I acknowledge this.

Please add a sarcasm tag.

You can also do this with a bike if you’re skilled at controlling your bike’s direction from the seat pole.

Ad Fontes reports SCMP’s reliability as 41.56, which is higher than the Washington Post (39.42) and on par with the New York Times (42.00), Al Jazeera (41.55), and USA Today (41.27). Ad Fontes ranks it lower than institutions like the BBC (44.72) or NPR (43.49) as well as newswire services like Reuters (45.62), AFP (47.15), and Associated Press (45.64).

Your other references are Wikipedia and Reddit. Are you sure you don’t want to cite what Google Gemini says as well?

Edit: for reference, Ad Fontes puts FOX News at a 35.49, MSNBC at a 34.39, and the New York Post at a 32.98.

Really? Citing MBFC? What are you going to do next, ask an LLM what it thinks?

If you want to judge your media consumption off of some guy with no pictures online, no public interviews, and a “strong grasp of the scientific process” gained through (supposedly) a physiology degree and half a communications degree, be my guest. Just don’t launder it’s reliability here.

If you’re going to condemn a source, please provide evidence of cases where they have misreported in the past on similar issues.

For example, you could point to the New York Times’ article by Anat Schwartz as evidence that the New York Times has pro-Israel bias.

If you’re going to call out a source, come with evidence. For example, a time when China intentionally misrepresented import/export data to make Chinese companies look better.

You called?

If it’s the truth then cite a legitimate source. It’s not that complicated.

The fact could be “water is wet” or “the sky is blue” and I still wouldn’t let you cite a large language model.

Please do not cite large language models as if they are valid sources.

It’s the primary source, but I do agree…

Thanks for posting the single article which does not say “France is the first country to enshrine abortion rights in its constitution.” It’s not. Yugoslavia was. In 1974.

John Menadue is Former Secretary of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet of Australia

I dislike video because it’s hard to consume. If it is a video, please try to keep it as close to a primary source as possible.

In these cases, it may help to post the subtitle along with the title.

Thing is, even if he is good at media criticism, there’s no stakes for him. Nobody knows who he is, what he looks like, he has nothing on the line, and his credibility in his primary occupation cannot be harmed if he is wrong.

Nevermind that he lacks the credentials nor any legitimate scientific expertise, and yet claims that his Bachelor’s in Physiology was sufficiently advanced to teach him everything he needs to know about the scientific process.

Citing Wikipedia is lazy and reflects a lack of effort. Do better.

Dave Van Zandt is a registered Non-Affiliated voter who values evidence-based reporting. Since High School (a long time ago), Dave has been interested in politics and noticed as a kid the same newspaper report in two different papers was very different in their tone. This curiosity led him to pursue a Communications Degree in college; however, like most 20-year olds he didn’t know what he wanted and changed to a Physiology major midstream. Dave has worked in the healthcare industry (Occupational Rehabilitation) since graduating from college but never lost the desire to learn more about bias and its impacts.

The combination of being fascinated by politics, a keen eye to spot bias before he even knew what it was called, and an education/career in science gave Dave the tools required for understanding Media Bias and its implications. This led to a 20-year journey where Dave would read anything and everything he could find on media bias and linguistics. He also employed the scientific method to develop a methodology to support his assessments.

If you’re going to discredit a source, please try to do the legwork of actually discrediting it. A guy with a Bachelors in Physiology and being “fascinated with politics since high school (a long time ago)” cannot be considered a reliable source, nevermind one who claims to follow the “scientific method” which he, presumably, learned while studying to become an occupational therapist or through his 20-year journey of reading political news.

If you have photos of this man, any record of interviews with him, records that support his credibility/the incorporation of his company, records of his job in occupational rehabilitation, details about his team, or anything else, please feel free to share them. Please do not confuse him with Dave E. Van Zandt (Princeton BA Sociology, Yale JD, London School of Economics PhD, ex-managing editor of the Yale Law Journal, ex-Dean of Northeastern’s School of Law, ex-President of The New School).

deleted by creator