|
|
Post by the Scribe on Mar 16, 2020 11:21:04 GMT
A "go to" thread to highlight fact check sites and fact check their fact checking.Identifying confirmation bias in media is the first step to getting at the truth. Fact checking confirmation bias in my own head is step #2.
|
|
|
|
Post by the Scribe on Mar 16, 2020 11:21:23 GMT
 IFCN INTERNATIONAL FACT-CHECKING NETWORKThe International Fact-Checking Network (IFCN) is an umbrella organization of news-checking organizations.[1] IFCN is part of The Poynter Institute. IFCN has held 5 international conferences as of 2018.[1] The IFCN has adopted a code of principles, which the European Commission regards as a model that should be followed.[2] The code of principles are:[3] ( rationalwiki.org/wiki/International_Fact-Checking_Network )
A commitment to nonpartisanship and fairness
A commitment to transparency of sources
A commitment to transparency of funding & organization
A commitment to transparency of methodology
A commitment to open and honest correctionstwitter.com/factchecknetwww.poynter.org/channels/fact-checking/CHECK OUT THIS CARTOON ABOUT FACT CHECKING:
factcheckingday.com/assets/files/hs2xhbfskr.pdf |
|
|
|
Post by the Scribe on Mar 16, 2020 11:21:48 GMT
 mediabiasfactcheck.com/ Media Bias/Fact Check (MBFC News), founded in 2015, is an independent online media outlet. MBFC News is dedicated to educating the public on media bias and deceptive news practices.
MBFC News’ aim is to inspire action and a rejection of overtly biased media. We want to return to an era of straight forward news reporting.
Funding for MBFC News comes from site advertising, individual donors, and the pockets of our bias checkers.
MBFC News follows a strict methodology for determining the biases of sources. Dave Van Zandt is the primary editor for sources. He is assisted by a collective of volunteers who assist in research for many sources listed on these pages.
MBFC News also provides occasional fact checks, original articles on media bias and breaking/important news stories, especially as it relates to USA politics.
MBFC News was founded by Dave Van Zandt in 2015. Dave studied Communications in college and over the years has focused on personal research in media bias and the role of media in politics. Dave is a registered Non-Affiliated voter who values evidence based reporting.
Learn more on our Frequently Asked Questions Page. |
|
|
|
Post by the Scribe on Mar 16, 2020 11:22:10 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by the Scribe on Mar 16, 2020 11:22:34 GMT
The Week in Fact-Checking: These people are trying to solve fake newswww.poynter.org/fact-checking/2018/the-week-in-fact-checking-these-people-are-trying-to-solve-fake-news/
May 10, 2018 Daniel Funke
Fact CheckingFact-Checking Newsletter
Category:
Fact-Checking
The Week in Fact-Checking is a newsletter about fact-checking and accountability journalism, from Poynter's International Fact-Checking Network & the American Press Institute's Accountability Project.
Sign up here. go.pardot.com/emailPreference/e/273262/325
Meet the researchers working to solve misinformation
Over the past year, interest in misinformation research has ballooned. In order to highlight some of the people working behind the scenes, Poynter’s Daniel Funke profiled a few researchers whose work has changed Facebook’s fact-checking program, been cited in countless pieces on fake news and is developing solutions for debunking deepfake videos.
The article is part two in a three-part series from Poynter on the people behind the misinformation phenomenon. Part one profiled some of the students who are working on misinformation-related projects around the world, while part three will focus on some infamous fake news writers. Have someone you think we should know about? Email factchecknet@poynter.org.
Pulitzer
(Fort Greene Focus via Flickr)
This is how we do it
Here’s how attention to detail and fact-checking helped this newsroom get a Pulitzer.
A French journalist has visited 81 schools armed with a video designed to teach kids about the dangers of conspiracy theories. From NPR’s “Pick a Number” series.
Whose job is it to teach people real journalism from fake journalism? A new report from the American Press Institute has an answer: Journalists.
Research you can use
This working paper found that delusional people and fundamentalists are more prone to falling for fake news.
Did you know that bullshitting has an academic definition? Here’s a study on the social situations that make people bullshitters.
