CNN, caught in a leaked video, FAKING a muslim protest against the London Bridge Attack.

That was one of the weirder articles I have read. Didn't seem the author had any real evidence of bias, but instead he pieced together a few assumptions of bias based on his "friend's" willingness or unwillingness to answer questions like "are their democrats on your writing staff?' and "did any of them run for office?"

Or am I missing something?

Seems to me if I worked for Snopes I wouldn't believe I was automatically unqualified to perform my job regardless of my political affiliation. I'd expect that if I was allowing partisan bias to be reflected in my work I would be removed from the job. I't also expect that political affiliation would not be the subject of conversations with reporters.

I work in an industry where one of the most important analyses that effect customer purchase decisions is called a "Magic Quadrant" and much of the analysis is performed without much transparency to the reader. People that don't do well in these analyses usually complain about the lack of transparency. But for the most part the analyst and the analyses are accepted as unbiased.

It would be much more compelling an argument If the author in this article had specific issues that could be proven back to the background of the "fact-checker". But in this case it was more of a "when did you stop beating your wife" accusation of bias.

 

That article does not support a claim that the fact checking is inaccurate or slanted.

The site founder being unable to discuss his divorce has no relation to the veracity of the fact checking on the site. Quite a leap.

 

They haven't been concerned about any issues over the last 8yrs so why would they start now.

 

I also read this article and found it to be quite weak. Here are its premises: 1) if the author feels surprised, there must be something wrong. 2) People who have been associated with a political party cannot determine facts.

My responses: 1) the author of the article, by his own analysis, must have many biases and is therefore unable to identify the truth. Look at his lengthy resume. 2) The author implies that no one in government can determine what is a fact. I disbelieve him. 3) The author implies that his readers, if they ever have voted, cannot know what is true, which makes his writing useless to probably 90% of his audience, including me and probably you.

The author's history of bias (Washington insider, techie, university egghead, globalist):