This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.
Bias against Trump
Register | Edit Profile | Subscriptions | Forum Rules | Log In
 Stirlingsays  30 Nov 21 11.00pm |
   |
|---|---|
|
'Read the article which comes from an independent, objective, non-political fact checking site' (Wisbech Eagle) Ok, let's at this claim....let's look at who funds them. Right off the bat it says: 'In 2018, PolitiFact was acquired by the Poynter Institute, a nonprofit school for journalists.' Ok, Poynter owns the site....I wonder who owns Poynter and what their politics are: Let's look at what 'influencewatch' have to say: 'The Poynter Institute for Media Studies is a nonprofit journalism institution located in St. Petersburg, Florida. It owns and controls Times Publishing Company, which publishes the Tampa Bay Times and previously published Congressional Quarterly. Poynter operates the controversial left-of-center PolitiFact fact-checking organization, which was launched by its subsidiary St. Petersburg Times in 2007. Critics have argued that Politifact’s style of “fact-checking” purports to adjudicate whether a particular statement is factually true or false but instead launders biased opinion analysis by making non-factual interpretive and judgment calls, typically in a manner favorable to liberals and Democrats and hostile to conservatives and Republicans.' 'In 2017, the Poynter Institute received $1.3 million from the Omidyar Network and the Open Society Foundations in order to support new projects in three main areas: fact-checking technology, impact tracking, and financial awards through innovation grants and crowdfunding matches'.....Owner of the 'open society Foundations'....George Soros.....Bingo! So politically independent that one. I can see that it receives over 500 grand in individual donations, which is uncheckable. However, when you look down the list of identifiable funders for politifact you see well known Democrat supporters Google, Facebook....heavy Democratic funders. In fact, I don't see one, not one Republican funder. oh look, you even have Chinese owned TikTok....yeah well known independent and objective non political sites there. 75 grand from Democracy fund....who are they I wonder: 'The Democracy Fund is a public policy-oriented foundation chaired and principally funded by eBay founder and former chairman Pierre Omidyar.[1] The organization contributes to center-left and left-wing media organizations, groups seeking to infringe on campaign speech rights, left-of-center voter registration organizations, and nominally non-aligned public policy organizations.' Craig Newmark Philanthropies: $100,000 (Misinformation coverage around COVID-19) Who are they I wonder...who funds them. 'The Craig Newmark Foundation, also known as Craig Newmark Philanthropies, is a grantmaking organization launched by Craig Newmark, a billionaire businessman and the founder of the online marketplace Craigslist. The organization funds initiatives that support left-of-center journalism, oppose election integrity legislation, and suppress right-of-center narratives in the news.' Oh look. 'In 2016, the Craig Newmark Foundation awarded a $1 million grant to the Poynter Institute for Media Studies, the nonprofit journalism institution which operates the controversial fact-checking website PolitiFact. ' In my view WE is talking out of his Cornwall again.
'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen) |
|
 Alert a moderator to this post |
  |
| Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 30 Nov 21 11.48pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Stirlingsays
'Read the article which comes from an independent, objective, non-political fact checking site' (Wisbech Eagle) Ok, let's at this claim....let's look at who funds them. Right off the bat it says: 'In 2018, PolitiFact was acquired by the Poynter Institute, a nonprofit school for journalists.' Ok, Poynter owns the site....I wonder who owns Poynter and what their politics are: Let's look at what 'influencewatch' have to say: 'The Poynter Institute for Media Studies is a nonprofit journalism institution located in St. Petersburg, Florida. It owns and controls Times Publishing Company, which publishes the Tampa Bay Times and previously published Congressional Quarterly. Poynter operates the controversial left-of-center PolitiFact fact-checking organization, which was launched by its subsidiary St. Petersburg Times in 2007. Critics have argued that Politifact’s style of “fact-checking” purports to adjudicate whether a particular statement is factually true or false but instead launders biased opinion analysis by making non-factual interpretive and judgment calls, typically in a manner favorable to liberals and Democrats and hostile to conservatives and Republicans.' 'In 2017, the Poynter Institute received .3 million from the Omidyar Network and the Open Society Foundations in order to support new projects in three main areas: fact-checking technology, impact tracking, and financial awards through innovation grants and crowdfunding matches'.....Owner of the 'open society Foundations'....George Soros.....Bingo! So politically independent that one. I can see that it receives over 500 grand in individual donations, which is uncheckable. However, when you look down the list of identifiable funders for politifact you see well known Democrat supporters Google, Facebook....heavy Democratic funders. In fact, I don't see one, not one Republican funder. oh look, you even have Chinese owned TikTok....yeah well known independent and objective non political sites there. 