643

'Easy to Pay for Something That Costs Less': New Study Shows Medicare for All Would Save US $5.1 Trillion Over Ten Years (www.commondreams.org)

submitted 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) by Five@slrpnk.net to c/politics@lemmy.world

57 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Other places to discuss US News and Politics that don't endorse a political science charlatan's attempt to shift the overton window to the right:

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[+] MediaBiasFactChecker@lemmy.world -12 points 4 months ago

Common Dreams Media Bias Fact Check Credibility: [High] (Click to view Full Report)

Name: Common Dreams Bias: Left
Factual Reporting: High
Country: United States of America
Full Report: https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/common-dreams/

Check the bias and credibility of this article on Ground.News

Thanks to Media Bias Fact Check for their access to the API.
Please consider supporting them by donating.

Footer

Beep boop. This action was performed automatically. If you dont like me then please block me.💔
If you have any questions or comments about me, you can make a post to LW Support lemmy community.

[-] Five@slrpnk.net 26 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

Dave M. Van Zandt has no academic media literacy qualifications. He's not a social scientist. He should not be running a site that is being used to censor news feeds.

He admits that his system for judging 'bias' is pseudoscience, but at the same time claims that MBFC's purpose is to debunk pseudoscience. He appears to have no idea what science is. His methods for rating credibility are not public, repeatable, or by his own admission falsifiable.

He is actively harming media diversity and LW should be ashamed for taking this charlatan seriously.

[-] finley@lemm.ee -2 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

Admitting that measuring bias is inherently subjective does not make it pseudoscience, and the methodologies used to measure each publications bias are listed on each page. This is not tantamount to “pseudoscience.”

It’s never presented as more than an opinion, and you’re free to disagree with it.

[-] Five@slrpnk.net 8 points 4 months ago

methodologies used to measure each publications bias are listed on each page.

What do you think methodology means in the context of science?

load more comments (2 replies)

this post was submitted on 03 Aug 2024

643 points (98.8% liked)

politics

19248 readers

2418 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

• Register To Vote

• Citizenship Resource Center

• Congressional Awards Program

• Federal Government Agencies

• Library of Congress Legislative Resources

• The White House

• U.S. House of Representatives

• U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

• News