# WHO expected to release report saying Covid originated in wildlife farms in China



## asp3 (Mar 18, 2021)

https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsa...-southwest-china-as-likely-source-of-pandemic

I'm sure the final report will have more information in it, but this one gives enough for me to consider this a very reasonable conclusion.


----------



## digifoss (Mar 18, 2021)

Chinese open markets, very possible and likely


----------



## tbeltrans (Mar 18, 2021)

Nah, blame it on NASA.  All those trips to space.  Who knows what is lurking on Mars these days?  Harrrrumphhh!  Kids these days!   

Do I REALLY want to sign my name to this post?!?!?   Oh, why not...

Tony


----------



## StarSong (Mar 19, 2021)

asp3 said:


> https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsa...-southwest-china-as-likely-source-of-pandemic
> 
> I'm sure the final report will have more information in it, but this one gives enough for me to consider this a very reasonable conclusion.


I agree.


----------



## Happy Joe (Mar 20, 2021)

Any one who gives any credence to the CCP propaganda re-statements from the WHO is misleading them selves, IMO.

Enjoy!


----------



## Butterfly (Mar 20, 2021)

Quite frankly, I don't much care where it came from.  I just want it to go away.


----------



## asp3 (Mar 20, 2021)

Happy Joe said:


> Any one who gives any credence to the CCP propaganda re-statements from the WHO is misleading them selves, IMO.
> 
> Enjoy!



Can you provide any credible, reputable evidence that the WHO statements are CCP propaganda?  Without that aren't you misleading yourself?


----------



## Happy Joe (Mar 20, 2021)

All YOU have to do is look at the Covid statements & news releases, and their timing, from both along with the (pre-Biden) funding for the WHO; if that is not enough evidence for you I'm afraid that I am unwilling to try to help you, as your mind is already made up.

Enjoy!


----------



## StarSong (Mar 20, 2021)

Happy Joe said:


> All YOU have to do is look at the Covid statements & news releases, and their timing, from both along with the (pre-Biden) funding for the WHO; if that is not enough evidence for you I'm afraid that I am unwilling to try to help you, as your mind is already made up.
> 
> Enjoy!


Since you're still new here you may not be acquainted with @asp3's methods.  He is open minded, rigorously looks at evidence, and provides links from credible sources to explain and support what he's learned.


----------



## Happy Joe (Mar 20, 2021)

...sorry but he comes across, some times, like a troll... no offense intended.

The simplest method that I use to spot media, govt/organizational hypocrisy/propaganda is simply to be aware of who (Not necessarily WHO) supports who and just to mentally be aware of inconsistencies with reality/common sense and file them again mentally.

Hopefully, everyone is aware that Tedros of the WHO got his job with/ because of? chinese support and keeps that in mind when watching his tweets, news releases and who he supports & criticizes.

Enjoy!


----------



## StarSong (Mar 20, 2021)

To call someone a troll is quite offensive, and from my perspective and experience @asp3 doesn't merit that description in the slightest.


----------



## CarolfromTX (Mar 20, 2021)

WHO is in China’s back pocket. I don’t believe them. Follow the political science, more like.


----------



## asp3 (Mar 20, 2021)

Happy Joe said:


> ...sorry but he comes across, some times, like a troll... no offense intended.
> 
> The simplest method that I use to spot media, govt/organizational hypocrisy/propaganda is simply to be aware of who (Not necessarily WHO) supports who and just to mentally be aware of inconsistencies with reality/common sense and file them again mentally.
> 
> ...



I'm sorry that I come across as a troll to you.  My intention is not to troll.  I found the following article which backs up what you were saying.  Thank you for motivating me to find more information.

https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/04/02/china-coronavirus-who-health-soft-power/

mediabiasfactcheck.com gives Foreign Policy high ratings for factual reporting and is only slightly biased towards the right.  To me that makes it a reputable publication so I can trust what I read there.

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/foreign-policy/


----------



## Happy Joe (Mar 21, 2021)

I too regret my impression... I tend to have strong opinions (not always correct, I can change).
Years of being trolled have likely made me over sensitive...
Sorry!

