Posted on Oct 24, 2023
US Government Is Warning Americans Not to Travel to These Places Right Now
187
20
9
9
9
0
Posted in these groups: 
Travel
Travel
Posted 7 mo ago
Responses: 3
4
4
0
Ah, isn't that sweet. The guy who thinks MSNBC and CNN are trusted sources is citing fact check sources.
(4)
(0)
3
3
0
I don't go to NYC, Oregon, Washington, California, DC, Chicago, St. Louis, or Minneapolis. Thank you...
(3)
(0)
2
1
1
The Epoch Times - Bias and Credibility
QUESTIONABLE SOURCE A questionable source exhibitsone or more of the following: extreme bias, consistent promotion of propaganda/conspiracies, poor or no
(2)
(1)
LTC Joe Anderson
MAJ Dale E. Wilson, Ph.D. - This is Funny!! Considering how much I see
Chip using them as a source: https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/msnbc/
Chip using them as a source: https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/msnbc/
LEFT BIAS These media sources are moderately to strongly biased toward liberal causes through story selection and/or political affiliation. They may
(0)
(0)
LTC Joe Anderson
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/left/cnn-bias/ While I agree CNN is a little more credible than MSNBC and MSN. I disagree that they are "Mostly Truthful." I've personally fact-checked a lot of CNN's stuff and it's downright wrong. And yes, I know where Fox ends up on Media Bias. They fall on the other side of the spectrum (Far Right) with mixed ratings. However, the Far Right rating doesn't leave any room for, The First, News Max, or OAN to be on the Media Bias spectrum. Those three channels are far more conservative and broadcast further "Right News" stories than Fox News. This means anyone seeking truth should be skeptical of Media Bias Fact Check and fact check the Fact Checkers. ALL THE Fact Checkers!! If they can't get something as simple as how far Right Fox News is, compared to other conservative networks? What else did they get wrong?
The problem with most current "Fact Checkers" is they tend to lean Left. Unfortunately, the algorithms Fact Checks use leads them to information that supports their beliefs (This happens on the "Right" as well). But, it does not necessarily prove them. So, when one reads the Fact Checks you see/read the bias (Snoops being the the WOSRSE). But, most people don't read the supporting verbiage/information. They simply see the first part that says X is lying, X leans Right or Left, and then they look at any supporting charts, and; that's as far as they go. They automatically assume what they say is accurate, because the "Fact Checker " said so. Should we believe in the accuracy of the fact-checkers (ALL Fact Checkers)? Simply because they are fact checkers?
One example I saw was an RP Member using snoops to make his point and posting a link to say the topic at hand was false/wrong. I followed the link, read it, and saw that Snoops said X article was mostly false. But, then when I read the verbiage, it contradicted itself, and only attacked one or two sentences to come to their mostly false statement. So, I posted the same Snoops link and cut and pasted the Snoops verbiage as my rebuttal quote. I never heard back from that person. Curious? My favorite part of Fact Checkers is, when they say, Somewhat True, Mostly true, Somewhat False... and try and use that to debunk or support certain information. They do this because, they want to create doubt or credibility depending on their position, and they know the average reader is not going to read all of their supporting information. Because the average reader automatically assumes everything in the follow-up verbiage supports the initial claim or is accurate. When you look closer, more often than not, it doesn't.
Google wasn't very Cooperative when I tried to find fact-checking information on Media Bias Fact Check. So I went to Duck Duck Go. They were the more forthcoming search engines for finding information; for and/or against the various fact-checking sites, search engines, and groups. Groups like Media Bias Fact Check and Snoops tend to lean Left. However, Media Bias Fact Check tends to be a little more truthful and forthcoming than snoops. All the information I found suggests snoops shouldn't be a go-to fact checker. However, Media Bias Fact Check was better. But, not squeaky clean, they didn’t always report the truthfully or stay in the center (Maybe it's impossible to find "Center" or unbiased opinions.). I have seen through research that sometimes Fact Checkers lean so far Left they can't see the middle (We see this with Far Left Democrats and Far Right Republicans as well. That's why they can't solve the problems we face in our country. Because the middle seems too far right or left to them. (I've seen some RP'ers fall into this category)). No!!!! I'm not saying Fox's is middle. But, they are more in the Center Mass of the right than Far Right; The First, News Max, and OAN lean MUCH further Right when it comes to their reporting. Funny, when I fact-checked Media Bias Fact Check on their page, they left me hanging. MBFC only gave me founding info and information that can be found on Wikipedia. When using other fact-checkers and input MBFC, you see that they tend to lean left and have a bias in their reporting, and can be accurate or inaccurate depending on the reporting or Fact Checker. If you want a TRUE "Fact check," you should do it yourself. Rather than rely on others. Although, we know the "Catch 22" is, BEWARE of your source.
