It's mostly an embedded clip from MSNBC; clicking the linked article can be informative!
I'm also not sure what bias you are accusing Meidas Touch of in the headline (since we know you didn't get any further than that)? Is it the part about the maga convoy being confused? We know they are easily led from one moral outrage to another without really understanding the issues.
The part about there not being an invasion at the border? It's obvious there isn't anything of the sort happening, because the people that are claiming it's happening are the same ones who just said that they refuse to do anything about it for a year, until (they hope) Trump is president.
I’m also not sure what bias you are accusing Meidas Touch of in the headline (since we know you didn’t get any further than that)?
If only someone had provided a link that would have answered that question, you know, in the post you replied to. I guess you were the one who couldnt get that far.
Sure, but all the MBFC link proves is that Meidas Touch has an unapologetic left-leaning bias, and they tend to only bother running stories that support that bias. Unlike many other "mixed" factual reporting news sites, they're not in that category for lying and/or spreading misinformation. This suggests that the article is true. There's no value in your original insinuation that there's something wrong with the source of this information, as per your own link.
MeidasTouch does not have a reputation for giving factual information, and its extreme bias makes it inherently untrustworthy.. and despite what you claim about them not lying/spreading misinformation, mediabiascheck cites 3 different times they've failed a fact check because they were spreading false/made up information.
The real question is why you think its not okay to call out bad sources if they are left leaning. Which is what you surely seem to be implying, with your blatant misrepresentation of whats on the mediabiasfact page about mediastouch and how hard you are trying to defend meidastouch despite a documented history of being fast and lose with facts and truth.
But you wont answer that
No, I wager you'd be more inclined to drill into one factual thing in one article and use that to handwave away meidastouch's problematic patterns, because your bias is more important than reputable sources and factual reporting.. because thats what you're already doing here, and now.
Overall, we rate MeidasTouch Left Biased based on the negative portrayal of Donald Trump and Republicans and the promotion of Democratic candidates. We also rate them Mixed for factual reporting due to a lack of transparency with funding and the publication of one-sided content that can be misleading.
?
Just working with your sources. I don't care about Meidas Touch. I hadn't even heard of them before I stumbled into this thread.
I think it's okay to accept that everything and everyone has a bias. Removing bias from all reporting is simply impossible, so instead we work to understand our bias' and the bias' of others and instead call out non-factual reporting. So, to answer your question, I think it's okay to call out bad sources for being bad regardless of their lean, but I also don't think having a noteworthy lean makes a sourcebinherently bad.
I don't appreciate the straw man you're attempting to build for me. Trying to angrily have my half of the conversation while spewing a pile of assumptions about what I think is a bad look. Unless the look you're going for is "a random idiot", which, I mean, when someone tells you who they are, believe them.
MeidasTouch does not have a reputation for giving factual information
prove it, where are the lies and misinformation?
The real question is why you think its not okay to call out bad sources if they are left leaning.
No, the real question is why you think left leaning bias = bad source.
MBFC says this:
Overall, we rate MeidasTouch Left Biased based on the negative portrayal of Donald Trump and Republicans and the promotion of Democratic candidates. We also rate them Mixed for factual reporting due to a lack of transparency with funding and the publication of one-sided content that can be misleading.
None of that has anything to do with false 'facts' and the like, bias doesn't equal bad source until said bias leads to the degradation of truth in the reporting.
trying to defend meidastouch despite a documented history of being fast and lose with facts and truth.
again, where is the proof? You can't just speak things into existence. YOU are the one bringing this accusation, so YOU are the one with the onus to provide proof of said accusations.
The "border crisis" is made up. If we opened our borders, suddenly there wouldn't be a "crisis" anymore and the vast majority of Americans would see no change in their day-to-day lives.
America needs to stop worrying about non existent issues and focus more on taking care of their citizens.
I see what you're doing here, but I'm afraid you were doomed the moment you linked a 23 minute video. People don't have that kind of attention spans for their own family, let alone a stranger trying to make a point on the internet.
There's literally a border crisis. A huge one. Anyone saying otherwise is too blind to see the trees for the forest.
I didn't make a mistake posting a video. Others made a mistake making huge assumptions and slinging shit immediately. I'm not responsible for others jumping the gun.
