• bauhaus@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    78
    arrow-down
    16
    ·
    1 year ago

    from MediaBiasFactCheck.com

    Mint Press News – Bias and Credibility

    FAR LEFT BIAS

    QUESTIONABLE SOURCE

    A questionable source exhibits one or more of the following: extreme bias, consistent promotion of propaganda/conspiracies, poor or no sourcing to credible information, a complete lack of transparency, and/or is fake news. Fake News is the deliberate attempt to publish hoaxes and/or disinformation for profit or influence (Learn More). Sources listed in the Questionable Category may be very untrustworthy and should be fact-checked on a per-article basis. Please note sources on this list are not considered fake news unless specifically written in the reasoning section for that source. See all Questionable sources.

    • Overall, we rate Mint Press Far-Left Biased and Questionable based on the publication of conspiracy theories, pseudoscience anti-Israel propaganda, poor sourcing, failed fact checks, and false claims.

    Detailed Report

    • Reasoning: Propaganda, Conspiracies, Pseudoscience, Poor Sources, Failed Fact Checks
    • Bias Rating: FAR LEFT
    • Factual Reporting: LOW
    • Country: USA
    • Press Freedom Rank: MOSTLY FREE
    • Media Type: Website
    • Traffic/Popularity: Medium Traffic
    • MBFC Credibility Rating: LOW CREDIBILITY

    History

    Mint Press News is an independent Minnesota-based news website launched in 2012 by Mnar Muhawesh. It covers political, economic, foreign affairs, and environmental issues. According to their about page, “We focus our coverage on issues relating to the effects of special interest groups, big business and lobbying efforts and how they shape policies at home and abroad, including American foreign policy. Through the lens of social justice and human rights, we report on how these dynamics drive our foreign affairs and impact the world, and examine the effects they have on our democracy and freedoms as defined by the constitution.”

    Analysis / Bias

    Mint Press presents news with a strong left-leaning bias in story selection. Headlines and articles use moderately loaded language like this: NFL Freezes Policy Barring Players From Kneeling During Anthem. This particular story is republished from the conspiracy website ZeroHedge. Typically, Mint Press sources their information, but sometimes it is from Mixed factual or conspiracy websites. In general, story selection moderately favors the left, such as this Trump Administration Opens Door for Corporate Attack on Vulnerable Wildlife.

    Read more at MediaBiasFactCheck.com

      • bauhaus@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        9
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        shame on Time?

        also, it’s not the exact same article. it’s a different article by a different author. you can tell if you bother to read it instead of just googling around until you found another article with a similar click-bait headline…

        do you often lie to make your point, or is this a new experience for you?

        • meth_dragon [none/use name]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          63
          arrow-down
          11
          ·
          1 year ago

          sorry, i thought native english speakers would be more familiar with the concept of hyperbole. i will take the time to write a brief summary of relevant semantic techniques used in subsequent posts to help out the more rhetorically challenged members of our community.

          • bauhaus@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            10
            arrow-down
            10
            ·
            1 year ago

            oh, so when you get caught in a lie, you just hurl insults rather than admit to it. hardly a surprise…

            • meth_dragon [none/use name]@hexbear.net
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              59
              arrow-down
              10
              ·
              1 year ago

              notice how i didn’t prepend that post with a brief summary of rhetorical techniques like i said i would? that’s because i didn’t use any. ditto this post.

              • bauhaus@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                9
                arrow-down
                8
                ·
                1 year ago

                are you seriously expecting a pat on the back for not being a more toxic troll than you already are? is not lying and arguing in bad faith such a difficult impulse for you to control that you think you deserve treats when you don’t do either or both?

                woooow

                • meth_dragon [none/use name]@hexbear.net
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  55
                  arrow-down
                  10
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  you expressed confusion with my use of the english language and so i have adjusted my communication style to suit your apparent needs. if you feel this somehow reflects poorly on your personal character it is no fault of mine.

                  the entire point of me linking the time article was to point out that it was cognitive laziness (and likely bad faith) on your part to invoke a third party ‘bias checker’ (that in all likelihood is itself biased) as some impartial mediator of reality. typically, the next logical step to take here would be to engage with the points of the articles in question and judge their merits through consensus based on verifiable fact, but it seems you got lost somewhere along the way and now you appear to be resisting attempts to shepherd you back on topic.

                  • bauhaus@lemmy.ml
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    10
                    arrow-down
                    8
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    you expressed confusion

                    no, you lied, and when caught in your lie, you lied again and called it “hyperbole” even though it was just obviously just a lie. now you’re piling lie upon lie thinking you’re fooling anyone but yourself.

                    this is just sad.

