new information to who?

almost every hijacker was known to be Saudi and highly connected.

awesome, every now and then I’m completely perplexed by a far side cartoon.

this was one of them.

thanks

time to get reacqaaaaainted

Cool we were running out of new ones.

Filipinos have been running guerilla wars for a long time against a lot of invaders, I’d be surprised if they don’t have explosive boats and other measures on hand now, especially after so much antagonism by china.

China keeps getting real FAFO with Filipino ships.

thailand, Indonesia, okay, they’re not internationally aggressive countries and have a lot of economic deals with China.

but the Philippines?

china is banking on “my boats are so big”, but that doesn’t translate to combat readiness and if they continue sustained escalating conflicts or the Philippines stops putting up with their shit, I’m leaning Philippines the same way i was leaning Ukraine.

and guess who’ll be getting military aid from NATO?

there are a lot of starving children in China being permanently affected by perpetual malnutrition and starvation.

https://www.wfp.org/countries/china

this article is about Japanese food waste innovation, btw, not Chinese.

proof?

or are you going to stick with the whole vague, baseless implications thing?

You keep making incorrect assumptions and drawing false conclusions.

Misleading and derailing the conversation won’t pan out.

I understand you’d rather not risk making any more embarrassing mistakes than you already have, but you can solve that by asking actual questions about the things you don’t understand instead of trying to “gotcha!” me with vagaries and baseless implications, which has backfired on you the last half dozen attempts.

it doesn’t matter that you don’t personally like the founder of MBFC and despite no evidence have sneaking suspicions about him and the popular palatability of his beliefs.

completely irrelevant to the point at hand.

We’re talking about the credibility of Media Bias Fact Check, which according to independent sources, is a highly reliable source with which to judge the credibility of news sources.

You misunderstood misinterpreted and maligned the site without evidence, were exposed as never having taken the trouble to actually read any of the site, and now you’re trying to find any windy path out of your many blunders.

as you’ll notice in my previous comments, I enjoy clarifying and explaining things.

If you have genuine questions that will help you understand a matter more clearly, I’ll be glad to lend a hand.

If you’re just trying to unproductively cast doubt and raise vitriol without evidence, your transparent runarounds aren’t going to accomplish anything.

Rather than personal opinions lacking supporting evidence, let’s look at the data we do have to analyze your baseless implication:

Live Science - HIGH
science daily - HIGH
scientific American - HIGH
nature - VERY HIGH
NASA - VERY HIGH

by your unfounded accusations, van Zandt highly values pro-science news sources.

look at all those extra steps you took to get back here and prove yourself wrong. Again.

“Scientific studies using its ratings note that ratings from Media Bias/Fact Check show high agreement with an independent fact checking dataset from 2017”

https://academic.oup.com/pnasnexus/article/2/9/pgad286/7258994?login=false

“When MBFC factualness ratings of ‘mostly factual’ or higher were compared to an independent fact checking dataset’s ‘verified’ and ‘suspicious’ news sources, the two datasets showed “almost perfect” inter-rater reliability”

yup.

science is very obviously a political issue.

amazing.

that’s what you get for asking ill-defined questions without context.

please continue.

you can pretend i answered your straw man the way you wanted me to so that you can eventually, one day limp over to what appears to be coalescing into an inaccurate “gotcha!” based on false premises.

It is not a “biased” opinion, but it is certainly a political issue, to keep our topic consistent and hop ahead a few questions.

would you like to know why?

I’ll take another turn:

lgbtq+ prior having the right to exist in public is a political issue because lgbtq+ people have not achieved the unilateral, unchallenged right to exist in public everywhere yet, and overwhelmingly left-leaning political institutions and organizations are committed to extending that right to the lgbtq+ community.

Those left-leaning organizations are making political stances, engaging in political protest and rallies, passing (political, see where this is going?) legislation, to ensure that the conglomerate minorities of lgbtq+ have the undeniable right to exist in public.

these political actions are almost exclusively fought for and achieved by left-leaning organizations, resulting in the lgbtq+ movement being justifiably associated with and classified as left-leaning.

the dislocated straws you are grasping at for being too lazy to read a webpage before criticizing it are absurd.

“Do you think that the position that cisgender straight people have the right to exist in public is a biased opinion?”

strictly to exist?

no.

cis straight people have the right to exist in public.

any other brain busters?

“…should raise the eyebrow…”

damning evidence you have there…

“…regards LGBT lobby as political and left -leaning…”

yea, dude. not a lot of fascist lgbt+ folks.

and then you apparently discovered, to your horror, that the American website created and run by Americans reports from an American perspective?

and the website disclaims to its users that other countries…may not think the same as America.