It's not an army of people storming the gates to take over the country it's individuals or families trying to climb a wall or swim across a dangerous river and risking death to try and escape a bad situation or make a new life for themselves. Or in regards to legal immigrants struggling to be processed it's an issue with a lack of resources allocated to them. Maybe some of them are criminals but contrary to popular belief most criminals that deal in border crossing either have a way of getting through the border "legally" or don't have to cross the border themselves at all. And it's the "criminals storming the gates" style of border crisis that these people in the convoy are imagining.
The last time they tried a Civil war they failed, and destroyed their own economies in the process. That time, they had some of the best generals available. This time they have Boebert and Trump to lead them,
The U.S. government has a professional army. They have nothing. And when the vast majority of the country lives paycheck-to-paycheck, you're not going to get a lot of (male, obviously, 'cause ladies is too fragile) bodies on the front lines when people can barely feed their kids on two incomes. Not without a draft. Good luck with that, Texas.
I dont think you know about the rednecks in Texas. They all have guns and have played Call of Duty. That makes them enough of a trained militia in their eyes to make a go at it.
It's not about what they believe they're capable of, it's about what they can actually afford to do. If you have two kids and a house you're just barely able to afford and are in a large amount of debt despite both adults in the household working full time jobs, you're not likely going to let your kids starve in order to fight a war of secession.
Now I wonder. Does Texas even have the ability to draft people into its own "army?" I'm sure they'd have plenty of volunteers itching to fight "the gubment," but the Selective Service my friends were a part of was for the US military.
I suppose if they secede, they can do whatever they want. They will claim sovereignty. So I suppose they could have a draft. I just don't think it would work out well for them.
I understood that pro-union misinformation and propaganda and poor understanding of history is orders of magnitude less harmful than pro-confederate, but it still bothers me. Lee was an incredible general. Jackson, Longstreet, even Early were excellent tacticians. The union could not field anyone who was a match for them until Grant and Sherman.
I haven't seen that part disputed? To my knowledge there was a very good reason Lee was the superintendent at the US Military Academy and was even offered a Union command before Virginia seceded, and this pattern holds with his underlings too. A lot of Confederate victories were beating odd against bigger Union armies.
On the contrary, I think your comment is a bit of a stretch in the other direction. Leaving variances in talent among individuals aside, the officers on both sides were broadly comparable because they had all gone through the same West Point training and were colleagues in the same chain of command, with the same strategy and doctrine, until the Southern ones turned traitor.
Lee almost took it too, he didn't want to secede but he felt like he was betraying his fellow statesmen in Virginia. People forget that before the civil war people didn't think of themselves as Americans, they thought of themselves as citizens of whatever state they were from.
From what I've read, before the War people said "...the United States are..." and after they changed it to "...the United States IS..."
Also, I like the stories that the British had agents who privately encouraged the South to fight the North in order to keep America weak. Putin didn't invent anything new
I remember when debate was getting started about the ACA (Obamacare). I was debating it with my friends older brother. He is the kind of Catholic that will shame you for not going to church.
So he's ranting about the merits of universal healthcare and I asked him what Jesus would do. Let's just say he didn't like that. He later blocked me on social media and it was the last discussion we ever had.
You mean the New York that has a fascist cop (but I repeat myself) as a mayor? The New York whose local Dem leadership is probably the second most conservative and corrupt from lack of competition after that of Chicago? That New York?
Also, if anything, Texas is potentially contributing to New York’s homeless problem by spending millions of dollars busing migrants and dropping them off at the city without any support. If these are “invaders”, then Texas is aiding the “enemy” and conducting economic warfare against the city.
I wholeheartedly accept Abbott's framing that this is an invasion. Moving invaders farther into the country they are invading is certainly providing aid and comfort. Therefore, Greg Abbott is a traitor.
Maybe they’re suggesting the MAGAians should’ve convoyed to New York instead and volunteered at some shelters, helping the least amongst us like their Bible says.
What is a convoy of retired hillbillies driving down to Texas going to do to fix that? Do you think if they go down there and start a-shootin' Messicans that somehow all the undocumented immigrants in New York will dissolve into puddles on the sidewalk?
Now if they could just take this lesson and apply it to the rest of the 'information' that is supplied by the media environment they have immersed themselves in.