I make spelling errors. Much more frequently than do I make errors in assessing the usefulness of information. Or, errors in considering whether a particular report (in whatever media type) is the result of an effort to present facts without bias or instead has an undisclosed intent influenced by an opinion. That's a challenge many have trouble with that I seem to do better with.

Maybe that site is intended for people who are not confident or unable to conclude on their own about the reasonableness, biases or veracity of what they come across. Those who hesitate to apply their own knowledge and judgement. You've jumped to conclusions many times before about what you read on sites with murky or doubtful provenance. Perhaps you find this a useful tool. You can be sure I don't need your suggestion to not visit it again, one visit was enough for me to see it has little to offer.

How does that saying go?

Often wrong, but never in doubt.

How does that saying go?

People with nothing useful to say can always remember an insult to express.

I was thinking about 'wrong and strong' 🤔

Also puzzling over an argument that seems to be based on the false notion that everyone possesses the same knowledge, ability and education - one size fits all...?

Thanks for that site info, Annie. I'd never heard of that site - it was interesting just reading this morning about the House vote on the spending bill and how it was reported by different sources, some of which I'd never heard of.

edited because Annie fixed her link

"The easiest thing of all is to deceive one's self; for what a man wishes he generally believes to be true" -- Demosthenes

Looking at the "blind spot" in Ground News, I find it interesting that there are a lot of stories reported 100% by rw outlets and no one else, but most lw stories are reported about half and half with the center outlets too. Now one might argue that it's because the center is really left-leaning. Or one might argue it's because the center and the left think there is no merit to the rw-only stories.

In the interest of balance, I took a look at that section of the website mentioned above and noticed immediately that the sources most cited for Right sided readers only were either Fox (one obviously biased operation, no surprise for anyone) and then a bunch of random sites without reasonable credentials or legitimacy. Is that a surprise?

Anyone who finds such "insights" worth their time needs to spend a bit more time in self-reflection to understand why they can't immediately recognize biased hit pieces and websites for what they are.

To provide a bit more light that should be obvious, you've reached a biased conclusion about whether the "center" leans one way or the other based on a flawed source. Speaking only for myself, a person who tries to lean neither way, I think a centrist orientation is just that. My views follow neither extreme consistently. Both sides have too many uncompromising extremists and fool themselves into thinking that political options are theirs to either to win or to lose entirely.

Edit to add:

The world is nuanced. Politics are nuanced. People are nuanced. Anyone looking for black or white analyses, views, event coverage, etc. should not be surprised when they come up short or encounter an apparent bias they don't share. Especially from sources consistently lacking balance and that consistently overlook nuances.

What I find interesting is how many "news" stories are almost completely ignored by media from either side of the spectrum. Fox watchers are often consuming only their news from there and many on the left never even peek at Fox. There are some issues mostly reported on right leaning sources that I might agree with but are glossed over by the left leaning sources I usually read. I don't necessarily agree with the right wing slant on those issues but I can seek out less biased or hyperbolic sources to get more info if I want.

"most cited for Right sided readers only were either Fox (one obviously biased operation, no surprise for anyone) " And yet if you look at the coverage the last two years you find FOX stories have all been proven correct. The miss information has all been gas lighting by left bent news. Bias is near impossible to get away from but TRUTH should be what we seek.

Who proved Fox stories were correct?

OMG. Please for the love of all that is holy, and whatever tiny sliver of sanity I have left, can you at least spell the thing correctly that you can't stop incorrectly harping about.

It is misinformation. Not Miss Information.

Thank you so much.

" And yet if you look at the coverage the last two years you find FOX stories have all been proven correct. "

That's not correct.

All of them?

Even the ones that were proven incorrect - a.k.a. false?

@Arcy: what Fox news stories have been proven correct? Didn't they pay Dominion $787.5 million for spewing false information? I read far and wide. I do not find fox a credible source of information.

I seem to remember that Fox is listed as a 'entertainment show. I believe they lost their 'news' designation years ago.

Give this a try https://www.pbs.org/shows/?search=&genre=news-and-public-affairs&source=all-sources&sortBy=popular&stationId=c4ab80c1-ca8c-4a6e-a8b5-c5995919792b

When you see a story ANYWHERE and see a few second clip in order to vet out the bias, to know if you believe or disagree with what is being 'reported' ya need to do the work, google the he// out of it and find THE ENTIRE exchange or speech. CONTEXT matters. All the blather surrounding these clips does not. Journalists are the lowest of the low in 2024 and it's unfortunate but we cannot count on ANY of them to do all the work. It's too easy to find the proof when everything is documented via video and on the WEB if you choose to really know what you are getting. WOE to us. WOE to anyone who believes much of what the legacy media is putting out there. When you see numbers that purport 90% positive coverage for one and 100% negative coverage for another candidate it's a RED FLAG and ya gotta start doing the hard work. It's not about liking this person or that it's about our FUTURE and do the work WWIII is at our door. War is ugly and it's brutal and if you think we will survive by nuance and platitudes be ready for what will come.