Artificial intelligence isn’t always the answer to fighting misinformation — sometimes it’s the problem, says an AI researcher in The Conversation.
Avaaz campaigners hold a banner in front of 100 cardboard cutouts of the Facebook founder and CEO stand outside the U.S. Capitol, before Mark Zuckerberg testifies before the Senate, in Washington on Tuesday, April 10, 2018. (Kevin Wolf/AP images for AVAAZ)
This is bad
A story headlined “When a stranger takes your face” in The Washington Post details Facebook’s “failed crackdown” on fake accounts. In related(ish) news, Welsh police facial recognition technology wrongly identified more than 2,000 as potential criminals.
Introducing the fake reporter: The person you hire when real reporters won’t report your “truth.”
A state legislator in Maine said she was “shaken” to learn of her own death from a sketchy Facebook page that looks deceptively like an official police department page. The page remains on Facebook, despite complaints.
This is fun
On the Late Show, Stephen Colbert explains why he’s doubtful that President Trump’s lawyer Rudy Giuliani “will get his facts straight.”
NPR’s “Ask Me Another” show tests two guests on their ability to spot fake news.
PolitiFact did a Reddit AMA on Tuesday.
Supporters hold Mexican flags as they await the arrival of presidential candidate Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador at a MORENA party rally in the Benito Juarez district of Mexico City, Monday, May 7, 2018. (AP Photo/Rebecca Blackwell)
A Closer Look
PBS reporter Elizabeth Flock spends a week with Russian propaganda media, and finds that dezinformatsiya can really mess with your head.
Bots and trolls are becoming a nuisance in the run-up to the Mexican election, The New York Times reports.
In an effort to thwart conspiracy theories and misinformation, The Globe and Mail will partner with ProPublica to monitor political advertisements during the Canadian elections; and Facebook is blocking foreign ads during the Irish elections.
If you read one more thing
Amazon has a fake review problem, BuzzFeed News reports. (But really, who doesn’t?)
15 quick fact-checking links (go to original article for the links)
This is a contender for correction of the week.
An Internet hoax about the Parkland school shootings became real for this New York woman.
A pro-EU disinformation project wrote about a pro-Kremlin copycat of a Swedish fact-checking outlet that recently launched by copying a similar website in Norway. Say that 10 times fast.
Does the fake news industry weaponize women?
Fake news has infiltrated the world of Russian fashion stars, and parody Twitter accounts in India are attacking just about everyone.
Newsy and PolitiFact team up for a fact-checking TV show.
Government officials in Russia are worried about fake news, too, you know.
Two books for you: An excerpt from “After the Fact: The Erosion of Truth and the Inevitable Rise of Donald Trump;” and a review of the audiobook “A Field Guide to Lies: Critical Thinking in the Information Age.”
Not all filter bubbles are bad and we need to stop only blaming them for our mass misinformation problem, says a professor at the University of North Carolina.
This Turkish fact-checker Teyit launched a dashboard where readers can see which claims they’re checking in real time.
Conspiracy theories now have their own emojis on the right-wing internet.
British fact-checker Full Fact is asking readers to submit feedback on its fact-checking process.
From International Fact-Checking Day, here’s a tip sheet with 10 ways to verify viral social media videos.
The Belgian government set up a Reddit-style public consultation on solutions to disinformation.
A new family-style board game is designed to teach Swedes how to fact check.
Until next week,
Daniel, Jane, and Alexios
|
|
|
|
Post by the Scribe on Mar 16, 2020 11:23:04 GMT
check this before going to the real clear politics site:
mediabiasfactcheck.com/real-clear-politics/FACT CHECKING THE FACT CHECKERS Each week, we review fact-checking outlets that Facebook uses for guidance. Fact checks not relating to civic and public concern are discarded, and the remaining fact checks are broken into the individual claims they assess.FACT CHECK REVIEWwww.realclearpolitics.com/fact_check_review/Fact Check Review Methodology
Summary
The goal of the RCP Fact Check Review project is to understand how the flagship fact-checking organizations operate in practice, from their claim and verification sourcing to their topical focus to just what even constitutes a “fact.” To answer these questions, we have created a centralized searchable database, updated weekly, that codifies key characteristics of all fact checks bearing on issues of civic and public concern published by six major fact-checking organizations: FactCheck, the New York Times, Politifact, Snopes, the Weekly Standard, and the Washington Post. These fact checkers were selected due to their outsize influence in the fact-checking landscape and the reliance of major internet platforms such as Facebook on their decisions. Each relevant fact check is recorded using a dual coder reconciliation workflow that codifies several key attributes.