The problem with most current "Fact Checkers" is they tend to lean Left. Unfortunately, the algorithms Fact Checks use leads them to information that supports their beliefs (This happens on the "Right" as well). But, it does not necessarily prove them. So, when one reads the Fact Checks you see/read the bias (Snoops being the the WOSRSE). But, most people don't read the supporting verbiage/information. They simply see the first part that says X is lying, X leans Right or Left, and then they look at any supporting charts, and; that's as far as they go. They automatically assume what they say is accurate, because the "Fact Checker " said so. Should we believe in the accuracy of the fact-checkers (ALL Fact Checkers)? Simply because they are fact checkers?
One example I saw was an RP Member using snoops to make his point and posting a link to say the topic at hand was false/wrong. I followed the link, read it, and saw that Snoops said X article was mostly false. But, then when I read the verbiage, it contradicted itself, and only attacked one or two sentences to come to their mostly false statement. So, I posted the same Snoops link and cut and pasted the Snoops verbiage as my rebuttal quote. I never heard back from that person. Curious? My favorite part of Fact Checkers is, when they say, Somewhat True, Mostly true, Somewhat False... and try and use that to debunk or support certain information. They do this because, they want to create doubt or credibility depending on their position, and they know the average reader is not going to read all of their supporting information. Because the average reader automatically assumes everything in the follow-up verbiage supports the initial claim or is accurate. When you look closer, more often than not, it doesn't.
Google wasn't very Cooperative when I tried to find fact-checking information on Media Bias Fact Check. So I went to Duck Duck Go. They were the more forthcoming search engines for finding information; for and/or against the various fact-checking sites, search engines, and groups. Groups like Media Bias Fact Check and Snoops tend to lean Left. However, Media Bias Fact Check tends to be a little more truthful and forthcoming than snoops. All the information I found suggests snoops shouldn't be a go-to fact checker. However, Media Bias Fact Check was better. But, not squeaky clean, they didn’t always report the truthfully or stay in the center (Maybe it's impossible to find "Center" or unbiased opinions.). I have seen through research that sometimes Fact Checkers lean so far Left they can't see the middle (We see this with Far Left Democrats and Far Right Republicans as well. That's why they can't solve the problems we face in our country. Because the middle seems too far right or left to them. (I've seen some RP'ers fall into this category)). No!!!! I'm not saying Fox's is middle. But, they are more in the Center Mass of the right than Far Right; The First, News Max, and OAN lean MUCH further Right when it comes to their reporting. Funny, when I fact-checked Media Bias Fact Check on their page, they left me hanging. MBFC only gave me founding info and information that can be found on Wikipedia. When using other fact-checkers and input MBFC, you see that they tend to lean left and have a bias in their reporting, and can be accurate or inaccurate depending on the reporting or Fact Checker. If you want a TRUE "Fact check," you should do it yourself. Rather than rely on others. Although, we know the "Catch 22" is, BEWARE of your source.
LEFT BIAS These media sources are moderately to strongly biased toward liberal causes through story selection and/or political affiliation. They may
(0)
(0)
LTC Joe Anderson
Your Post from Media Bias Fact Check on Epoch was, "We rate The Epoch Times Right Biased and Questionable based on the publication of pseudoscience and the promotion of propaganda and conspiracy theories, as well as numerous failed fact checks" (Funny how grammar was not an important factor for their writers (Yes, I know I have plenty of grammatical and typing errors. I'm typing on my phone, I'm not a professional "Fact Checker," I don't have editors on staff and I really couldn't care less if somebody wants to use grammar as a reason to rebut my Post.)). However, they broke a CARDINAL rule that they themselves listed as something IMPORTANT readers should look for when checking the credibility of an article. They failed show or source ANY examples of how Epoch spread conspiracy theories or fake news or how they didn't properly source their work... that's just lazy and sloppy! Especially when they claimed Epoch shouldn't be believed, for the same reason (I noticed they do this with all their fact checks. They never source or post examples...). I'm not saying Epoch is a credible or not a credible source. Since I really don't know much about them. I don't think I've read many or any of their articles in the past. I'm just saying for the same reasons, they say Epoch is not credible, and neither is Media Bias Fact Check. After MBFC wrote their unsupported, unsourced opinion, they went on to list their credentials. I was baffled they used credentials as their reason for credibility. If one likes to believe in self-licking ice cream cones and self-fulfilling prophecies... then sure, MBFC is a good fact-checker. As for Me, I'll stick to my own digging for information before I believe ANY fact checkers!!!!
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google