Enjoy!


----------



## JonDouglas (Mar 21, 2021)

Let's all remember that the WHO is first and foremost a political organization within the UN that is dependent on the largess of contributing countries.  Trust the UN?  Not on your life until something is verified multiple ways.


----------



## Happy Joe (Mar 21, 2021)

StarSong said:


> To call someone a troll is quite offensive, and from my perspective and experience @asp3 doesn't merit that description in the slightest.


It may be offensive, to some, I'll grant you that.
If you re-read my post you will see that I did not call asp3 a troll ; but said that he sometimes comes across like one; meaning that his posts (I read a few) SOMETIMES have troll like qualities; in my opinion.  If I had thought he was a troll I would have said so.

I try, always, to say what I mean and mean what I say... it prevents confusion,  Although it doesn't always please others.

Enjoy!


----------



## JonDouglas (Mar 22, 2021)

Just as an FYI, it is being reported in Austraila that the first known cluster of Covid appears to have occurred with Wuhan Lab workers in late 2019. This is consistent with a host of earlier reports.  It is also being suggested that the narrative being now pushed by the WHO is being heavily influenced by the CCP and that WHO's narrative conflicts with that of certain U.S. government agencies and officials.  At the center of this seems to be the need by some to placate China for financial and other reasons.  Time will tell.


----------



## squatting dog (Mar 24, 2021)

JonDouglas said:


> Just as an FYI, it is being reported in Austraila that the first known cluster of Covid appears to have occurred with Wuhan Lab workers in late 2019. This is consistent with a host of earlier reports.  It is also being suggested that the narrative being now pushed by the WHO is being heavily influenced by the CCP and that WHO's narrative conflicts with that of certain U.S. government agencies and officials.  At the center of this seems to be the need by some to placate China for financial and other reasons.  Time will tell.



Yep... did a little more digging and found more.
Data published by the Wuhan Wuchang District Health Bureau state that the highest concentration of infections in the early phase of the outbreak occurred in the residential areas along Huanghelou and Ziyang streets, both located within the four miles between the Wuhan Institute of Virology and the Biological Preparations Institute.
Based on the available SCIENTIFIC evidence, the COVID-19 virus was the product of “gain of function” research, not a natural transmission from an animal host to humans.

There are only 2 reasons for conducting "gain of function" research, (A) to understand the structural features and actions of a virus in order to create a vaccine in anticipation of a potential disease outbreak or (B) to create a biological weapon.  Or both. Kind of makes you wonder.


----------



## Don M. (Mar 24, 2021)

JonDouglas said:


> Let's all remember that the WHO is first and foremost a political organization within the UN that is dependent on the largess of contributing countries.  Trust the UN?  Not on your life until something is verified multiple ways.



For Sure!  I'm sure the WHO will receive a nice bonus from China if/when they release a report that absolves China from any responsibility.  I find it "curious" that this virus seems to have originated in Wuhan....right next door to a Chinese Biological Laboratory.


----------



## asp3 (Mar 24, 2021)

squatting dog said:


> Yep... did a little more digging and found more.
> Data published by the Wuhan Wuchang District Health Bureau state that the highest concentration of infections in the early phase of the outbreak occurred in the residential areas along Huanghelou and Ziyang streets, both located within the four miles between the Wuhan Institute of Virology and the Biological Preparations Institute.
> Based on the available SCIENTIFIC evidence, the COVID-19 virus was the product of “gain of function” research, not a natural transmission from an animal host to humans.
> 
> There are only 2 reasons for conducting "gain of function" research, (A) to understand the structural features and actions of a virus in order to create a vaccine in anticipation of a potential disease outbreak or (B) to create a biological weapon.  Or both. Kind of makes you wonder.



Can you site any reputable articles with the scientific evidence that the virus was a product of "gain of function"?  All of the articles I've seen in sources like Scientific American and Science News have all said it's unlikely that the virus was the result of work in a lab.


