Assange to go!


So you base that 'lol' on a site that is run by one guy and 5 moderators? https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/ is just another tool to stop people looking..

Check this out: https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-02-20/exposing-9-fakest-fake-news-checkers


Media Bias Fact Check
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.”

Van Zandt says he uses “three volunteers” to “research and assist in fact checking.” However, he adds that he doesn’t pay them for their services.

Van Zandt lists WND on his “Right Bias” page, alongside news organizations such as Fox News, the Drudge Report, the Washington Free Beacon, the Daily Wire, the Blaze, Breitbart, Red State, Project Veritas, PJ Media, National Review, Daily Caller and others.

“These media sources are highly biased toward conservative causes,” Van Zandt writes. “They utilize strong loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes), publish misleading reports and omit reporting of information that may damage conservative causes. Sources in this category may be untrustworthy.”

His special notes concerning WND link to Snopes.com and PolitiFact.com, websites that have their own questionable reputations and formulas as so-called “fact checkers.” (See the “Snopes” and “PolitiFact” entries below.)

Van Zandt says he uses a “strict methodology” in determining which news sources are credible, but his website offers vague and typo-ridden explanations of his criteria, such as the following:

Asked if his own political leanings influence his evaluations, Van Zandt said: “Sure it is possible. However, our methodology is designed to eliminate most of that. We also have a team of 4 researchers with different political leanings so that we can further reduce researcher bias.”

Bill Palmer of the website Daily News Bin accused Van Zandt of retaliating when the Daily News Bin contacted him about his rating. Palmer wrote:

t turns out Van Zandt has a vindictive streak. After one hapless social media user tried to use his phony ‘Media Bias Fact Check’ site to dispute a thoroughly sourced article from this site, Daily News Bin, we made the mistake of contacting Van Zandt and asking him to take down his ridiculous ‘rating’ – which consisted of nothing more than hearsay such as ‘has been accused of being satire.’ Really? When? By whom? None of those facts seem to matter to the guy running this ‘Media Bias Fact Check’ scam.



“But instead of acknowledging that he’d been caught in the act, Van Zandt retaliated against Daily News Bin by changing his rating to something more sinister. He also added a link to a similar phony security company called World of Trust, which generates its ratings by allowing random anonymous individuals to post whatever bizarre conspiracy theories they want, and then letting these loons vote on whether that news site is ‘real’ or not. These scam sites are now trying to use each other for cover, in order to back up the false and unsubstantiated ‘ratings’ they semi-randomly assign respected news outlets. …

“‘Media Bias Fact Check’ is truly just one guy making misleading claims about news outlets while failing to back them up with anything, while maliciously changing the ratings to punish any news outlets that try to expose the invalidity of what he’s doing.”

But Van Zandt accused Palmer of threatening him, and he said MediaBiasFactCheck welcomes criticism. If evidence is provided, he said, the site will correct its errors.

“Bottom line is, we are not trying to be something we are not,” he said. “We have disclaimers on every page of the website indicating that our method is not scientifically proven and that there is [sic] subjective judgments being used as it is unavoidable with determining bias.”


We can all post links to sites..
 
These sites cherry pick the "facts" to suit their view on things.

Whistleblowing is one thing, but Assange, Snowdon, etc went WAY beyond just that. They started releasing data which was completely irrelevant to what their objective was and put individuals (who had nothing to do with it) at risk. They posted random crap online and then people made a story up to fit around it.
 
Last edited:
These sites cherry pick the "facts" to suit their view on things.

Whistleblowing is one thing, but Assange, Snowdon, etc went WAY beyond just that. They started releasing data which was completely irrelevant to what their objective was and put individuals (who had nothing to do with it) at risk. They posted random crap online and then people made a story up to fit around it.

Don't bundle Snowdon in with Assange. Assange/Wikileaks have a contemptible disregard for the wellbeing of others; Snowdon ensured the information released was censored to protect innocent parties.
 
Don't bundle Snowdon in with Assange. Assange/Wikileaks have a contemptible disregard for the wellbeing of others; Snowdon ensured the information released was censored to protect innocent parties.

Snowdon is part of Russia's properganda machine now. You can bet if he decided to expose Russia's military documents he wouldn't be....alive very long.
 
I suspect that @Freakbro may just possibly have been commenting, quite reasonably, on your statement that you consider the God-awful Daily Mail to be your "Go to" source site.

The impressive thing is that he managed to list four "go to" sites of which The Daily Mail is the most credible. That really takes some doing.

I put the daily mail on there, with the specific mention that it was my go-to site, with a YELLOW WINK EMOGIE.. Obviously some can't take irony here, to make it complete obvious to everyone the daily mail, with 'this is my go-to site, and the wink emojie was a wind up!

I expected people here to be intelligent enough to be able to work that out, obviously I was wrong.
 
I put the daily mail on there, with the specific mention that it was my go-to site, with a YELLOW WINK EMOGIE.. Obviously some can't take irony here, to make it complete obvious to everyone the daily mail, with 'this is my go-to site, and the wink emojie was a wind up!

I expected people here to be intelligent enough to be able to work that out, obviously I was wrong.

No, I got that it was irony, the reason I still linked it up was to show as Mr Jack points out, that the god awful drivel of the Mail was probably the best of the 4 sites you linked! :p

If you noticed, I bolded the conspiraloon and pseudoscience elements of the other 3, which for all its faults, the Mail doesn't have
 
A murderer(Sacoolas) VS a pen pusher(Assange).

I would want Sacoolas to stand trial all day long.

Murderer! Hardly, she made a traffic error, driving in a foreign system. Foolish but then compounded by running away. I see no intent, no conspiracy. It would have been a fine, a UK driving ban maybe a suspended prison sentence for causing death by careless driving.

Assange however is and always was a fool. He was caught up in the media glory of spinning stories leaked to him with little regard for the people or consequences. He thinks himself immune. He is either a publisher or a journalist depending on which suits him best at any one time. He is not bound by any rules in his little world unlike the majority of responsible news organisations.
 
It's worthwhile remembering that Julian Assange and Wikileaks were awarded one of the most prestigious journalism awards in Australia in 2011.

Here is an update statement from April 2019 on how the Board sees recent developments:

https://www.walkleys.com/board-statement-4-16/
Given the potential adverse impact of this extradition attempt on a free, healthily functioning media, the Walkley Foundation Board urges the British and Australian governments to oppose Julian Assange’s extradition to the United States.
Trump: Hey UK, I hear you want a trade deal...

Trump: Completely unrelated, but how's Assange's extradition coming along?
 
Unlawful killing is an inquest verdict, not an offence as such. The likely trial charge would be 'causing death by careless driving' or 'causing death by dangerous driving'. The latter usually being when there are aggravating circumstances, excessive speed, drink or drugs, wanton disregard for life etc.
 
Back
Top Bottom