We rely on a human review workflow due to the nuanced nature of some of the attributes we compile about each fact check. While some of the basic attributes could be extracted using automated tools, many of the fields are more resistant to high-quality, automated extraction. For example, we break each fact check into the discrete claims it evaluates; summarize each claim using the fact checker’s own words; separate the list of sources to associate each source with the specific claim(s) it was used to confirm or refute; assess a claim as “fact” or “opinion”; and record whether the fact checker specifically notes that their determination was based on a lack of evidence or belief that the claim is misleading and classify each source into a type taxonomy.
Detailed Look At Coding Workflow
Each week, our two human reviewers review all six fact-checking sites and compile a list of all new fact checks published over the previous week. At the same time, they determine whether each fact check is relevant to our project or not.
This project reviews only those fact checks bearing on civic and public concern. In practice, we define this as any topic that relates to the political or social environment. Issues involving past or present public office holders or topics of national or international discussion are all included under this heading, while run-of-the-mill urban legends are not. Thus, a fact check about how many votes a U.S. senator has missed would be included, but a fact check about whether Bigfoot was sighted in Northern Virginia last week would not. If in doubt, our coders are instructed to err on the side of inclusion.
Once they have compiled the list of new fact checks and determined whether each is relevant or not, both reviewers send their lists to a reconciler who merges them together and produces a final list of the new relevant fact checks from the previous week and sends the list to both reviewers. Irrelevant fact checks are recorded in our database, but no further action is taken.
At this point, the actual coding process begins.
The first step is to break the fact check into the distinct individual “claims” being investigated. A given fact check may investigate a single claim or may examine multiple claims in the same fact check. For example, a June 2017 Politifact fact check examined a statement by Ivanka Trump, splitting it into two core claims: the first that there are six million unfilled jobs and second that the positions remained unfilled due in part to the “skills gap.” Fact checks with multiple claims may assign different rulings to each and rely on different sets of evidence to evaluate them. It is important that we record them at this native resolution of the individual claims being evaluated, as it allows us to understand the fact-checking environment at its native resolution: evaluating individual claims, rather than lumping together all claims found in a single fact check web page.
For each individual claim we record a number of pieces of information about it. The fields below record
URL. This is the URL of the fact check. A single fact check may contain multiple claims.
Date. This is the date the fact check was published. It may be in the byline at top, at the bottom, in the URL, or indicated elsewhere in the page. Left blank if not available.
Fact Checkers. The list of names of all of the fact checkers involved with this fact check. We include anyone listed in the byline of the fact check and anyone called out by name – this includes “researchers,” “editors,” “assistants,” etc.
Claim. A short, summarized version of the “claim” being evaluated by the fact checker. In some cases, the fact check provides this at the top, otherwise the reviewers identify and copy the key sentences outlining the claim.
Claim Fact/Opinion. For each claim, we assess whether the claim being reviewed by the fact checker is a statement of fact that can be definitively evaluated or whether it is a statement of opinion that rests in the eye of the beholder. The line between these may sometimes be blurry. If the claim's context makes it appear to be a figurative, rather than literal statement, we list as Opinion. For example, a statement like "there are too many immigrants in this country" would be Opinion, while "there are 10 million immigrants” would not. The idea of this field is to see whether fact checkers are focusing on factual claims that can be definitively proven or disproven or on opinions for which there is not a definitive “right” or “wrong” answer. Note that this field only evaluates whether the claim is one of fact that can be definitively evaluated, not whether the claim was determined to be true or not. Thus, “Obama was the 25th president” would be listed as Fact, since it can be definitively proven or disproven, even though it is a false statement.
