Phony baloney: The 9 fakest fake-news checkers

“
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."”


https://www.wnd.com/2017/02/phony-baloney-the-9-fakest-fake-news-checkers/




The whole fact check industry in my opinion is more about content controlling and censoring conservatives and Christians than they are about finding truth in the media. All of the ones covered in the article are frauds in my opinion and they are affiliated with the bogus IFCN and operated by the Poytner foundation funded by Open Society run by George Soros. The article talks of 9 such organizations and I simply highlighted the most vile and biased one of all against conservatives, Christians, and people who disagree with lord god Dave Van Zandt on any science related issue.

 

Not that long after WND printed or posted this article, the MBFC site changed their rating from right biased to “questionable” due to it being too pro Trump (propaganda) and for “pseudoscience”’due to their religious beliefs in the religion section at the site. The real motivation of course was Dave Van Zandt’s personal retaliation and retribution.

 

"Washington Post Fact Checker

The Washington Post's Fact Checker has come under fire repeatedly, as critics charge it has a left-leaning bias."

This is one of the worst in my opinion. Most of the others are really no name sites, but The Washington Post name does carry some gravitas, even though it's "fact checker" Glenn Kessler has constantly been busted for not doing any fact checking at all.

 

These sites are also suspect because they use the discredited ratings from the scandal plagued terrorist inspiring hate group enmeshed in racism, misogyny, and corruption SPLC and its gang of human scum to call mainstream conservative, Christian , and national security groups hate, as if we were anything at all like democrat founded Kkk or national socialist neo Nazis. No group that uses the SPLC ratings in their business is to be trusted.

 

Good points. The Bezos Post is little better than bird cage bottom filler anymore. The ones in the article are as you suggest for now but are growing in influence as tech an internet sources use these petty small minded people as gate keepers.

 

Oh that's rich!

And how exactly are conservatives and Christians being kept silent? Especially in light of the fact that all they care about are untruths.

 

Kessler's column long predates Bezos buying the Post. It's been a garbage pit a long time.

 

None of them are remotely credible. What they are is attempts by MSM and those seeking to piggyback into reputations/revenues by -protecting- MSM excess to control the "metamedia" via appeals to authority fallacies. They are essentially Op-ed lying about what they are. "Your Op-ed is just your opinion, but mine is framed as evaluating what is 'true'."

 

Isn't WND a fake news and sarcasm site????

 

It is a conservative site that doesn't try to conceal that and doesn't try to con people with the "fact checking" scam.

Also, the WND wiki page is a great example of the coopting of wikipedia by the gov-edu-union-contractor-grantee-trial lawyer-MSM Complex army of paid shills and hacks in public unions, gov-edu and elsewhere in the Complex. The wiki page on it is hilariously partisan biased, for a real hoot check the talk page where LW wiki editors gleefully use the wiki rules legalistically that they utterly ignore, or even worse, twist their way, on LW pages.

https://www.wnd.com/

 

As I said a fake news site!!

 

Isn't mediamatters.org paying you by the post?

 

I wish they were!!!

 

That about sums up the whole fact checkers group. Their op ed crammed down the throats of their followers is if they were oracles from on high dispensing the only truth allowed. A crock of crap for sure.

 

Only according to the left and those who drink the so called fact checkers kool aide.

 

You are right on in every point you made above.

 

“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."”



His last sentence is the truest thing the man has ever said in his lousy little life. What an absolute idiot and that’s being kind.

 

A look at Facebook and you tube and twitter would show a blatant anti conservative and anti Christian bias. It happens all across the internet as smaller outfits emulate the giants.

 

Actually so called rational wiki is even more bigoted, hate filled, and biased than Media Bias Fact Check is and that’s hard to do. Both exist to try to censor evangelical Christians and conservatives. The seeded article should have mentioned the SPLC as their fraudulent hate list is behind a lot of this bigotry against us.

 

I don't really use Facebook anymore. I don't like having all my data being tracked and who they do business with, so I only keep an account on there to occasionally check on my high school friends and family.

As for Youtube, I quite honestly have no clue what you mean, since it is all dependent on what sort of videos you search for, and just typing in "christian" yields hundreds of results, so I repeat, I have no clue of what bias you think you're seeing there. Maybe if you were to be specific it would underscore your point, but as it stands you're just bitching without showing proof of any real bias.

And Twitter? Please.....Trump tweeted over 144 tweets yesterday alone. Bias my ass!

 

You tube doesn’t always delete all conservative and Christian videos, they simply demonetized most of them so that they are not allowed access to advertising like most are. Twitter may tolerate Trump because he’s President but they are totally intolerant toward other conservatives. Besides, if they got rid of Trump as most on the left desire, it would make Parler a direct strong competitor overnight. USA Life is a new Facebook competitor, and soon 1776 Free will become an alternative to Google.

 

So your own posts proves there is no issue.

 

The fact of the matter is that there is very little black and white in politics. Almost everything is a gray area, where even the most questionable claims can cling to a kernel of truth replete with excessive spin. With that being the case, a "fact checker" is primarily applying their preconceived notions and concluding that spin that opposes their preconceived notions constitutes an untruth, and spin that supports their preconceived notions is conversely declared as "truthful".

That is not to say that there are not any black and white lies in politics, but they are the exception rather than the rule.

 

The problem with so called fact ch clerks is that they rate opinion based on their own beliefs and then rate other places as truth or questionable based on their preconceived notions. Dave Van Zandt of Media Bias Fact Check is particularly blatant in that kind of bias.

 

Yes yours Lucifer father of lies and Lord of flies.