----------



## JonDouglas (Mar 24, 2021)

squatting dog said:


> Yep... did a little more digging and found more.
> Data published by the Wuhan Wuchang District Health Bureau state that the highest concentration of infections in the early phase of the outbreak occurred in the residential areas along Huanghelou and Ziyang streets, both located within the four miles between the Wuhan Institute of Virology and the Biological Preparations Institute.
> Based on the available SCIENTIFIC evidence, the COVID-19 virus was the product of “gain of function” research, not a natural transmission from an animal host to humans.
> 
> There are only 2 reasons for conducting "gain of function" research, (A) to understand the structural features and actions of a virus in order to create a vaccine in anticipation of a potential disease outbreak or (B) to create a biological weapon.  Or both. Kind of makes you wonder.


As is often the case, reality usually goes far beyond perception and whatever propaganda is being pushed by the media and/or political organizations.  Near the top of the list of suspects not to be trusted is the UN and its various divisions.


----------



## JonDouglas (Mar 24, 2021)

asp3 said:


> Can you site any reputable articles with the scientific evidence that the virus was a product of "gain of function"?  All of the articles I've seen in sources like Scientific American and Science News have all said it's unlikely that the virus was the result of work in a lab.


Do what you want, but I would recommend you not suggest Scientific American or Science News (along with the WHO) as being reputable sources.  SA once was but has become more a populat science rag with political overtones , having recently endorsed a presidential candidate.  Sorry, but credibile scientific sources don't engage in political propaganda or promote things like race theory/baiting.  Look to medical sources for things on COVID and virology (e.g., NEJM) .  Also, it is important to realize that magazines today have had to change to stay in business, which often means becoming more populist/political.


----------



## asp3 (Mar 24, 2021)

JonDouglas said:


> Do what you want, but I would recommend you not suggest Scientific American or Science News (along with the WHO) as being reputable sources.  SA once was but has become more a populat science rag with political overtones , having recently endorsed a presidential candidate.  Sorry, but credibile scientific sources don't engage in political propaganda or promote things like race theory/baiting.  Look to medical sources for things on COVID and virology (e.g., NEJM) .  Also, it is important to realize that magazines today have had to change to stay in business, which often means becoming more populist/political.



I don't mind bias and don't think that bias makes a publication not reputable.  As long as the underlying data and information is accurate they can spin it any way they want to.  I would object to leaving out information without explaining why it wasn't considered.

According to mediabiasfactcheck.com Scientific American has a high accuracy rating and a left-center bias rating.  That's good enough for me but it might not be for you.

The other publication I mentioned, Science News, has a very high accuracy rating but doesn't have a bias rating.  https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/science-news/

How do the publications you rely on do in their accuracy and bias ratings?


----------



## JonDouglas (Mar 24, 2021)

asp3 said:


> I don't mind bias and don't think that bias makes a publication not reputable.  As long as the underlying data and information is accurate they can spin it any way they want to.  I would object to leaving out information without explaining why it wasn't considered.
> 
> According to mediabiasfactcheck.com Scientific American has a high accuracy rating and a left-center bias rating.  That's good enough for me but it might not be for you.
> 
> ...


Several quick thoughts:  First, most of the information coming out of China is tightly controlled by the CCP.  If you had ever been inside a communist dictatorship country, then you would know that you only get to see and interview who and what they want.  Get too far afield and they send you packing or worse.  Second, foreign press and news sources cannot get too far afield of the part line if they want to stay.  Third, the real news from such places comes through channels that cannot, for all the obvious reasons, be readily identified.  Welcome to the real world.


----------



## asp3 (Mar 24, 2021)

JonDouglas said:


> Several quick thoughts:  First, most of the information coming out of China is tightly controlled by the CCP.  If you had ever been inside a communist dictatorship country, then you would know that you only get to see and interview who and what they want.  Get too far afield and they send you packing or worse.  Second, foreign press and news sources cannot get too far afield of the part line if they want to stay.  Third, the real news from such places comes through channels that cannot, for all the obvious reasons, be readily identified.  Welcome to the real world.



I completely agree with everything you have said here.  However even without direct evidence scientists familiar with viruses and the way the move from species to species and the way they change over time can tell a lot from the information they have based on infections that have occurred outside of China.  So I trust the ones who have contributed to articles which tend to dismiss the idea that Covid was deliberately modified to be infectious to humans.  I have not done any research into the the backgrounds of the scientists who have contributed to the articles, so I don't know how trustworthy they are.  However I trust the organizations that have posted the articles, so for me I'm satisfied with them.  I can understand why you would want more information to trust them yourself and don't think that's unreasonable.

I did however think your "Welcome to the real world" was a bit snarky.  No need for it in civil discourse.


----------



## squatting dog (Mar 24, 2021)

asp3 said:


> Can you site any reputable articles with the scientific evidence that the virus was a product of "gain of function"?  All of the articles I've seen in sources like Scientific American and Science News have all said it's unlikely that the virus was the result of work in a lab.


Data was published by the Wuhan Wuchang District Health Bureau. 
Isn't that apt to be slightly more reputable than any news source? To get this kind of information, I guess you'll need to know some Chinese folk too who can translate this kind of info.


----------



## squatting dog (Mar 24, 2021)

asp3 said:


> Can you site any reputable articles with the scientific evidence that the virus was a product of "gain of function"?  All of the articles I've seen in sources like Scientific American and Science News have all said it's unlikely that the virus was the result of work in a lab.



Well, I don't know if it's "reputable", but, I see today, the Gateway Pundit actually has an article about this very thing. Looking at some of the wording, I believe that their source may be the same one I have. Can't be sure, but, a lot of the info matches.
I was surprised (well maybe not really) to see a map that shows the highest concentration of the original outbreak happened between the 2 labs and quite a distance from the seafood market.

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/20...o-chinas-biological-warfare-facilities-wuhan/


----------



## asp3 (Mar 24, 2021)

squatting dog said:


> Well, I don't know if it's "reputable", but, I see today, the Gateway Pundit actually has an article about this very thing. Looking at some of the wording, I believe that their source may be the same one I have. Can't be sure, but, a lot of the info matches.
> I was surprised (well maybe not really) to see a map that shows the highest concentration of the original outbreak happened between the 2 labs and quite a distance from the seafood market.
> 
> https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/20...o-chinas-biological-warfare-facilities-wuhan/



According to this https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-gateway-pundit/ Gateway Pundit has low accuracy and extreme right wing bias.  It isn't one that I personally would trust or call reputable.


----------



## squatting dog (Mar 25, 2021)

asp3 said:


> According to this https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-gateway-pundit/ Gateway Pundit has low accuracy and extreme right wing bias.  It isn't one that I personally would trust or call reputable.


----------



## Aneeda72 (Mar 25, 2021)

Happy Joe said:


> All YOU have to do is look at the Covid statements & news releases, and their timing, from both along with the (pre-Biden) funding for the WHO; if that is not enough evidence for you I'm afraid that I am unwilling to try to help you, as your mind is already made up.
> 
> Enjoy!


My mind is made up, I don’t care where it came from!  Explain to me why it matters where it came from?  Explain to me why this is so important to you?  I really want to know.


----------



## Aneeda72 (Mar 25, 2021)

squatting dog said:


> Data was published by the Wuhan Wuchang District Health Bureau.
> Isn't that apt to be slightly more reputable than any news source? To get this kind of information, I guess you'll need to know some Chinese folk too who can translate this kind of info.


I actually do know “some Chinese folk” and from the beginning their relatives in China said it was not from a lab.


----------



## squatting dog (Mar 25, 2021)

Aneeda72 said:


> I actually do know “some Chinese folk” and from the beginning their relatives in China said it was not from a lab.



So, the map released (by the Wuhan Wuchang District Health Bureau) that clearly shows where the original hot spot was is for sure wrong? I suppose that maybe, all the victims in the dark shaded area could have gone to the sea food market first.    
To answer your first question, I'd want to know if this was an accidental escape of a weaponized virus. I would think that matters... maybe not, I don't know.


----------



## Aneeda72 (Mar 25, 2021)

squatting dog said:


> So, the map released (by the Wuhan Wuchang District Health Bureau) that clearly shows where the original hot spot was is for sure wrong? I suppose that maybe, all the victims in the dark shaded area could have gone to the sea food market first.
> To answer your first question, I'd want to know if this was an accidental escape of a weaponized virus. I would think that matters... maybe not, I don't know.
> 
> View attachment 156570


I said I knew some Chinese who have relatives who live in China who said it did not come from labs.  I did not say where those relatives live, I did not dispute the location of where the virus started, it drives me crazy when others change or misinterpret what I wrote.  Just saying.

We all chose to believe what we chose to believe, and we all chose our sources to believe.  It would have only taken ONE person to go to the market, get the virus, and spread it to others that he/she worked with and start the whole thing.

This has happened several times in the USA.  One stupid person with the virus shows up at a wedding or a funeral or a bar, several others get it, and the spread is on.  So, yes, I believe it came from somewhere other than a lab.  I don’t know if it came from the market, the wild, or the man in the moon.

I do not see how knowing where it came from makes a difference.

The UK strain came from the UK.  It’s going to be really bad for us, and the world, according to the experts.  Why not blame the UK for the next round of sickness and death?  Maybe the UK was testing/experimenting on/with the virus, looking for a cure or a weapon?

Who really knows how the UK version of the virus came about?  Maybe it was invented in a lab and it escaped their lab.  Now the world is once again stuck with a virus that spreads even more rapidly.  And a new conspiracy is born.  

Truth is, this virus mutates so fast, we will never be safe.  It came from Mother Nature, and she is mad.  If people need to blame someone, blame the entire human race.  Look at Florida, blame the human race.  *You can not cure stupid.*


----------



## asp3 (Mar 25, 2021)

squatting dog said:


> View attachment 156560



So you admit you happily drink their koolaid?


----------



## SetWave (Mar 25, 2021)

Last I heard on the news yesterday was that it will be announced the virus originated in a lab.
Great just great. 
The only thing for sure is the damned contagious stuff has inundated the world.
Of course, if you think it's a hoax . . . I wish ya lots of luck.


----------



## StarSong (Mar 25, 2021)

SetWave said:


> *Last I heard on the news yesterday was that it will be announced the virus originated in a lab.*
> Great just great.
> The only thing for sure is the damned contagious stuff has inundated the world.
> Of course, if you think it's a hoax . . . I wish ya lots of luck.


Where did you hear this?


----------



## JonDouglas (Mar 25, 2021)

asp3 said:


> According to this https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-gateway-pundit/ Gateway Pundit has low accuracy and extreme right wing bias.  It isn't one that I personally would trust or call reputable.


A note about your fact checking source:
​The _Columbia Journalism Review_ describes Media Bias/Fact Check as an amateur attempt at categorizing media bias and Van Zandt as an "armchair media analyst​
It is certainly no secret that leftists and leftist media (e.g., WP, NYT, etc.) would label GP as being on the right and vice versa.  Two sides of the fence, each calling the other extreme and being on the wrong side of things.    I often, but not always, find the answer to be somewhere between the two extremes.  That said, Alinsky's rules for radicals is in play on both sides with denigration getting a lot of use by all flavors of armchair pundits.


----------



## asp3 (Mar 25, 2021)

JonDouglas said:


> A note about your fact checking source:
> ​The _Columbia Journalism Review_ describes Media Bias/Fact Check as an amateur attempt at categorizing media bias and Van Zandt as an "armchair media analyst​
> It is certainly no secret that leftists and leftist media (e.g., WP, NYT, etc.) would label GP as being on the right and vice versa.  Two sides of the fence, each calling the other extreme and being on the wrong side of things.    I often, but not always, find the answer to be somewhere between the two extremes.  That said, Alinsky's rules for radicals is in play on both sides with denigration getting a lot of use by all flavors of armchair pundits.



Are there any media bias and accuracy sites that you find accurate and "unbiased"?


----------



## SetWave (Mar 25, 2021)

StarSong said:


> Where did you hear this?


Just the regular national news.


----------



## StarSong (Mar 25, 2021)

SetWave said:


> Just the regular national news.


It will be interesting to see if this actually happens.


----------



## SetWave (Mar 25, 2021)

StarSong said:


> It will be interesting to see if this actually happens.


As the story keeps changing we'll just have to wait and see. Stay tuned . . .


----------



## JonDouglas (Mar 25, 2021)

asp3 said:


> Are there any media bias and accuracy sites that you find accurate and "unbiased"?


No, which is to say I don't pay any attention to any of them.  I do my own research and drill down across a good many sources, using common sense and experience to the extent that I can.


----------



## Don M. (Mar 29, 2021)

In a segment on 60 Minutes, last night, I think they showed what is perhaps the Most Accurate report on how this virus started.  I certainly don't put much faith in anything the WHO has said so far.  If you didn't see the show, here is a transcript of the segment....a Good Read!

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/covid-19-wuhan-origins-60-minutes-2021-03-28/


----------



## win231 (Mar 29, 2021)

I know exactly where Covid came from.  
It came from anywhere or anyone you don't like.
The same place every other disease comes from.


----------



## JonDouglas (Mar 30, 2021)

Here are some thoughts (snippets) by former Pfizer Vice President and Chief Science Officer Dr. Mike Yeadon, from an interview in *America's Frontline Doctors*:

_It’s a fiction, and an evil one at that, that variants are likely to “escape immunity”. Not only is it intrinsically unlikely – because this degree of similarity of variants means zero chance that an immune person (whether from natural infection or from vaccination) will be made ill by a variant – but it’s empirically supported by high-quality research.The research I refer to shows that people recovering from infection or who have been vaccinated ALL have a wide range of immune cells which recognize ALL the variants. I cannot say strongly enough: The stories around variants and need for top up vaccines are FALSE_
_The only people who might remain vulnerable and need prophylaxis or treatment are those who are elderly and/or ill and do not wish to receive a vaccine (as is their right).  _
_The good news is that there are multiple choices available: hydroxychloroquine, ivermectin, budesonide (inhaled steroid used in asthmatics), and of course oral Vitamin D, zinc, azithromycin etc. These reduce the severity to such an extent that this virus did not need to become a public health crisis._
_So I no longer believe the regulators are capable of protecting us. ‘Approval’ is therefore meaningless. Dr. Wolfgang Wodarg and I petitioned the EMA Dec 1, 2020 on the genetic vaccines. They ignored us.  Recently, we wrote privately to them, warning of blood clots, they ignored us. When we went public with our letter, we were completely censored. Days later, more than ten countries paused use of a vaccine citing blood clots.  I think the big money of pharma plus cash from BMGF creates the environment where saying no just isn’t an option for the regulator._
The above are just some interesting snippets. I recommend you read the entire article.  Some key things to remember.  One, there is big money and political influence involved.  Two, according to Yeadon, it didn't need to become a public health crisis.  You may recall when that little health Napoleon, Fauci said it wasn't a crisis (which it isn't for the majority of people).  Three, IMHO and that of history precedence,  this crisis is a poltician's dream event.


----------



## garyt1957 (Mar 30, 2021)

asp3 said:


> According to this https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-gateway-pundit/ Gateway Pundit has low accuracy and extreme right wing bias.  It isn't one that I personally would trust or call reputable.


 And how do we know mediabiasfactcheck doesn't have it's own bias? I don't know anything about Gateway Pundit but every time someone posts something from Fox or CNN someone from the other side says "They're biased!" Even though the article may just be about legitimate studies and they're just printing them.


----------



## garyt1957 (Mar 30, 2021)

Aneeda72 said:


> I actually do know “some Chinese folk” and from the beginning their relatives in China said it was not from a lab.


