A reporter asked the governor about the hypocrisy of his stance against gender-identity and access to gender-affirming care when he chooses to present himself as taller than he is.
Because it veers off topic enough to be a distraction rather than contributing to the subject.
Bias, when not influencing factual reporting, is a tangent at best. The bias of the site is obvious, and doesn’t change the facts presented.
Now, there was some non essential derision involved in the article, which is far less than ideal, but tone doesn’t change that they did report the facts without falsehood.
So, bringing it up in this thread, is off topic enough to merit a down vote. It’s like being at a party, hearing a conversation about how to bake bread, and saying “yeah, bread is great and all, but I dislike that bag color of that flour.” Great, that’s a valid opinion, but why did you bring it up now?
Maybe not a perfect analogy, but that’s the idea.
Mind you, it is okay to make a tangent. But it kinda needs to be a bit more meaty, and you have to expect some degree of proverbial eye rolls.
In what way does talking about the credibility of the source veer off topic? Seems really on topic. The credibility of the source directly correlates with the ability to accurately form an opinion.
Just because they’re shit talking someone you dislike doesn’t mean we should turn a blind eye to the possibility of a misconstrued situation. Im not saying that’s what’s happening here, but we shouldnt just assume it’s the truth because you don’t like someone. That’s willfully ignorant
Because credibility and bias are not mutually exclusive, it’s just harder on the reader. You have to check the facts presented. It isn’t hard to do in this case.
The advocate can be pretty hard leaning towards specific issues and viewpoints in what articles they choose to write about, and will advocate for lgbtq+ issues almost to the point of excluding any other possibility. They’ll just not cover an issue before they write against their subject matter.
But they have a long history of staying true to facts in what they report. This isn’t some fly by night thing.
And, a very easy search can pull up the same information from multiple sources, with and without extraneous jokes at desantis’ behalf.
For the comment that we’re discussing, it shows both unfamiliarity with the site/source The Advocate (certainly excusable, it’s not exactly well known outside of a segment of the community it focuses on), and an unwillingness to check to see if the accusation of bias holds water before making the comment.
The article simply is not biased, and the publisher of the article is not only historically good about adhering to facts being vetted, even when publishing things that include opinions; but is considered to be a reliable source on its range of subject matter.
If you go digging into various bias/accuracy ratings on news outlets, the advocate places either left leaning or center/neutral in bias. Which is directly in contradiction to the claim of bias made by the comment above. It’s also rated high in accuracy.
All of this together means that the person making the comment didn’t bother to check. Which makes their claim of bias not only tangential, but misleading. And that is down vote worthy.
Now, on a tangential level, I’m amazed that this community isn’t already aware of the advocate as long standing source for news relating to trans issues, not just gay issues. For decades they were the only major outlet for such news.
I don’t object to general questions about bias and accuracy, I object to someone claiming bias that leads to inaccuracy without doing their due diligence. And, when you consider how often communities like this get targeted for active disruption via manipulation exactly like that, sowing distrust and misinformation, that is a very glaring problem.
Because it veers off topic enough to be a distraction rather than contributing to the subject.
Bias, when not influencing factual reporting, is a tangent at best. The bias of the site is obvious, and doesn’t change the facts presented.
Now, there was some non essential derision involved in the article, which is far less than ideal, but tone doesn’t change that they did report the facts without falsehood.
So, bringing it up in this thread, is off topic enough to merit a down vote. It’s like being at a party, hearing a conversation about how to bake bread, and saying “yeah, bread is great and all, but I dislike that bag color of that flour.” Great, that’s a valid opinion, but why did you bring it up now?
Maybe not a perfect analogy, but that’s the idea.
Mind you, it is okay to make a tangent. But it kinda needs to be a bit more meaty, and you have to expect some degree of proverbial eye rolls.
In what way does talking about the credibility of the source veer off topic? Seems really on topic. The credibility of the source directly correlates with the ability to accurately form an opinion.
Just because they’re shit talking someone you dislike doesn’t mean we should turn a blind eye to the possibility of a misconstrued situation. Im not saying that’s what’s happening here, but we shouldnt just assume it’s the truth because you don’t like someone. That’s willfully ignorant
Because credibility and bias are not mutually exclusive, it’s just harder on the reader. You have to check the facts presented. It isn’t hard to do in this case.
The advocate can be pretty hard leaning towards specific issues and viewpoints in what articles they choose to write about, and will advocate for lgbtq+ issues almost to the point of excluding any other possibility. They’ll just not cover an issue before they write against their subject matter.
But they have a long history of staying true to facts in what they report. This isn’t some fly by night thing.
And, a very easy search can pull up the same information from multiple sources, with and without extraneous jokes at desantis’ behalf.
For the comment that we’re discussing, it shows both unfamiliarity with the site/source The Advocate (certainly excusable, it’s not exactly well known outside of a segment of the community it focuses on), and an unwillingness to check to see if the accusation of bias holds water before making the comment.
The article simply is not biased, and the publisher of the article is not only historically good about adhering to facts being vetted, even when publishing things that include opinions; but is considered to be a reliable source on its range of subject matter.
If you go digging into various bias/accuracy ratings on news outlets, the advocate places either left leaning or center/neutral in bias. Which is directly in contradiction to the claim of bias made by the comment above. It’s also rated high in accuracy.
All of this together means that the person making the comment didn’t bother to check. Which makes their claim of bias not only tangential, but misleading. And that is down vote worthy.
Now, on a tangential level, I’m amazed that this community isn’t already aware of the advocate as long standing source for news relating to trans issues, not just gay issues. For decades they were the only major outlet for such news.
I don’t object to general questions about bias and accuracy, I object to someone claiming bias that leads to inaccuracy without doing their due diligence. And, when you consider how often communities like this get targeted for active disruption via manipulation exactly like that, sowing distrust and misinformation, that is a very glaring problem.