Check out Forbes. Watch the footage of the actual exchanges, decide for yourself.

WWIII is at our door.

Why is it that every year the fringe warns us that the sky is falling and the end is near?

May 2023: Fox News reports homeless veterans were being kicked out of hotels to make room for migrants. That reporting was false.

“@Arcy: what Fox news stories have been proven correct? Didn't they pay Dominion $787.5 million for spewing false information? ”

Probably never reported on FOX News. Yes, its true.

As is their reporting and supporting most lies coming from one Party. Few pets are being eaten in Ohio.

" Journalists are the lowest of the low in 2024 and it's unfortunate but we cannot count on ANY of them to do all the work. "

Yet you say that Fox has been correct on all their stories for the last several years. I sense a disconnect in those 2 statements.

" WWIII is at our door. "

No it's not. (I wish I had an eye roll emoji) We were all far closer to WWIII 60-65 years ago than we are now.

TV, easy to find disconnects: how is it that illegal immigrants are taking all our jobs at the same time they are all idling on welfare?

From hannity:

2/29/24 In NYC "local elections, illegal immigrants can vote". False

1/10/23 "The White House is now attempting to ban all gas ovens and burners". False

I for one do not consider Hannity, Ingraham, or any grievance show that fox broadcasts after 7 pm to be considered "news". It's their rumors, innuendos, and accusations night time lineup.

Unfortunately, many people seem unable to distinguish between opinion/punditry and news reporting.

" Journalists are the lowest of the low in 2024 and it's unfortunate but we cannot count on ANY of them to do all the work. "

So does that mean you believe the hundreds of journalists around the world imprisoned, tortured or even killed for their work got what they deserved?

floral, there are many extremists in the US, on both sides of the center line, who are willing to believe and repeat what they're told without giving their newly adopted views a reasonableness test. Validity for them comes from the sources they follow, without further critical thinking on their part. Questions like "is this true, could this be, this sounds preposterous, but does the source make it true?" never enter their minds. Open mouth, swallow whole whatever their preferred flavor of propagandists dish out.

I see this conduct and foolishness from people I know who belong to both major parties. Sound bytes, pet issues, rash allegations, often little understood by those who repeat them. The originating source can come from a deliberate or uninformed misunderstanding, an unsubstantiated allegation, or simply a preposterous and untrue comment intended to inflame opinions.

Maybe you're seeing some of that in the UK too?

it seems many here are using the comic pages to source their news, SO where does this information that everything is FALSE come from? It's obvious you all think your sources overshadow all others and the ultimate source but I tend to disagree.

The Fox settlement with dominion is a head scratchier and a shame because Fox would of won if it went to trail. The machines are not secure and has been proven by our governments cybersecurity and infrastructure security agency with an alert released on Jun 03, 2022, and Just this year A computer scientist demonstrated in front of a federal court in GA how anyone could manipulate these machines with just a pen in minutes. These machines also have modems that runs on an old version of windows from 2015 and we all know how secure windows is. Sticking a flash drive in the USB with malware isn't a problem either.

Others who are being sued by Dominion are taking it to trial and will win with this evidence and also the proof foreign nationals have accessed our voting machines. This evidence also proves the machines can be operated remotely proving the CEO of Dominion a liar to congress and also to the EAC on the certification document. Dominion will lose, but with the state's Secretary of States fighting to keep these machines for 2024 the voting fraud will happen again. Maybe not WWIII but could it be a second civil war?

If Fox could have won at trial, you better believe they'd have taken it to trial. I don't recall the details so am taking your word that it didn't go to trial.

Now I am even more curious about those 'complete' news stories...

would of

would have

I was interested in a recap of the lawsuits being filed by both Dominion and Smartmatic and Forbes has an easy to read and short summary of them and where they currently stand.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/alisondurkee/2024/09/13/smartmatic-will-go-to-trial-against-newsmax-this-month-heres-where-it-and-dominions-other-lawsuits-stand/

Thanks bifenton; sadly missing information on the status of the suits against Lindell and the Overstock guy, which I'm really curious about.

Mike Lindell is there but Parick Byrne doesn't seem to be.

Parick Byrne doesn't seem to be

His case is listed, but it says that a judge denied a request to dismiss in 2022 - but nothing since. Maybe there are no updates, but it doesn't even say that.

