T
TMC
Guest
I like that website, very cool. (Media Bias, not LSN)
- Status
C
choose_to_love
Guest
Oh, sorry, the point was to show that LSN’s coverage can be very similar to other sites’ coverage.
T
TMC
Guest
Sometimes. But they have a habit of going off on Church bashing and Pope bashing rants that are troubling. I just choose to use other sources.
I
Irishmom2
Guest
I never do this, but I am muting this thread. There is not one single post here that actually is discussing the OPs topic. It went off the rails right from the second post and never got back on track. @Baho, I am sorry your topic could not be discussed.
Last edited:
C
choose_to_love
Guest
Hmmm, I’m sure that is useful to a degree, but here is MediaBias definition of “Mixed”:
Factual Reporting: MIXED = a score of 5 – 6, which means the source does not always use proper sourcing or sources to other biased/mixed factual sources. Mixed sources will have failed one or more fact checks and do not correct false or misleading information. Further, any source that does not disclose either a mission statement or ownership information will automatically be deemed Mixed as will a source that utilizes extremely loaded language that alters the context of facts, even if properly sourced and has not failed a fact check. Lastly,any source that does not support the consensus of science on such topics as Climate Change, GMO, Vaccinations, Evolution, or *any other will automatically be rated Mixed for factual reporting if one or more Mixed criteria are met abov**e.
Factual Reporting: MIXED = a score of 5 – 6, which means the source does not always use proper sourcing or sources to other biased/mixed factual sources. Mixed sources will have failed one or more fact checks and do not correct false or misleading information. Further, any source that does not disclose either a mission statement or ownership information will automatically be deemed Mixed as will a source that utilizes extremely loaded language that alters the context of facts, even if properly sourced and has not failed a fact check. Lastly,any source that does not support the consensus of science on such topics as Climate Change, GMO, Vaccinations, Evolution, or *any other will automatically be rated Mixed for factual reporting if one or more Mixed criteria are met abov**e.
M
MikeInVA
Guest
I agree. I googled the organization and USCCB, and found that the USCCB provided funds to them in 2018 (at least 2018, I didn’t look too hard). Now it falls to opinion whether it is a radical group or not. Seeing that this CAF, 50% will be certain that it is radical and the other 50% will say it’s not. Oh, and there will be some personal insults made as well.
Last edited:
Crusader13
New member
Seriously?! How do you know they hate the Pope, love trump and deny the truth??? Unless you plan on giving evidences that can refute their articles and showing how people like John-Henry Westen actually hate the Pope, don’t spread ignorance and hateful remarks like these.
C
choose_to_love
Guest
OK, I did look at the MediaBias site. One of the links that MB provides to support its evaluation of LSN’s reporting as “mostly false” claims that LSN published a headline that stated “Target is donating $100,000 to promote gay lifestyles to school children”:
mediabiasfactcheck.com
When one clicks the link, you get directed to Snopes, and the article states that the LSN headline was actually “Target stores donate $100K to LGBT nonprofit that promotes ‘inclusive’ K-12 schools.”
www.snopes.com
The Snopes article goes on to point out that the story resulted “in spin off internet postings”, which “included this widely shared internet meme” which does have the language attributed to the LSN headline.
Am I missing something? The LSN headline is apparently not what MB says it was, and the untrue part was based upon ‘spin off internet postings’, not what LSN printed, and MB is supposed to be the arbiter of neutrality and accuracy?
LifeSiteNews – Bias and Credibility
QUESTIONABLE SOURCE A questionable source exhibits one or more of the following: extreme bias, consistent promotion of propaganda/conspiracies, poor or no
mediabiasfactcheck.com
When one clicks the link, you get directed to Snopes, and the article states that the LSN headline was actually “Target stores donate $100K to LGBT nonprofit that promotes ‘inclusive’ K-12 schools.”
Is Target Donating $100,000 to 'Promote Gay Lifestyles' to School Kids?
The retail chain is donating to a charity that works to prevent the bullying of LGBT children in school.
www.snopes.com
The Snopes article goes on to point out that the story resulted “in spin off internet postings”, which “included this widely shared internet meme” which does have the language attributed to the LSN headline.
Am I missing something? The LSN headline is apparently not what MB says it was, and the untrue part was based upon ‘spin off internet postings’, not what LSN printed, and MB is supposed to be the arbiter of neutrality and accuracy?
C
choose_to_love
Guest
In fairness, OP asked about bias in various sources, so it was kind of a follow up question.
ETA: in reality, the headline of CCHD being “caught” providing funding that was provided prior to the tweets that are submitted in evidence of the character of the groups that received the funding is not really fair, unless I am misunderstanding the article.