This is accurate.

for your education, many countries don’t think the same way as the United States does.

I guess it’s not weird you find this courtesy a shocker.

You personally don’t like its founder, and misunderstood the rankings of the website he created, to your displeasure.

MBFC has consistent rankings that it applies to all news sources equally.

you claim to disagree with some MBFC rankings, although you don’t bother to read or understand the rankings.

your personal dislike for the founder and personal disagreement with certain rankings is frankly irrelevant and pales in comparison to the fact that you didn’t even know there was more than one metric for MBFC.

raised eyebrows and believing that LGBT+ groups shouldn’t be classified as left-leaning is no proof.

“I’ve seen several people refuse to countenance credible sources because MBFC rates their Factual Reporting as MIXED”

yes, that’s my point about people not understanding how the site works and drawing false conclusions based on their assumptions.

…“importance you place on the distinction between MBFC’s “Factual Reporting” and “Credibility Rating” is irrelevant.”

in what world is correcting your ignorance about the contextual analysis of news sources on MBFC irrelevant?

that’s literally what you are making uninformed, misleading claims about.

You’re imagining that because two cars are labeled “slow”, they both must have the same fuel pump, drivetrain and engine without even asking how “slow” is defined or looking at either car.

you’ve misunderstood and consequently misrepresented the MBFC rankings.

“The issue is that MBFC’s ratings are politically motivated…”

proof?

You don’t like the founder personally, but there’s no proof of what you’re saying about MBFC.

“The fact that their rating system is convoluted and needs a page of explanation is definitely a demerit though.”

Two brief, concise paragraphs of specific context that explains their media bias rankings, the whole point of the site.

Your entire baseless complaint is that the rankings can’t be trusted, while exposing yourself as never having actually read any of the rankings past the first word.

no sweat. The mbfc meter is more nuanced than it appears.

“mixed” is one metric.

As for news credibility based on bias, spin and fact-checking,

Breitbart has “Low Credibility”

and

The Guardian has “Medium Credibility”

You don’t understand how that site works.

“mixed” is one metric.

As for news credibility based on bias, spin and fact-checking,

MBFC rates the Guardian overall as “MEDIUM credibility” within the context explained below.

and

MBFC rates Breitbart overall as “LOW credibility” within the context explained below.

Lets look at what MBFC actually says about The Guardian:

These media sources have a slight to moderate liberal bias. They often publish factual information that utilizes loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by appeals to emotion or stereotypes) to favor liberal causes. These sources are generally trustworthy for information but may require further investigation. See all Left-Center sources.

Overall, we rate The Guardian as Left-Center biased based on story selection that moderately favors the left and Mixed for factual reporting due to numerous failed fact checks over the last five years. Detailed Report Bias Rating: LEFT-CENTER Factual Reporting: MIXED Country: United Kingdom MBFC’s Country Freedom Rank: MOSTLY FREE Media Type: Newspaper Traffic/Popularity: High Traffic MBFC Credibility Rating: MEDIUM CREDIBILITY

and Breitbart:

"QUESTIONABLE SOURCE A questionable source exhibits one or more of the following: extreme bias, consistent promotion of propaganda/conspiracies, poor or no sourcing to credible information, a complete lack of transparency, and/or is fake news. Fake News is the deliberate attempt to publish hoaxes and/or disinformation for profit or influence (Learn More). Sources listed in the Questionable Category may be very untrustworthy and should be fact-checked on a per-article basis. Sources on this list are not considered fake news unless specifically written in the reasoning section for that source. See all Questionable sources.

Overall, we rate Breitbart Questionable based on extreme right-wing bias, the publication of conspiracy theories and propaganda, as well as numerous false claims. Detailed Report Reasoning: Extreme Right, Propaganda, Conspiracy, Failed Fact Checks Bias Rating: RIGHT Factual Reporting: MIXED Country: USA Press Freedom Rating: MOSTLY FREE Media Type: Website Traffic/Popularity: High Traffic MBFC Credibility Rating: LOW CREDIBILITY"

BBC is rated pretty high, as i recall.

Yea, BBC is rated high center-left:

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/bbc/

Breitbart is rated Mixed far-right, two rankings lower as a “questionable source”

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/breitbart

again, these are simple assumptions you’re making that you could have checked before making such a stand.

everything you said is wrong because you couldn’t be bothered to check the facts.

i think you are, yes.

I’m trying to establish if your multiple assumptions above are based in fact or just a few somethings you’ve made up, which I’d hardly call an argument.

It sounds like you’re saying “If x were true, then y cant be trusted”.

Is x true?