Sources of Claim. Most fact checks indicate the source(s) of the claim they are investigating: in other words, where they first encountered the claim. For example, they might list a news article, web page, blog post, social media post, etc. Here we record the URL(s) of each source cited as to where the fact checker found the given claim. Sometimes this may simply say something like “NBC Interview” and not include a URL or further detail. Sources are typically cataloged via the entity making the statement, not the medium through which the source was published, and thus a CNN clip of a President Trump speech would be classified as Government, rather than Media, since the actual source of the statement is Donald Trump – CNN is simply the clip selected by the fact checker. However, if the focus of the fact check is a doctored clip in which the fact check is examining whether the video had been modified and the source itself is the focus of the fact check, then it would be listed. We review each source and classify it as one of several categories, including the following:
Business. A commercial business not covered by the other categories.
Campaign. A political campaign. This includes statements made by the reelection campaign of a sitting politician. If a candidate is elected to office, then future statements by themselves or their official government office are classified as Government, while statements from their campaign staff are classified as Campaign. A sitting politician who is campaigning for reelection will still be classified as Government, as they are always a government official even when campaigning. Statements by a political candidate directly who does not hold office are listed as Candidate.
Fact Checker. Fact checkers may cite or review the work of other fact checkers. If a fact checker uses data from a Government, Business or other source, but substantially interprets that data into a graph, it may be cited as the Fact Checker, rather than the original source, due to the interpretation.
Government. A governmental source at any level. This includes statements from government agencies, sitting officials and political candidates that currently hold governmental office.
Media. Any news media source.
Nonprofit. Non-profit entities that don’t fall into the other categories, such as being a think tank or institution of higher education. This category includes activist and advocacy groups such as the ACLU, trade unions, etc.
Reference. A dedicated general reference resource, such as an encyclopedia, Wikipedia, etc.
Think Tank. A self-identified think tank organization that focuses on providing advice and guidance on issues. For example, the Brookings Institution.
University. An institution of higher education. A think tank that is part of a university will typically be listed here.
Verdict. The fact check’s verdict regarding the claim. We also add two additional verdict labels that we assess from the fact checker’s own language:
Verdict Basis: Misleading. Some fact checks conclude that the claim is factually correct, but rate it false because the fact checker believes it is “misleading.” For example, the White House might claim that government spending is increasing, which the fact checker finds is correct, but that it is increasing less than it might otherwise be. In such a case the fact checker might list the claim as False, stating that the basis for this determination is that the claim is “misleading” or similar. In such cases we add a secondary verdict label of “Verdict Basis: Misleading” in addition to its official verdict. This label is only applied in cases where the fact-checking verdict is that the claim is false and the fact check explicitly states that the verdict is based on the claim being “misleading” or “contorted logic” or “a stretch” or similar language. In short, the reviewers are instructed not to decide on their own that a false verdict was based on a determination that the claim is misleading, but rather to only apply this label in cases where the fact checker explicitly states that the verdict is because they believe the claim is misleading.
Verdict Basis: Lack Evidence. Some fact checks conclude that a claim is false on the basis of the fact checker’s inability to locate evidence that could prove or refute it either way. For example, a fact check might examine a claim that the White House had back channel communications with a foreign power and determine that it cannot locate evidence either for or against the claim, so it is listing it as false. Again, this label is not based on an evaluation of whether the fact checker’s verdict is based on a lack of evidence, but rather is applied only in cases where a fact checker assigns a false verdict and states explicitly that this false verdict is due to a lack of evidence to assess the claim further and that they had erred on the side of rejecting it rather than leaving it as Undecided.
Sources for Verdict. This is the list of sources the fact checker relied upon to render their verdict on the claim. In essence, one can think of these as the sources of “truth” for the fact-checking community. Some fact checks provide a list of sources in an inset box on the page, but list all sources used for all claims in the fact check. For our database, we list only the sources used to evaluate each claim. Thus, a fact check which examines two separate claims and relies upon 10 sources in total, 2 for the first claim and the remaining 8 for the second claim, will have those sources properly separated in our database. All sources are classified using the same taxonomy as we use for Sources of Claims.
