHING to you, then STFU and go away! Either respect me or get outta my face! If you can't have RESPECT for opponents, DO NOT debate them! You need to have respect before you debate somebody you disagree with. Either fix your attitude or this debate ends for good and you WILL be reported. And don't lie and try to defend yourself. You know who you are. I only pointed out your sources seem a bit odd, but ALL YOU HAVE TO DO, is find another source, and we can go from there. Period. Also, when you said the thing about China's newspaper, that same info right under is from the SAME website I USED to check biases. THEY THEMSELVES admit that there are problems with that paper and likely you got info from there. What happened to that bias check being unreliable? You have INFO from them yet I can NOT? That's HYPOCRITICAL. BUT, it goes with what you have shown. YOU show that YOU think you are BETTER than me. YOU ARE NOT. This is a debate between two opinions, not right and wrong unless solidly determined, but even then, there will still be differentiating opinions, like it or not. The fact that you are trying to make it seems my arguments as 100% fallacies is . I really don't know why you bothered to debate me if you already had in mind that I MUST be in-superior because of different opinions. You are wasting your time. And you are wasting mine. And, actually, I am going to report you. Really, I am sick of being looked down at by everyone I meet whether online or in real life. Learn a lesson the hard way. And what the reporting does will determine if you see me again. READ my user name. SLANDER is NOT debate. Don't you forget it!