75 grand from Democracy fund....who are they I wonder: 'The Democracy Fund is a public policy-oriented foundation chaired and principally funded by eBay founder and former chairman Pierre Omidyar.[1] The organization contributes to center-left and left-wing media organizations, groups seeking to infringe on campaign speech rights, left-of-center voter registration organizations, and nominally non-aligned public policy organizations.' Craig Newmark Philanthropies: 0,000 (Misinformation coverage around COVID-19) Who are they I wonder...who funds them. 'The Craig Newmark Foundation, also known as Craig Newmark Philanthropies, is a grantmaking organization launched by Craig Newmark, a billionaire businessman and the founder of the online marketplace Craigslist. The organization funds initiatives that support left-of-center journalism, oppose election integrity legislation, and suppress right-of-center narratives in the news.' Oh look. 'In 2016, the Craig Newmark Foundation awarded a million grant to the Poynter Institute for Media Studies, the nonprofit journalism institution which operates the controversial fact-checking website PolitiFact. ' In my view WE is talking out of his Cornwall again. Who says all this? Who says they are "controversial and left of centre"? "Influencewatch", who are owned by the "Capital Research Centre". Who the hell are they? Capital Research Center (CRC) is an American conservative non-profit organization located in Washington, D.C. Its stated purpose is "to study non-profit organizations, with a special focus on reviving the American traditions of charity, philanthropy, and voluntarism." According to The Washington Post, it also discourages donations by corporations and non-profits supporting what it sees as liberal or anti-business policies. It monitors the giving of major liberal donors in the U.S. In other words, they try to find mud to throw at those they dislike. Which includes those who expose liars like Trump. It's hardly surprising that good, decent business people support fact checking sites. That "influencewatch" brands them "leftish" too is just part of the mud slinging. What really matters is whether the investigations, and conclusions, made by any fact checking site make factual sense. These do. Deal with the facts, not who found them. This is no different to the principal of not attacking the poster, but answering the post. Or in times past not shooting the messenger, but listening to the message. That there are many who are determined to believe lies are what's causing so many of the problems in the USA. It's sad that there are a few here who seem prepared to join them.
For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Teddy Eagle  30 Nov 21 11.54pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
Who says all this? Who says they are "controversial and left of centre"? "Influencewatch", who are owned by the "Capital Research Centre". Who the hell are they? Capital Research Center (CRC) is an American conservative non-profit organization located in Washington, D.C. Its stated purpose is "to study non-profit organizations, with a special focus on reviving the American traditions of charity, philanthropy, and voluntarism." According to The Washington Post, it also discourages donations by corporations and non-profits supporting what it sees as liberal or anti-business policies. It monitors the giving of major liberal donors in the U.S. In other words, they try to find mud to throw at those they dislike. Which includes those who expose liars like Trump. It's hardly surprising that good, decent business people support fact checking sites. That "influencewatch" brands them "leftish" too is just part of the mud slinging. What really matters is whether the investigations, and conclusions, made by any fact checking site make factual sense. These do. Deal with the facts, not who found them. This is no different to the principal of not attacking the poster, but answering the post. Or in times past not shooting the messenger, but listening to the message. That there are many who are determined to believe lies are what's causing so many of the problems in the USA. It's sad that there are a few here who seem prepared to join them.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Stirlingsays 01 Dec 21 12.34am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
Who says all this? Who says they are "controversial and left of centre"? "Influencewatch", who are owned by the "Capital Research Centre". Who the hell are they? Capital Research Center (CRC) is an American conservative non-profit organization located in Washington, D.C. Its stated purpose is "to study non-profit organizations, with a special focus on reviving the American traditions of charity, philanthropy, and voluntarism." According to The Washington Post, it also discourages donations by corporations and non-profits supporting what it sees as liberal or anti-business policies. It monitors the giving of major liberal donors in the U.S. In other words, they try to find mud to throw at those they dislike. Which includes those who expose liars like Trump. It's hardly surprising that good, decent business people support fact checking sites. That "influencewatch" brands them "leftish" too is just part of the mud slinging. What really matters is whether the investigations, and conclusions, made by any fact checking site make factual sense. These do. Deal with the facts, not who found them. This is no different to the principal of not attacking the poster, but answering the post. Or in times past not shooting the messenger, but listening to the message. That there are many who are determined to believe lies are what's causing so many of the problems in the USA. It's sad that there are a few here who seem prepared to join them. I never lied on here or spoke from ignorance saying that 'Influencewatch' was without political bias...in fact just reading it shows some bias. However, their factual statements on ownership and payments can't be denied. However, you wrote on here, either lying or speaking from ignorance that PolitiFact was an 'independent, objective, non-political fact checking site', when even just a little research shows from its funding and ownership that it's anything but. In fact I actually agree with your point that we have to look beyond claims made from clearly propaganda paid for sites and operate as objectively as possible. So the question is, did Biden call Trump's China ban xenophobic. I regard that as obvious as he didn't make any distinction in the reply to Trump's travel ban tweet until after he had been criticised. You disagree.....I accept that is what you wish to think....even though you have previously accepted that Biden lies, like all politicians, when it is politically convenient. It's obviously a judgement call.....and PolitiFact aren't going to be impartial.
'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen) |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 01 Dec 21 9.04am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Teddy Eagle
It was, and is. Politifact did. Others didn't.
For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
HKOwen  Hong Kong 01 Dec 21 9.26am |
|
|---|---|
|
Please refer to second part of my signature
Responsibility Deficit Disorder is a medical condition. Symptoms include inability to be corrected when wrong, false sense of superiority, desire to share personal info no else cares about, general hubris. It's a medical issue rather than pure arrogance. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 01 Dec 21 9.38am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Stirlingsays
I never lied on here or spoke from ignorance saying that 'Influencewatch' was without political bias...in fact just reading it shows some bias. However, their factual statements on ownership and payments can't be denied. However, you wrote on here, either lying or speaking from ignorance that PolitiFact was an 'independent, objective, non-political fact checking site', when even just a little research shows from its funding and ownership that it's anything but. In fact I actually agree with your point that we have to look beyond claims made from clearly propaganda paid for sites and operate as objectively as possible. So the question is, did Biden call Trump's China ban xenophobic. I regard that as obvious as he didn't make any distinction in the reply to Trump's travel ban tweet until after he had been criticised. You disagree.....I accept that is what you wish to think....even though you have previously accepted that Biden lies, like all politicians, when it is politically convenient. It's obviously a judgement call.....and PolitiFact aren't going to be impartial.
"Influencewatch's" statements are NOT factual statements. They are spun claims. Without having checked every one, I will assume, for the sake of argument, that the people and the amounts are right. What I don't is their political associations, or their motivations. Successful business people, who love their country and are so concerned about its direction and division, support all kinds of causes. That this includes a reputable fact checking site ought to be no surprise. Nor does it make them "lefties". "Politifact", in stark contrast to "Influencewatch", go out of their way to stress their non-political, independent, objective approach to their work. They receive administration support from a political organisation, but at arms length. They accept donations, but without restrictions as "Influencewatch" do, or in return for any favours. That they don't appear to receive too much money from "conservatives" tells me two things. Firstly, that the kind of successful businesspeople who are interested in promoting the truth tend not to be the type who would support today's "conservatives", and secondly that "conservatives" themselves are more interested in attacking those who check facts, than supporting them. The very fact that Biden's team had to explain that he had frequently called Trump xenophobic, and that he had done so again during the time that travel bans were introduced, did not mean the jibe sprung from the travel bans, only goes to demonstrate how Trump, and his own team, operate. It was intended to sow hatred in the minds of people who dislike Biden, and are prepared to believe lies, just because it confirms their bias. It isn't factual. That's what "Politifact", with carefully worded reasoning, have demonstrated. That some want it to be just a matter of opinion is all part of the Trump style. Promote misinformation and describe it as "alternative facts". Get your supporters to believe your lies are the truth. Describe the truth as "fake news". Never apologise. Accuse your critics of your own sins. It's all part of the same campaign, which people like "Influencewatch" are part of, and "Politifact" try to expose. Not because they themselves are political. Because their role is to separate fact from fiction. Successfully.