Once all claims have been reviewed, both reviewers submit their results to our tech team, who prepare the results to be uploaded onto the website. Any new claim or verification sources that have not been seen before are categorized into our source taxonomy and the final set of new records is then made available.
www.realclearpolitics.com/fact_check_review_methodology.html
|
|
|
|
Post by the Scribe on Mar 16, 2020 11:23:29 GMT
The Bureau of Investigative Journalism (typically abbreviated to TBIJ or "the Bureau")  Source: www.thebureauinvestigates.com/is a nonprofit news organisation based in London. It was founded in 2010 to pursue "public interest" investigations, funded through philanthropy.[1] The Bureau works with publishers and broadcasters to maximise the impact of its investigations.[2] Since its founding it has collaborated with Panorama, Newsnight, and File on 4 at the BBC, Channel 4 News and Dispatches, as well as the Financial Times, The Daily Telegraph, and The Sunday Times, among others.[3] The Bureau has covered a wide range of stories and won many awards including for its coverage of the drone wars and investigation of "joint enterprise" murder convictions.[4] Its managing editor is Rachel Oldroyd.www.thebureauinvestigates.com/
|
|
|
|
Post by the Scribe on Mar 16, 2020 11:23:53 GMT
Right Bias
mediabiasfactcheck.com/right/
These media sources are moderately to strongly biased toward conservative causes through story selection and/or political affiliation. They may 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. Some sources in this category may be untrustworthy.
Right-Center Bias
mediabiasfactcheck.com/right-center/
These media sources are slightly to moderately conservative in bias. They often publish factual information that utilizes loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes) to favor conservative causes. These sources are generally trustworthy for information, but may require further investigation.
Conspiracy-Pseudoscience
mediabiasfactcheck.com/conspiracy/
Sources in the Conspiracy-Pseudoscience category may publish unverifiable information that is not always supported by evidence. These sources may be untrustworthy for credible/verifiable information, therefore fact checking and further investigation is recommended on a per article basis when obtaining information from these sources.
Questionable Sources
mediabiasfactcheck.com/fake-news/
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 the purpose of 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. Please note sources on this list are not considered fake news unless specifically written in the reasoning section for that source.
Satire
mediabiasfactcheck.com/satire/
These sources exclusively use humor, irony, exaggeration, or ridicule to expose and criticize people’s stupidity or vices, particularly in the context of contemporary politics and other topical issues. Primarily these sources are clear that they are satire and do not attempt to deceive.
Left Bias
mediabiasfactcheck.com/left/
These media sources are moderately to strongly biased toward liberal causes through story selection and/or political affiliation. They may 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 liberal causes. Some sources in this category may be untrustworthy.
Left-Center Bias
mediabiasfactcheck.com/leftcenter/
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 using appeal to emotion or stereotypes) to favor liberal causes. These sources are generally trustworthy for information, but may require further investigation.
|
|
|
|
Post by the Scribe on Mar 16, 2020 11:24:16 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by the Scribe on Mar 16, 2020 11:24:42 GMT
Snopes is a Least Biased Source despite what you may have readPosted on February 26, 2017
mediabiasfactcheck.com/2017/02/26/snopes-is-a-least-biased-source-despite-what-you-may-have-read/
We receive about 50 or more contacts per day from people submitting sources to add to the website, fact check requests and complaints and/or suggestions to improve the website. Today, I want to address a complaint that we frequently receive. This complaint involves Snopes. Almost every morning I awaken to a person saying we are wrong to list Snopes as “least biased” because they believe they are extremely liberal. This of course leads to accusations that MBFC is liberally biased. I typically don’t respond to these, but I feel now is the time to address this publicly as it happens daily. By the way, we also get mail accusing us of being extreme right. As I have said on many occasions, I see this as doing a good job. If hate mail only came from one group I would reconsider.
I want to clarify why Snopes is least biased (not unbiased), as to be completely unbiased defies human nature. We all have biases and no matter how hard we try most of us will fall victim to confirmation bias (gravitating toward information that feels right to you even though it might be wrong). I believe confirmation bias plays a huge role in how people perceive fact checkers. I also believe that the right wing media campaign to discredit fact checkers plays a significant role. When I ask people to list credible fact checkers, who are not Snopes, Politifact, Factcheck etc. I never get an answer. My thought is that if these sources are not credible there must be other credible sources. Who are they and what established criteria are they using?
