SFGATE columnist Drew Magary writes about the financial implications of Donald Trump's offer to pay only a fraction of the bond in his civil fraud case.
Bias Rating: LEFT-CENTER
Factual Reporting: HIGH
Country: USA
MBFC’s Country Freedom Rating: MOSTLY FREE
Media Type:
Traffic/Popularity: High Traffic
MBFC Credibility Rating: HIGH CREDIBILITY
Re: LEFT-CENTER bias: These media sources have a slight to moderate liberal bias. They often publish factual information that utilizes loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes) to favor liberal causes. These sources are generally trustworthy for information but may require further investigation.
Overall, we rate the SFGate Left-Center Biased based on story selection that moderately favors the left. We also rate them High for factual reporting due to proper sourcing and a clean fact-check record.
You don’t have to like the tone of the editorial but SFGate is a reputable source.
AP and Reuters are the only real news agencies left (with PBS getting close but still editorializing too often).
Everything else is entertainment media, and they’ve even gone to court to prove it themselves
EDIT: look at all the tankies and extremists downvoting the truth. Opinions aren’t news. Editorials aren’t news. I like watching Rachel Maddow and Jon Stewart as much as the next progressive, but they’re entertainment, not news, and it’s a major failure if you can’t recognize that
… But there would only ever be one case in the first place? Because once FOX won it applied to everyone else too? There was never a need for additional cases, they all benefited.
Seriously, go watch CNN from a year before that case, and then from a year after it. They and everyone else took the ball and ran with it, never looking back.
And of course they did, they’re corporations. They’re in the business of making money, not improving the world. Why would they hamstring themselves by playing by a different set of rules than the competition?
You misunderstood (as did everyone else it seems). I meant to say the OP had no need to editorialize because it was already editorialized; it was in response to the previous comment which said they assumed it WAS editorialized. I was saying “op didn’t editorialize, because they didn’t need to, because it was already editorialized”
I was sure you editorialized the title but you didn’t.
This ain’t a real news site, the author is all caps laughing and screaming a bunch a stuff.
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/sfgate/
Bias Rating: LEFT-CENTER
Factual Reporting: HIGH
Country: USA
MBFC’s Country Freedom Rating: MOSTLY FREE
Media Type:
Traffic/Popularity: High Traffic
MBFC Credibility Rating: HIGH CREDIBILITY
Re: LEFT-CENTER bias: These media sources have a slight to moderate liberal bias. They often publish factual information that utilizes loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes) to favor liberal causes. These sources are generally trustworthy for information but may require further investigation.
Overall, we rate the SFGate Left-Center Biased based on story selection that moderately favors the left. We also rate them High for factual reporting due to proper sourcing and a clean fact-check record.
You don’t have to like the tone of the editorial but SFGate is a reputable source.
This is the main newspaper in San Francisco California. As people have mentioned, it’s an opinion piece.
But then censors the word shit. This is like a high school intern got access to their CMS
Yeah, not news at all. OP doesn’t need to editorialize when the columnist has already done such a good job of editorializing themselves lol
One might even refer to the media as an editorial.
AP and Reuters are the only real news agencies left (with PBS getting close but still editorializing too often).
Everything else is entertainment media, and they’ve even gone to court to prove it themselves
EDIT: look at all the tankies and extremists downvoting the truth. Opinions aren’t news. Editorials aren’t news. I like watching Rachel Maddow and Jon Stewart as much as the next progressive, but they’re entertainment, not news, and it’s a major failure if you can’t recognize that
If by “they” you mean Fox News exclusively, then yes, that’s correct. Fox News has made that argument in court.
I thought it was specifically Tucker, even, and not Fox in general.
… But there would only ever be one case in the first place? Because once FOX won it applied to everyone else too? There was never a need for additional cases, they all benefited.
Seriously, go watch CNN from a year before that case, and then from a year after it. They and everyone else took the ball and ran with it, never looking back.
And of course they did, they’re corporations. They’re in the business of making money, not improving the world. Why would they hamstring themselves by playing by a different set of rules than the competition?
When did OP editorialize…?
You misunderstood (as did everyone else it seems). I meant to say the OP had no need to editorialize because it was already editorialized; it was in response to the previous comment which said they assumed it WAS editorialized. I was saying “op didn’t editorialize, because they didn’t need to, because it was already editorialized”