From iGeek
Check Your Biases IFLA.jpg
By :  Aristotle Sabouni
Disproportionate weight for or against a person, place, idea or thing, usually ignoring evidence against.

Disproportionate weight for or against a person, place, idea or thing, usually ignoring evidence against and done in a way that is closed-minded, prejudicial, or unfair. In science, engineering or statistic it is a systematic error. In a human it is a character flaw: not in having it, but in unwillingness to recognize and correct it, once it is demonstrated.

Bias is the more Politically Correct term for FakeNews, Liars, Frauds, double-standards and so on. This area has articles that stress things that aren't quite the whole truth, if not outright hypocrisy.

Of course everyone has a bias (self included). My goal isn't to present both sides of everything. I trust that people know the "popular" or common understanding of things presented, so I often shortcut or omit that, and tend to focus on more the other side of the story (the less often heard). The goal in counter-balancing the myths isn't to just ad hominem the sources, it is to dilute the fallacies of either Cult of Popularity or Cult of Celebrity. To encourage people to be skeptical of all sources, and recognize when either side might not be telling the whole truth, or leading by example.


Fakes • [8 items]

Fact Checkers
There's a reason why the moderately informed don't trust the Fact Checkers: the answer is most fact checkers are as biased (or more so) than the rest of the publications they work for. Who moderates the moderators?
Fake Hate
None of this is to diminish that there still is real hate in America. But it is rare, and often directed at the right, while here's a few dozen (hundreds) of examples of Faked hate for political gain. Since there's not enough real hate to keep leftism demand for change fed, the left commits Fake Hate to fill the gap (or for attention/reward).
Fake News
While the term goes back 100 years, the history is summed up well in a Sharyl Attkisson. While our media has always had false narratives and bad stories that are Fake News, we didn't use the term "Fake News". We called it liberal media bias or journalistic incompetence, but it's been around since the first liberal got sloppy somewhere back in Roman times.
Fake News Orgs
While our media has always had false narratives and bad stories that are Fake News Clinton supporters (Googe/Eric Schmidt) re-popularized the term to try to attack conservatives, and it backlashed against the mainstream liberal media big time: since they made more errors and were less honest. Here are some examples.
Fake Race Crimes
The FakeHate grievance industry is so broad, that they are branching out, and have to have multiple divisions. Hey, you get what you incentivize. and the virtue signaling left rewards victimhood -- so people are lining up to join in. This is just the subset of FakeHate that is specifically about fake racial crimes.
Fake Rape
Noun Fake News 881233.svg
A leftist trope is that no Democrat female would lie about rape, but Republican ones can be ignored. Facts show that many women lie about rape (sexual harassment). Younger, more activist, attention seekers, in other words those more likely to vote Democrat, are much more likely to lie. "Believe all women" without skepticism is as dumb as believing that men never lie.
Fake Studies
Fake one dollar with Santa Claus.jpg
This is a list of things that people believe, based on "Studies" that have been debunked or discredited.
Social Justice Warriors
The left believes we need government oppression to protect us from being the freest, wealthiest, and least discriminatory countries in the world. Since they are not able to refute the arguments against this, they try to bully others into silence. That's what an Social Justice Warriors are: people willing to oppress opposing views in the name of diversity.


Bias, Organizations • [18 items]