When we evaluate a source we strictly use our methodology that looks at 4 criteria. Every source goes through this process. I want to break down Snopes for you so that you can see how and why it scores least biased by our criteria.
We always evaluate a minimum of 10 articles, or more, if necessary to be accurate. First, we look at wording. This starts by looking at the headlines. Do the headlines have loaded (emotional) words in them? Yes or no? We then move on to compare that the headlines match the actual content of the article. We score on a 0 – 10 scale, with 0 being perfect and 10 being dreadful. This has a subjective component as what might be dreadful to one reviewer might be more tolerable to another. Hence, why we have multiple reviewers. Back to Snopes. On wording and headlines we score Snopes at 0. Their headlines usually just ask a question and do not convey emotion or opinion. The actual content of the article matches the headline without deception. It asks the question and then answers it using sources to support the claim.
Next, we look at how factual/well sourced the articles are. Do they list sources and are they credible? In other words, are they going directly to the source, such as transcripts of what someone said and/or to low biased news agencies such as Reuters etc. On sourcing, Snopes always lists where the info comes from and when they cannot be certain they list the claim as Unproven or Mixed. On factual sourcing we score them 0 again as they are very thorough.
The third step is to look at reporting choices. Does the source report both liberal and conservative view points and do they cover them equally? Snopes fact checks everything. If you go to their page right now you will see they are covering a diverse collection of claims. On story selection we score Snopes a 2. This means that they tend to fact check more conservative claims than liberal, but not by very much. We don’t have a raw total, but a basic scan reveals it is close.
Lastly, we look at their political affiliation. This is pretty much a summary of everything we have learned through the first 3 steps and then factor in research about the people behind the website and also funding. Snopes was founded by David Mikkelson who is a political independent, and the website is funded through advertising and not corporate/political donations. Therefore, we score Snopes a 2 on political affiliation as they do cover more conservative fact checks by a very small margin and funding does not seem to be a factor.
If you add up our scores 0 + 0 + 2 + 2 = 4. and then divide this score by 4 and we get a score of 1. Any score between 0-2 is listed as least biased. Snopes is listed on the left side of least biased by our criteria, but not enough to be considered Left-Center.
I know this will not convince all that Snopes is least biased, but I hope it sheds light on the methodology and why it scores the way it does. I am certain I will have many complaints regarding why many right wing claims are false and that perhaps is another article and there is an explanation for that too.
I am expecting this article will not go over well with some.
By Dave Van ZandtWho's The True Boss Of Snopes? Legal Fight Puts Fact-Check Site At Risk3:43
LISTEN ondemand.npr.org/anon.npr-mp3/npr/atc/2017/07/20170726_atc_fact-checking_website_snopes_is_fighting_to_stay_alive.mp3?orgId=1&topicId=1020&d=223&p=2&story=539576135&siteplayer=true&dl=1
TRANSCRIPT www.npr.org/2017/07/26/539576135/fact-checking-website-snopes-is-fighting-to-stay-alive
July 26, 20174:53 PM ET
Heard on All Things Considered
David Folkenflik 2018 square
DAVID FOLKENFLIK
|
|
|
|
Post by the Scribe on Mar 16, 2020 11:25:06 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by the Scribe on Mar 16, 2020 11:25:32 GMT
and yet another one. I haven't researched this one yet:
www.allsides.com/about
AllSides strengthens our democracy with balanced news, diverse perspectives, and real conversation.
We expose people to information and ideas from all sides of the political spectrum so they can better understand the world — and each other. Our balanced news coverage, media bias ratings, civil dialogue opportunities, and technology platform are available for everyone and can be integrated by schools, nonprofits, media companies, and more.How AllSides Frees You from Filter BubblesAllSides
Published on Jan 14, 2019
Media bias and polarization are destroying us. News, social media and search results have become so narrowly filtered, biased and personalized that we are becoming less informed and less tolerant of different people and ideas.
AllSides frees people from filter bubbles so they can better understand the world — and each other.