ETA: in reality, the headline of CCHD being “caught” providing funding that was provided prior to the tweets that are submitted in evidence of the character of the groups that received the funding is not really fair, unless I am misunderstanding the article.
Last edited:
P
pnewton
Guest
When reading any website, it is good to ignore the opinion and look instead for the links. See if they link to actual data or to other rumor mills. If they link other sites, you can go there and see if they have actual links to data. Too often LSN and Lepanto link just themselves and each other back and forth. Then, once you find source data (which someone could post here if it is found), determine for yourself if it is significant.
Here are some questions based on the title. I will not give LSN a hit by clicking. First, what is a “radical group” according to a pro-Trump website? Which riot did which group support? Was the funding appropriate for the group, and was the support for a specific riot monetary? Finally, how is determined that a group was involved in criminal activity?
Here are some questions based on the title. I will not give LSN a hit by clicking. First, what is a “radical group” according to a pro-Trump website? Which riot did which group support? Was the funding appropriate for the group, and was the support for a specific riot monetary? Finally, how is determined that a group was involved in criminal activity?
I will be happy to respond to news if it is posted. I too refuse to click on that place. I personally hope someone will post source documents so we can see if there is a legitimate issue or just more of LSN slander and gossip. Can someone at least say what these “radical groups” are?24 hours later, and you guys are still not discussing the topic, but arguing about LifeSite.
C
choose_to_love
Guest
Just for context, is it Pope bashing, in your estimation, to report the situation of the Argentinian bishop referenced above?
T
TMC
Guest
Not to report the facts. But LSN posts articles accusing the Pope of all kinds of things, from idolatry to heresy and beyond. Everything the Pope says and does is put in the least favorable possible light. Its really odd that they consider themselves Catholic, given the way they go after the Church and the Pope.
P
pnewton
Guest
Okay, I was able to locate two of the groups accused of being radical. They support racial and economic justice, radical no doubt to people at LSN and Lepanto. The two were.
https://nowcrj.org/media/
https://workerscny.org/en/home/
All I could find was a Twitter from one what showed protesters chanting extreme views against the police. There is no link between these two groups and any riot, nor did they support riots, unless FOX, CNN, ABC, etc. also support riots for posting news of protests. It is a silly proposition and demonstrative of why LSN has such a low reputation as gossipy propaganda for the political right.
Lepanto is still grinding an ax against the Church over a printing contract a few years back.
https://nowcrj.org/media/
https://workerscny.org/en/home/
All I could find was a Twitter from one what showed protesters chanting extreme views against the police. There is no link between these two groups and any riot, nor did they support riots, unless FOX, CNN, ABC, etc. also support riots for posting news of protests. It is a silly proposition and demonstrative of why LSN has such a low reputation as gossipy propaganda for the political right.
Lepanto is still grinding an ax against the Church over a printing contract a few years back.
Last edited:
C
choose_to_love
Guest
“and they point to three articles” one of which, the first one I looked at, does not seem to support the conclusion that MB wants to draw, and which was set out in some detail in my post above.
S
stpurl
Guest
You mean you’re asking me to ‘prove a negative?” I’m supposed to find, not where LSN ‘is” editorializing’ but where it is ‘not’?
And of course once again you’ve moved the goal post. First you state the LSN makes UP stories, now you change to editorializing which in itself is something done on all news services to a degree.
I do not think you are being fair in your questioning. How about you revert to your original question and either apologize or state that you really MEANT they editorialized too much and give examples?
And of course once again you’ve moved the goal post. First you state the LSN makes UP stories, now you change to editorializing which in itself is something done on all news services to a degree.
I do not think you are being fair in your questioning. How about you revert to your original question and either apologize or state that you really MEANT they editorialized too much and give examples?
Last edited:
T
TMC
Guest
Nonsense.
…
T
toabb
Guest
All of the above…and then some
T
TMC
Guest
I still don’t know who the “radical groups” are.
S
stpurl
Guest
In other words, you wish to have your improper behavior ignored while projecting wrong onto others.
Have a pleasant day.
Have a pleasant day.
W
Wampa
Guest
I’ll add a specific complaint (one of several I have) to what’s already been said.
One of my problems with LifeSiteNews is that they regularly use misleading headlines to push an agenda that’s not supported by the source document/information, often intending to overstate their “victories” or the opponent’s “defeats.” This drives me crazy whether it’s a liberal or conservative agenda being pushed.
Here’s a past thread where we discussed this and I gave a concrete example (in post 16):
Personally, I don’t click any LifeSiteNews links, because I don’t trust their reporting. So just be aware that a lot of people here aren’t going to consider your thread when they are the basis for it. Give me something more credible like National Catholic Register or Catholic News Agency and then you’ve got me engaged
Last edited:
- Status