1197
Gay student says "Coach" Tim Walz protected him from homophobic bullies
(www.lgbtqnation.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 09 Aug 2024
1197 points (98.6% liked)
politics
19144 readers
2364 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
This rating is not "expecting" anything. This assessment is accurate, it IS left leaning and mostly factual, with unlabeled opinion pieces... What is the problem with identifying that? All news sites are biased, it's just how it is
Rating it as though they’ve published something that is untrue (what the average person expects from a factuality rating) when they explicitly haven’t failed fact checks is stupid AF.
Just because an opinion piece doesn't fail a fact-check doesn't mean it's not an opinion piece, and it should be labeled as such
So factor that into the bias rating, not the factuality rating, because that is about bias and not whether or not they have published things that are untrue.
Presenting an opinion as fact (such as not labeling opinion pieces) would be a factuality issue no?
Presenting things that are untrue is a factuality issue. You are describing bias.
So you're saying I'm right because an opinion is an opinion and not true or untrue. Presenting an opinion as either is a factuality issue.
If it’s not untrue then it shouldn’t affect the factuality rating, not sure why this is hard to get.
Incidentally as another user pointed out in this thread, LGBTQ Nation does label their opinion pieces as such. Until MBFC presents evidence otherwise, I’m going to conclude that what they have deemed “undisclosed opinions” are things like “trans kids exist and deserve protection”.
Did you not see the screenshot that was posted? It is labeled.
Opinions aren’t facts, though. (Even if they contain no misinformation.)
Again, I think the average person is going to see factuality rating and read it as “how much of their reporting is true or untrue” and not “what amount of their reporting could potentially contain opinions according to the guy that runs MBFC”.
If you sell opinion pieces as news then yes, that's not truthful and a completely valid criticism as people could misread it as actual news. You should rather ask why they did not fix this yet, which would not just improve their rating quite a bit, but also be an overall improvement for the readers and the overall concept of sharing information (and it is trivially easy to do so too). Crying about that feels rather weird and like agenda pushery.
Considering opinion pieces are labeled maybe MBFC should either update the rating or give specific examples.
Feel free to contact them if you think they're not up to date.
I kinda think it’s their responsibility to keep their site updated when they ask for money for the express purpose of doing that.
They literally only have donations set up and almost 10k sites listed. Please stop the entitled shit when it is pretty clear that the whole site relies heavily on user feedback too. Either you join in making it better and becoming a more decent human being in the process, or you can continue to cry about a free service not being 100% up to date. And lets be honest here, if you'd truly care about that news site and its entry then you would've done the former already.
If you pay me I’ll consider updating my opinion of them in a year or so.
You're overestimating your value.
Are you inferring that it’s not possible for an LBGTQ+ publication to misrepresent facts?
To me the rating is less about how “pro,” “anti” or “in-between” something is, and more about factual reporting of details
No, which is why my comment specifically pointed out they failed no fact checks.
Yea that’s not at all what I said. But don’t let that get in the way of posting pictures of comments someone else made about unrelated subjects!