A request to dismiss is a summary judgement and common in most civil lawsuits and denial means nothing. The judge will use a plaintiff's evidence to determine if a lawsuit is frivolous or not and all it means. Fox was denied dismissal and all valid lawsuits would be denied dismissal by a judge so it's just used to weed out crackpot lawsuits.

Someone who thinks it would mean anything is obviously a low information individual without knowledge of the subject. Man, this is harder than teaching Helen Keller how to communicate.

" A request to dismiss is a summary judgement and common in most civil lawsuits and denial means nothing. "

A denial means it's denied. End of statement. It's an early step, but still a step in the process; as I said, I'd like to know where this case stands. What do you think I'm not understanding?

I think nothing of your understanding, It's a summary of the meanings behind a summary judgement and to make aware to anyone without understanding it doesn't implicate guilt or innocence.

I remember reading about Kennedy and Nixon and the news coverage of the Civil Rights Movement and the Vietnam War and how the news media and the public uprisings put a great deal of pressure on both presidents to bow to the will of the people. They both agreed that their should be limits to "free press". It took some time, but slowly all the news agencies and networks were bought out and ownership began deciding what we would and would not hear.

Remember when Obama barred news reporters from the oil spill? WTF was that?

I had a battle with the San Diego Dept of Animal Control and Humane Society some 15 years ago. Long story Short - both orgs had a deal with a AVID, a manufacturer of microchips, that gave the orgs a good deal of money. The problem was that Avid was using old technology and the Federal Government had adopted a newer standard for microchipping animals (Livestock, working animals and pets owned by soldiers). The Avid microchip readers wouldn't read the newer chips. The Dept of Animal Control and the Humane Society refused to use universal readers (sent them back when they were provided for free from other manufacturers). Over a year of back and forth with the County and sending information to news outlets and no one was willing to cover the story or do anything about this. I finally saw a bleeding heart story in the news about a dog owned by a soldier. I commented on the story and explained how the county was refusing to identify microchipped animals owned by soldiers. All of a sudden multiple news outlets wanted to know about this. I provided the same packet of info to all of them that I had previously sent out. Not one published the information for over a week. Then the Dept of Animal Control and the Humane Society made a joint statement to the press that they had discovered this oversight and corrected the situation. They were now going to be reading microchips that were manufactured by any microchip company using either the old or new standards of technology.

No one ever learned that this was a deliberate act and that hundreds of microchipped dogs were likely killed or adopted to new owners instead of returned to their rightful owners. The press protected the county government.

If they are this protective of the local Animal Control how protective are they of their chosen candidate? How protective are they of the people in State and National government offices? I don't think we hear half of the news and the half we do hear is twisted to fit each party's narrative.

“…it doesn’t imply…” not ”implicate”

"I guess someone" wants to "show some sort of superiority" as they did trying to scold me for asking "a question" on another thread who then deleted their comment after I told her " to mind her own business". Same applies here!

Miss Fudd, I told you I'm not a book smart guy and you know that. Short term memory problems from traumatic brain damage at a young age has made things a challenge but you keep trying to bully me with malice. Maybe we should get together and you can teach me the English language and I can teach you how to weld, how to change a truck tire or troubleshoot a car's buss. After that I'll teach you how to block a spinning heel kick to the head and with a few head thumps you'll learn. You learned Latin and I learned martial arts so we can go to a bar in the hood and see which skill has more value, we could have so much fun!

Other than the 'Miss Fudd' which was beneath you, Kevin, (and the 'more than one syllable' comment that was made not by you but is mean spirited), I think your post is a good way to point out that we all bring our talents and perspectives to the KT. Our individual contributions would be so much more valuable without the adversarial cloud that overhangs some posts. People can disagree courteously.

I would agree that when the comments deteriorate and become so ugly and mean spirited, it does not reflect well on any participant.

What I hate is when they have 15 seconds of news and go to a commercial.

A few months ago one of the talking heads on the highest rated local newscast for our area quoted "reddit" as a source. All I could think of was "oh you poor thing. Some intern really has it out for you". She did it the following week as well and hasn't done it since so obviously someone set her straight. Why do I still watch this station for my 6:00 local news? - because it's the best of a bad lot.

" Why do I still watch this station for my 6:00 local news? - because it's the best of a bad lot. "

Why watch the 6:00 local news at all?

Why watch the 6:00 local news at all?

Good local weather forecasts, and after many years we've grown to enjoy the on-air personalities, many of whom have been at the station for decades. We don't expect great news coverage, it's more background entertainment while we make dinner.

Just as with the "news" sections of the brainless morning network shows in the US, evening local news programs are usually lacking anything useful or interesting to know. Gruel for braindead people. I don't know why anyone watches such programs.

" We don't expect great news coverage, it's more background entertainment while we make dinner. "

Ah, makes sense :)