New ACLU Logo 2017.svg
A once reliable non-partisan Civil Liberties organization, they devolved to align with the DNC over civil liberties. You can't be for minority rights and not for individual rights, as the smallest minority is one... yet, when given the choice, they often choose collective rights over individuals, support racism to fix racism (affirmative action), and ignore parts of the constitution they don't like.
A privately held financial, software, data, and media company headquartered in Midtown Manhattan, founded by Michael Bloomberg in 1981.
1980 Ted Turner started CNN to put his left center spin on "the news", along with his later marriage to Hanoi Jane Fonda. He wanted to be the 24 hour, more left version of the already left of center news outlets like CBS, ABC, NBC, and rather than fill airtime with deeper stories, he'd use far left op-ed fluff.
Annenberg's is another far-left front posing as a non-partisan fact checker. They take money from Facebook, then spin stories/facts left, giving Facebook cover for censoring "disinformation" aka uncomfortable truths they don't like. History shows that was partisan fraud for a long time back.
Huffington Post
HuffPo is a mockery of new journalism. The rules to get published seem to be (1) be popular (2) be wrong on everything you post (3) be sensitive to any corrections (4) have a flock of trolls. They are proof that popularity has no correlation to quality of information.
National Public Radio logo.svg
State dept. and Air America in the 1930's was infiltrated by communists. McCarthy showed that they never left, they just moved around. NPR is evidence that this is as true today as it was back then. I listened to them for years on my commute, and could count a few times a day they did leftist spin, and can think of no examples of them taking a conservative or moderate position.
New York Times
A never great News Agency has become a shadow of their former self: admittedly biased by their own Ombudsman and editors. Occasionally good content can't make up for their more frequent bad, or their willingness to deceive, commit lies of omission, or present things in a biased way. (Never trusting their readership with the whole truth).
Occupy Democrats
They exist to take things out of context, lie, distort, and feel that any means to their ends is justified (of furthering the power of government over the people). At least based on their actions. If you can't look at anything they post, and find at least 10 things wrong with it, then you're not qualified (critical thinker) to have an adult discussion on any topic.
PolitiFact logo.svg
They have a long history of (a) cherry picking data to fit a leftist narrative (b) oversampling the right (selection bias) (c) being pedantic to find excuses to correct the right on technicalities or to excuse/ignore the left on much broader/worse errors (d) not correcting errors when found (e) attacking those that point out the errors. They're a partisan mouthpiece for the far left, pretending to be non-partisan.
Left-of-center John F. Harris, and the slightly less left-of-center Jim VandeHei got funding for a DC tabloid journalism (rumor mongering) on the DC set. Sort of what HuffingtonPost was to Hollywood, but only for DC. Like reddit or twitchy; lots of crap but they allow turds layers from both sides, and you can find some treasures in the sewage.
SPLC Logo.png
The Southern Poverty Law Center is a far left site created to fear-monger for money. Their platform is used to attack anyone on the right, and by their own standards, they would qualify as a hate-group... if they applied their standards to themselves.
Scientific American
Scientific American logo.svg
A left biased popular "Science" magazine that occasionally lets a good article or two past their woke staff. They do have stuff worth reading and I read it. But if there's a bias, it'll always be left.
Snopes (website) logo.png
Snopes was created by California couple Barbara and David Mikkelson to covert alt.folklore.urban newsgroup into a website. Despite a cabal of liberal editors, most of Snopes isn't that bad... but mostly fair is synonymous with unfair, and it is far from the paragon of objectivity some pretend. Virtually all errors or biases lean left, thus all sources that rely on them lean the same way.
The Atlantic
A far-left magazine that occasionally lets a good article or two through. I had some hope when they hired the prolific conservative intellectual, Kevin Williamson, but then they fired him for thoughtcrime of having once written a pro-life article, showing that they do not value diversity of thought at the Atlantic.
USA Today
USAToday has a long history of dumb, and they should have been renamed USSA (United Socialist States of America) because that seems to be their bend/lean. But here's an example of their dumb.
Wall Street Journal
WSJ Logo.svg
Wall Street Journal used to be a New York finance paper, that became another paper. They have a little better reputation as a centrist paper, but they're still in New York, thus they're kind of hit or miss. Some good reporting, some bad... some stuff to irk both sides. They often provide counter-balance to the NYT or WaPo. But have their misses too.
Washington Post
A once great paper, now a liberal fake news rag that looks more like Bezos Blog (or the DNC's blog) than an objective Newspaper. To be fair, WaPo was always walking in the Grey Lady's (NYT's) shadow, and Jeff Bezos acquisition didn't change much... now that the NYT in the mud, it's no surprise that WaPo is crawling in the sewer. Here is a partial list of falsehoods, embarrassments, and mistakes.
Wikipedia is both hit and miss, with a lot more hits than misses. I reference it a lot, because most articles are pretty good or good enough. But a few are very biased, and virtually all bias leans far left. Usually it's more lies of omission and not offering both sides. So they are referencable, but the most interesting stuff is often omitted, or in the talk section.


Bias, People • [4 items]

Fake Newsmen
Fake Newsmen are nothing new; posers who are partisan polemics pretending to be Journalists, comedians, commentators, or commentators. Real Journalists used to be trained to try to give both sides of a story and trust their readers, or at least maintain the facade of unbiased reporting. Modern ones censor, omit, or actively skew. That's not a newsman, that's a polemic.
Rachel Maddow
This is more about some of the many of reasons her detractors are not fans. (You can get the propaganda and puffiness about how great she is from her or MSNBC). She answers the question of how low a journalist can go, if they lacked brains or ethics, and sincerely believed every anti-conservative conspiracy theory out there.
Mika Brzezinski
Mika Brzezinski.jpg
She embarrassed herself (and journalism) by revealing what someone said off-camera in a private conversation (when they weren't there to defend themselves). Her continued employment (after revealing private gossip) shows how low of standards that MSNBC/NBC has. Tucker Carlson eviscerated her for that.
Dan Rather
Dan has it all: a career of sloppy rumormongering, fired from CBS for failing to vet forged documents (in order to undermine an election), suing CBS and losing, and still defending his actions to this day. He started his career reporting JFK's death before he could have it verified, took Vietcong's side in the Vietnam war, dressing up as a mujahideen fighter during Afghanistan war.


🔗 More[edit source]

Main Page
The root of all evil... and the home page for this website.
Something that is true, provable, demonstrable or verifiable.

🔗 External Links

[[Category:Main Page]][[ Category:Facts]]
Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies.