I like rational wiki. Mostly unbiased in my opinion.

I've watched people get flamed repeatedly when they bring up rational wiki. I never really understood it? From what I've seen Rational Wiki is mostly nonbiased.

You can look any nut up , on the right or on the left, almost everybody gets a humorous although cynical flaming. Lol

Here's a cut from RW on FOXNews.

News is part of Australian born, naturalized U.S. citizen[2] Rupert Murdoch's media empire, News Corporation. This empire includes The Sun newspaper in the UK, which, being well known for high quality and thought-provoking journalism as well as their high level of accuracy in reporting, makes a great companion to Fox News. It is also noted for its tastefully nekkid Page Three Girls (Warning: NSFW!)
Murdoch isn't easily embarrassed by much, but when the now defunct News of the World was caught hacking into cell phones and bribing police, the British Parliament held hearings, forcing Murdoch to distance himself, arguably to a degree from his own son. Curiously his other news outlets in Australia and the US, including Fox, barely acknowledged the sister rag's disaster across the ocean.
Interestingly, the Nº2 shareholder of NewsCorp is Alwaleed Bin Talal, a Saudi prince and businessman who also heads the "Alwaleed Bin Talal Foundation" (formerly the "Kingdom Foundation").[3][4] In 2010, Fox News reported that the "mosque" to be built next[5] to the site of the former World Trade Center was funded by the Kingdom Foundation, an organization they say which "funds madrasas [sic] all over the world", as a possible link to terrorist motives for the building of the mosque, while failing to mention that the guy who funds it is also in business with Murdoch.[6] So, if Fox News were to be judged by its own standards of guilt by association, it would qualify as a terrorist front.

And here's one on RT.

RT (formerly, and still popularly, Russia Today), is a Russian 24/7 English-language news channel that launched in December 2005. The network aims to present the world with a Russian point of view to "to become Russia's version of the BBC."[2] The results come off as a state-sponsored Fox News, prone to coverage slanted against "the West" (and the U.S. in particular) and outrageous lies in general, while giving way too much air to conspiracy theories and other fringe beliefs.


RT was allocated government funding in 2012 of 11 billion rubles (approx. $365 million) in addition to advertising revenue.[3]
RT's self-described objective is to "show you how any story can be another story altogether."[4] In this, at least, they do not disappoint. Margarita Simonyan, RT's editor-in-chief, has specified that the station was born out of the desire to present an "unbiased portrait of Russia."[2] Ironically (though not surprisingly for anyone who knows about what "unbiased" usually means), most critics share the opinion that the channel's main objective is to present a very biased portrait of other countries.[5][6]

Now it may just be me, but I don't see a biased opinion? But please help correct me if I'm wrong?

Someone please find a link on rational wiki that they can prove wrong or biased?

a reply to: Greathouse

This empire includes The Sun newspaper in the UK, which, being well known for high quality and thought-provoking journalism as well as their high level of accuracy in reporting

Haha, what planet is the person who wrote this from? Are you aware of how many retractions & apology peices The Sun newspaper makes every week.

RT (formerly, and still popularly, Russia Today), is a Russian 24/7 English-language news channel that launched in December 2005. The network aims to present the world with a Russian point of view to "to become Russia's version of the BBC."[2] The results come off as a state-sponsored Fox News, prone to coverage slanted against "the West" (and the U.S. in particular) and outrageous lies in general, while giving way too much air to conspiracy theories and other fringe beliefs.

Hahahahaha, I ain't even starting, if ANY story is a lie then surely there's proof of it, no matter who it was written by.

Where's the links to this site?

a reply to: Greathouse

Bias is inevitable. The fact that you have an opinion makes you bias lol. Like how your being bias that there the most desirable. all back to perceptive reality.

a reply to: Zcustosmorum

I didn't feel the need to include the link. All you do is name the person or Organization then add rational wiki it comes up first reply on the search.


But here you go....

rational wiki

a reply to: 5thNovember

I never said they are the most desirable. I said I liked their opinions are you biased in your view of me? Lol


I guess I could be considered biased . Cynical people tend to have the same views.

a reply to: Greathouse

Always remember that to like something is to find it agreeable. To agree with something ultimately leads to bias. Bias is inevitable. The reasoning of your bias is really what matters, not WHAT you like but WHY!!!!

a reply to: 5thNovember

Or you could read the title to the thread and seen I said " mostly" unbiased.