That's hilarious


----------



## garyt1957 (Mar 30, 2021)

asp3 said:


> Are there any media bias and accuracy sites that you find accurate and "unbiased"?


That's the thing, there likely aren't. And even if there were, the side they tend to disagree with most would still throw shade at them.


----------



## JonDouglas (Mar 30, 2021)

garyt1957 said:


> And how do we know mediabiasfactcheck doesn't have it's own bias? I don't know anything about Gateway Pundit but every time someone posts something from Fox or CNN someone from the other side says "They're biased!" Even though the article may just be about legitimate studies and they're just printing them.


As you probably know, ridiculing sources is one of Saul Alinsky's 13 "Rules for Radicals", which seems to be the "go-to" book for political action these days.  As for mediabiasfactcheck, the Columbia Journalism Review didn't  think much of them. Personally, I wouldn't pay much attention to any of them.


----------



## asp3 (Mar 30, 2021)

garyt1957 said:


> That's the thing, there likely aren't. And even if there were, the side they tend to disagree with most would still throw shade at them.



I suppose if we each want to find one we trust we need to look at methodology and criteria they use for their analysis and determine whether or not we consider it reasonable for our purposes.  I have yet to do that but might consider doing so in the future.


----------



## asp3 (Mar 30, 2021)

It appears the best is none too good.

Doing a little research (mainly in wikipedia) the news bias and accuracy that comes out with the best reputation is Ad Fontes Media.  Here's the Wiki article about it, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_Fontes_Media .

The main problem listed for it is that it doesn't analyze enough stories from the sources to really give a complete view of a news outlet, publication or organization.

Ad Fontes Media is the source of the most widely distributed media bias and accuracy chart which you have probably seen somewhere online.  Their most recent one updated for January 2021 is available here https://www.adfontesmedia.com/static-mbc/ .


----------



## Ladybj (Mar 30, 2021)

We will never know where it originated from. JMO.


----------



## asp3 (Mar 30, 2021)

I just used the Interactive version of the chart which allows you to look up individual news sources and get their ratings.  The advantage of the interactive chart is that it also shows the individual articles that make up the rating so one can see what they rated the way they rated it.

Here's the link to the interactive chart https://www.adfontesmedia.com/interactive-media-bias-chart/

Once again Gateway Pundit gets low accuracy and hyper partisan right so once again it isn't one I'd give a lot of credence too.


----------



## JonDouglas (Mar 31, 2021)

asp3 said:


> I just used the Interactive version of the chart which allows you to look up individual news sources and get their ratings.  The advantage of the interactive chart is that it also shows the individual articles that make up the rating so one can see what they rated the way they rated it.
> 
> Here's the link to the interactive chart https://www.adfontesmedia.com/interactive-media-bias-chart/
> 
> Once again Gateway Pundit gets low accuracy and hyper partisan right so once again it isn't one I'd give a lot of credence too.


Regarding adfontesmedia, just an FYI:

In 2018, a _Columbia Journalism Review_ article questioned the thoroughness of the Media Bias Chart and similar initiatives, stating that "the five to 20 stories typically judged on these sites represent but a drop of mainstream news outlets' production"​​In other words, you can't judge the quality of the water by testing a few quarts coming out of 6' diameter drainpipe at full pressure.  

Another aspect to the question of news source leanings is timing.  Often more political-oriented media will jump on stories before thoroughly investigating them, if they investigate at all, or sit on stories that are adverse to their political leanings. I think we've all seen this.  Who measures that?  As for government news sources,  government bureaucracies are known to play hide or leak information with great relish, depending who or what they want to promote or put down.


----------



## StarSong (Mar 31, 2021)

asp3 said:


> It appears the best is none too good.
> 
> Doing a little research (mainly in wikipedia) the news bias and accuracy that comes out with the best reputation is Ad Fontes Media.  Here's the Wiki article about it, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_Fontes_Media .
> 
> ...


Thanks for the link.  I've seen that before and found it useful but hadn't bookmarked it.  Until now, that is.


----------