        • aaaaaaadjsf [he/him, comrade/them]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          57
          arrow-down
          6
          ·
          1 year ago

          Do you know what hyperbole is, or exaggeration? Of course it’s not the exact same article. Come on. The point is that multiple sources collaborate the main point, that opium production has fallen under the Taliban.

          • bauhaus@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            8
            arrow-down
            7
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Do you know what hyperbole is, or exaggeration?

            Yes, and I know when someone is lying but just says it’s “hyperbole” when called out on a lie, which is obviously what’s happening here.

            Of course it’s not the exact same article.

            so you even admit that they lied

            The point is that multiple sources collaborate the main point, that opium production has fallen under the Taliban.

            so what? there’s a famine right now, and there are obvious reason to shift production to a viable food source. twisting yourself into knots just to blame the US is absurd and not supported by the facts.

            • xXthrowawayXx [none/use name]@hexbear.net
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              39
              arrow-down
              8
              ·
              1 year ago

              Before 9/11 they had banned poppy cultivation. After America leaves, they ban poppy cultivation. During the occupation, lots of poppies are cultivated and processed into opium.

              America consumes 80% of the world opium supply on average.

              What conclusion do these facts support?

              • bauhaus@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                8
                arrow-down
                7
                ·
                1 year ago

                What conclusion do these facts support?

                that you will draw biased conclusions and assert them free of any factual evidence to back them up.

                • xXthrowawayXx [none/use name]@hexbear.net
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  40
                  arrow-down
                  3
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  You said American blame for poppy production during the occupation isn’t supported by the facts.

                  I restated those facts and asked what conclusion they do support.

                  So did the occupation increase opium production on purpose or just turn a blind eye to it?

                  • bauhaus@lemmy.ml
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    4
                    arrow-down
                    6
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    1 year ago

                    You said American blame for poppy production during the occupation isn’t supported by the facts.

                    I didn’t claim that. but I’d like to see what I did say that you somehow twisted into that.

                    I restated those facts and asked what conclusion they do support.

                    you stated something and jumped to a conclusion you wanted, with zero facts to back it up.

                    So did the occupation increase opium production on purpose or just turn a blind eye to it?

                    here’s the staw man and association fallacies again— The US did not go there for this reason, which is the original assertion— so none of this is relevant. You’re trying to prove a point that has nothing to do with the argument of WHY the US was eve there which had nothing to do with opium. It was just one of many things the US concerned itself with once it was there. Like building schools. We didn’t go there to do that, either, but we happened to do it while we were there.

                    are you capable of speaking in anything other than 100% logical fallacy?

                  • bauhaus@lemmy.ml
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    2
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    sorry for your troubles. I recommend you seek medical or psychiatric help.

      • bauhaus@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        10
        ·
        1 year ago

        can’t argue based on facts, so you just hurl insults. typical

        • GreenTeaRedFlag [any]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          52
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          Others are arguing with facts, you aren’t paying attention, you’re showing clip art of the scarecrow’s phallus. We’re not in debate club, you’re not a teacher, I don’t respect you. The fact that you keep trying to turn your nose up doesn’t make you look like a genius, it makes you look more like a fucking liberal. cause you are, that’s what you. And you’ll achieve jack shit because of it. have fun voteing

          • bauhaus@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            7
            ·
            1 year ago

            borrowed form another comment: “nuh-uh!” isn’t a convincing argument. most people learn this when they’re 5.

            you’re showing clip art of the scarecrow’s phallus

            wow, if “scarecrow phallus” is what you see, that speaks volumes about the contents of your psyche. yikes

            that said, if you can’t debate your way around “clip art” and the best you have is the argument of a 5-year-old, that’s just an admission that you have no valid argument at all. that explains the whining and childish insults.

            rage on, sad kid.

            • GreenTeaRedFlag [any]@hexbear.net
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              41
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              wow, if “scarecrow phallus” is what you see, that speaks volumes about the contents of your psyche. yikes

              holy shit, this is one of the funniest things I have ever seen. also “I’m not arguing with you.” “Wow, your arguments are shit.” what a brilliant dialogue. like leonardo da vinki wrote it.

    • Devion@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      38
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      We need a bot for this. Synopsis should be added to the tldr-bot or something.

    • TheGamingLuddite [none/use name]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Holy shit is this a bit? Do people on here really still believe in a neutral or unbiased press? Shouldn’t virtually every event from the Iraq war onward have already disillusioned you of that?