AllSides.com provides balanced news and media bias ratings, exposing people to information and ideas from all sides of the political spectrum.
Our media bias ratings use a patented system to reveal the average judgement of Americans. Our civil dialogue programs help people and students to build relationships with people who are different from them.
Get balanced news, civil dialogue and more:
www.AllSides.com
|
|
|
|
Post by the Scribe on Mar 16, 2020 11:25:57 GMT
This is one of the best examples of media bias and propaganda ever published. They use a mix of facts, myth and conjecture to perpetuate an ideology at the core of today's cult of conservatism in a most effective way. The Left can see right through it but can the moderate middle? The right will accept it unquestionably as it is merely confirmation bias. It hits home with Ronstadt fans and hard core conservatives and speaks to today's divisive political culture. It is worth picking apart, discussing and exposing. www.americanthinker.com/blog/2020/01/cnn_exploits_an_impaired_linda_ronstadt_to_attack_president_trump.htmlJanuary 4, 2020
CNN exploits an impaired Linda Ronstadt to attack President Trump
By Peter Barry Chowka
For more than a month, CNN has been hyping its showing this week of a new biographical documentary film about the famous singer and recording artist, Linda Ronstadt. At age 73 now, Ronstadt has been out of the public eye for the past decade after being diagnosed with a serious, degenerative neurological condition — initially thought to be Parkinson's but in late 2019 confirmed to be progressive supranuclear palsy. The 95-minute-long documentary, Linda Ronstadt: The Sound of My Voice, was co-produced by CNN and had its television premiere in prime time on CNN on New Year's Day. It will re-air tonight, January 4, at 9 P.M. E.T./P.T.
The film itself was bad enough (see below). But on New Year's Eve, exactly one day before its showing, CNN anchor Anderson Cooper goaded Ronstadt into an on-camera interview shown on his prime-time program AC 360 so she could contribute to the channel's non-stop bashing of President Trump. Not surprisingly, the interview made big news across the mainstream media landscape. Newsweek summarized the salient points in an article titled "Linda Ronstadt Compares Donald Trump to Adolf Hitler":
Screen shot: Linda Ronstadt on AC 360, CNN, December 31, 2019.
In her conversation with Cooper, Ronstadt, like all of the president's left-wing critics who decry him as another Hitler, failed to cite any evidence for her assertions or examples of the POTUS's alleged dictatorial actions. Her claims that Germany's "intelligentsia," "literati," and "all the artists" "didn't speak out" against Hitler — and that there is some sort of parallel situation in the U.S. today — are absurd. In reality, the anti-Trump Resistance demanding his ouster has been a powerful and omnipresent force opposing the president in American popular culture, the media, academia, and other sectors since before President Trump was even inaugurated.
It turns out that Ronstadt is not new to the anti-Trump Resistance. On September 28, 2017, The Guardian published an interview with her. In response to the question "What do you think will happen under Donald Trump?," Ronstadt replied:
It's a genuine national emergency. What he wants is to be in control of the media, and he has an acute instinct for the lowest common denominator — he knows how to go really low. So if we don't wake up, he could turn us into a dictatorship. I've read a lot on the history of Hitler, and people keep drawing comparisons ... they're so staggering — it's step by step by step. He's isolating us, he's taking us out [of contact] with South America, Mexico, Canada ... if we get attacked from outside, who's going to come to our rescue if we've isolated ourselves from our neighbours?
In the same interview, Ronstadt made the strange admission "I don't like any of my [28] albums," adding that she never listens to them.
The CNN documentary
I happen to know a few things about Ronstadt and her career, having reported extensively on former California Gov. Jerry Brown between 1976 and 1992. For approximately five years, starting around 1976 when the two encountered each other at Lucy's El Adobe Cafe in Los Angeles, Ronstadt was Brown's girlfriend. www.americanthinker.com/articles/2010/06/jerry_browns_distasteful_campa.html
Linda Ronstadt with Calif. Gov. Jerry Brown, Jackson Browne, and the Eagles after a benefit concert for Brown's first presidential campaign raised over $200,000 from a capacity crowd of 18,500 at the Capitol Centre, Landover, Maryland May 14, 1976.