For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
 georgenorman 01 Dec 21 9.56am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
Careful, you are twisting yourself into a convoluted knot. Of course, I haven't said nothing happens unless you see it yourself! What I said was we don't know, in this instance, what was happening elsewhere at that time. It's much more likely the reporter did and chose not to provide footage of it, or his editor cut it. I am merely speculating why that particular statement was made. I don't know if I am right, or not. The reason I do so is to point out there are other explanations as to why a report like that is broadcast, to the assumed one that people like CNN are trying to hide things at the behest of a left wing conspiracy. It's that kind of assertion which enrages the right and stirs up the divide. It isn't healthy. The report was mendacious, in a similar way that many attrocities carried out by islamic extremists are often presented as 'having nothing to do with islam'. The Kenosha slogan 'fiery but largely peaceful' was a banner at the bottom of the video rather than the reporter saying it, I guess he would would have felt rather silly saying it in front of a burning building. Edited by georgenorman (01 Dec 2021 9.59am)
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 01 Dec 21 10.36am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by georgenorman
The report was mendacious, in a similar way that many attrocities carried out by islamic extremists are often presented as 'having nothing to do with islam'. The Kenosha slogan 'fiery but largely peaceful' was a banner at the bottom of the video rather than the reporter saying it, I guess he would would have felt rather silly saying it in front of a burning building. Edited by georgenorman (01 Dec 2021 9.59am) When any atrocity carried out by an extremist in the name of a religious belief is an indication of both indoctrination by someone with a warped sense of reality and/or mental illness, is it not right to try to separate it from those adherents to the religion who are as peaceful as the rest of us? Just because a fight breaks out in one corner of Selhurst, doesn't mean all Palace fans are drunk hooligans, and I would be rather upset should anyone suggest they were.
For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Forest Hillbilly  in a hidey-hole 01 Dec 21 11.01am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
When any atrocity carried out by an extremist in the name of a religious belief is an indication of both indoctrination by someone with a warped sense of reality and/or mental illness, is it not right to try to separate it from those adherents to the religion who are as peaceful as the rest of us? Just because a fight breaks out in one corner of Selhurst, doesn't mean all Palace fans are drunk hooligans, and I would be rather upset should anyone suggest they were. I think the analogy ^^^ has some strong links. I think when Islamic State , for example, committed atrocities in the name of Islam, people were expecting or hoping for Muslim leaders to distance themselves or condemn the acts conducted in the name of Islam. But they were largely silent, or unreported. Edited by Forest Hillbilly (01 Dec 2021 11.01am)
I disengage, I turn the page. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| georgenorman 01 Dec 21 11.24am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
When any atrocity carried out by an extremist in the name of a religious belief is an indication of both indoctrination by someone with a warped sense of reality and/or mental illness, is it not right to try to separate it from those adherents to the religion who are as peaceful as the rest of us? Just because a fight breaks out in one corner of Selhurst, doesn't mean all Palace fans are drunk hooligans, and I would be rather upset should anyone suggest they were. I'm not suggesting that the majority of muslims are not peaceful, I'm merely pointing out that the atrocities have a good deal to with islam and to say that they have nothing to do with islam is simply a lie. (Just as football suuporter violence does have a good deal to do with football support.) Edited by georgenorman (01 Dec 2021 11.25am)
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| georgenorman 01 Dec 21 11.27am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by georgenorman
I'm not suggesting that the majority of muslims are not peaceful, I'm merely pointing out that the atrocities have a good deal to with islam and to say that they have nothing to do with islam is simply a lie. (Just as football suuporter violence does have a good deal to do with football support and the looting and burning of businesses in Kenosha has a good deal to do with BLM.)
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Login / RegisterNew users
Registration is now on our new message board
Existing users
To login with your existing username you will need to convert your account over to the new message board.
Sponsors
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2024 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.