From your link . lol

As with many publicly-funded stations, the CBC has been criticized by hardcore conservatives of having a liberal bias, referring to the network as the "Communist Broadcasting Channel" (they then claim that the CBC needs to be, as usual, defunded or privatized). The most recent accusation occured when CBC's Vote Compass tool[4] was said to directly point the test taker to the Liberal Party if he/she was choosing more moderate positions. What some "reporters" failed to realize is that the Liberals (on the Canadian political spectrum) is considered the centrist party.[5]
It should be noted that like the Beeb, the CBC is independent ("at arms length") from the Canadian government, only tied by government funding. And unlike the BBC it employs private commercial advertising as well, a move sometimes criticized by left-wingers.[6] The CBC's taxpayer subsidy is third-lowest in the developed world, so it's not exactly sucking off the public teat.[7]
The CBC, over its existence, has featured commentators like anti-feminist Barbara Frum (mother of David Frum),[8] global warming denier Rex Murphy,[9] plagiarist Margaret Wente, Trump wannabe Kevin O'Leary,[10] arch-wingnut Tom Flanagan,[11] and "sportscaster" Don Cherry, who actually believes the metric system is communism.[12] The current contributors on the channel's top political panel ("At Issue" on The National) include Chantal Hébert, who has written for newspapers with political affiliations all over the place (but now sits as a columnist for the liberal Toronto Star), Andrew Coyne, whose work has been found in the Wall Street Journal, National Post and National Review, and Bruce Anderson, a former communications advisor for both the Liberals and Progressive Conservatives. NDP supporters have actually complained that they don't have anyone to represent their views on At Issue.[13]
Adding insult to injury, comedy shows such as the Rick Mercer Report, Royal Canadian Air Farce, and This Hour Has 22 Minutes deride liberals just as much as they do conservatives. Top CBC correspondent Terry Milewski has also pissed off Liberal prime ministers throughout his career, but it only became a big deal for the crazies when he asked just as hard-hitting questions to Stephen Harper.[14] If that's bias, it's some pretty # bias.

That sounds like it was written by a Harperite . They scare their base away from any thing that might try to spear their beloved King . Rex Murphy a climate denier lol

a reply to: the2ofusr1

That was a glowing review on some points but they trash them on others. Maybe it's got something to do with how funny it is why I like it so much.

and "sportscaster" Don Cherry, who actually believes the metric system is communism

Rotf

a reply to: Greathouse

I know eh .lol Going threw some of their posts ,it's kind of hard to put a label to them but the Israel post is worth a read .

a reply to: the2ofusr1

That was a good read both pro Israel and anti-Israel facts.

Check out Palestine.

a reply to: Greathouse


From the piece . "the Roman name for the area, Provincia Syrius Philistina was meant to insult the Jews after the 135 CE revolt of Bar Kochba, by using the name of their historical enemies, the Philistines, to rename the country of Judea." This part is true from what I have been finding out of late .As if the Romans were not pissed enough in 70 CE with the Jews they really did a number on the place in 135 CE . There was a group of Christian's that move back to the Mount of Olives after the 70 CE destruction and actually built a Church and created a Library . That is where the first books were made and is probably where the New Testament was canonized .

a reply to: Greathouse

Interesting you include a quote about RT; RW is "unbiased" in the same way.

I agree it can make for a few minutes of witty reading; but, if you read enough, it seems to be authored by someone with the same world view as Heinrich Himmler...which does tend to compromise my reading pleasure a tad, I find.

I like the Simple English version of Wiki, myself. That IS unbiased and quickly gives you the gist without any unnecessary verbiage.

a reply to: CJCrawley

Interesting enough you left out The Fox comparison in your unbiased view?


I never said I wasn't biased I said IMO rational wiki wasn't biased?



Plus I'm sure you're not one to pay attention to sourced links and citations anyway.

a reply to: Greathouse

Never mind.

a reply to: CJCrawley

I owe you a little bit of a apology. I was a little distracted when I read your post sorry.