Photo © by Peter Barry Chowka.
The CNN documentary gave short shrift to Ronstadt's relationship with Jerry Brown. It turns out that the supposed comprehensive biographical review of Ronstadt's life and career was a self-serving, hagiographic whitewash, orchestrated and approved by Ronstadt herself. Any rough edges were expertly smoothed out. A lot of essential history and information was left on the cutting room floor.
In a review of the program, Variety revealed that Ronstadt exerted a large degree of control over the film's production. variety.com/2019/tv/news/linda-ronstadt-cnn-documentary-pompeo-voice-1203453285/
Although several of Ronstadt's romantic liaisons were referenced, it was not mentioned that she had never married and that she is the single mother of two adopted children. Perhaps the most glaring omission in this author's opinion was the fact that brilliant musician and producer Andrew Gold, Ronstadt's principal musical collaborator in the 1970s, was not mentioned at all. It was Gold, who died in 2011, who arranged, played on, and co-produced Ronstadt's five most successful albums, including her 1974 tour de force breakout LP Heart Like a Wheel that featured her only number one single hit, "You're No Good." As anyone who understands popular music knows, it is a producer in the studio who — more than anyone else in the process — ensures the success or failure of a recorded work. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Gold
Another inexplicable aspect of the film entailed a soundbite, which CNN highlighted and used in its promos, that featured singer Emmylou Harris insisting that Ronstadt was — to paraphrase — the first female rock 'n' roll star. What about earlier female rock icons like Aretha Franklin, Diana Ross, Connie Francis, Grace Slick, and Janis Joplin, I wondered?
The film leaned heavily on Ronstadt's Latino background, which in reality, according to Wikipedia (citing a variety of primary sources), represented only one part of her multi-ethnic heritage.
While the film noted repeatedly and approvingly that Ronstadt grew up singing traditional Mexican songs in Spanish with her family, she commented later in the film that she doesn't speak Spanish and was basically lip-syncing lyrics in Spanish as a child. Her crowning achievement as an artist, according to the production, was her 1987 album of Mariachi songs sung in Spanish, "Canciones de mi Padre" (Songs of My Father).
Fortunately, the film wasn't all bad, with the best or most interesting parts being archival clips of musicians and performers of the past before they achieved fame, including members of the Eagles. Jackson Browne, Joni Mitchell, and James Taylor.
While CNN appears to have had high hopes for its Ronstadt documentary being a runaway hit with the viewing audience, when the ratings came out two days later it had clearly underperformed. The Ronstadt program did manage to win its 9 P.M. E.T. time slot in the Nielsen ratings but only barely. According to TVNewser www.adweek.com/tvnewser/scoreboard-wednesday-jan-1/425676/ , Linda Ronstadt: The Sound of My Voice, had 1.9 million total viewers compared with second place Fox News that ran a pre-recorded Hannity "special" featuring the host's past monologues that got 1.53 million viewers. The margin of victory in the preferred demographic (viewers 25-54) was even tighter, as CNN had 295,000 viewers in that metric compared to Fox News's 234,000. The number one program in total viewers that day on all of cable news wasn't even in prime time; it was the 5 P.M. E.T. showing on Fox News of The Five New Year's Day Special, with 1.94 million viewers.
As noted, readers interested in checking out the Ronstadt program for themselves have two more chances tonight at 9 P.M. E.T./P.T. when it repeats on CNN. The competition tonight, however, will be tough: A brand new live episode of Justice with Judge Jeanine is on the Fox News channel at 9 P.M. and that show is almost always the highest rated program on cable news every week on Saturdays.
Peter Barry Chowka is a veteran journalist who writes about politics, media, popular culture, and health care for American Thinker and other publications. Peter's website is peter.media. His new YouTube channel is here. Follow Peter on Twitter at @pchowka.
Read more: www.americanthinker.com/blog/2020/01/cnn_exploits_an_impaired_linda_ronstadt_to_attack_president_trump.html#ixzz6AR6kLTVJ
Follow us: @americanthinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook
|
|
|
|
Post by the Scribe on Aug 4, 2021 12:16:19 GMT
|
|
