Reporter: [REDACTED] Reason: Questionable source with a misinformation track record
Ground News assigned this score by aggregating media bias ratings of a Left rating from Ad Fontes Media, a Left rating from Media Bias/Fact Check . MintPress News’s factuality rating is low. Ground News calculates this rating using a combination of the fact and reliability ratings from Ad Fontes Media and Media Bias/Fact Check.
The Carter Center (cited by that BBC piece) is funded by various western governments including the US, as well as CIA-affiliated regime-change orgs like the National Endowment for Democracy. They are not a neutral party.
The “pro-Kremlin” smear is similarly questionable as it is promoted by the same groups.
Curious which American election observers are neutral parties then, if you refuse to believe that the Carter Center is unbiased. Because I’ll bet you I can use similar mental gymnastics to tie every single American election observer to one side or the other (or even both, just for fun).
There are no truly neutral parties and there is no such thing as unbiased. If a source or a media tells you they are unbiased and/or perfectly neutral, they are either lying to you or don’t properly understand what biases are and how they work.
However, some sources are more biased than others on different things.
Take the American election observers who endorsed the election results mentioned by the article for example.
Like I’ve mentioned, they aren’t truly unbiased or neutral as that’s not possible.
BUT
At the very least, they don’t have a money trail linking them the international terrorist organization that tried to overthrow Venezuela’s government multiple times (CIA and it’s ecosystem of right wing think-tanks), unlike the one you’ve cited.
I’d like to hear how the heck you can possibly think that this ☝️ isn’t a VERY OBVIOUS bias.
International NGOs observing the election have raised a lot of red flags about a lack of data transparency.
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cxx28wex0w6o.amp
Also, Mint Press is very questionable source with a pro-Kremlin track record.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MintPress_News https://ground.news/interest/mintpress-news
Reporter: [REDACTED]
Reason: Questionable source with a misinformation track record
Oh lovely, Ground News relies on MBFC and AFM. This game of whack-a-mole never ends.
The Carter Center (cited by that BBC piece) is funded by various western governments including the US, as well as CIA-affiliated regime-change orgs like the National Endowment for Democracy. They are not a neutral party.
The “pro-Kremlin” smear is similarly questionable as it is promoted by the same groups.
Curious which American election observers are neutral parties then, if you refuse to believe that the Carter Center is unbiased. Because I’ll bet you I can use similar mental gymnastics to tie every single American election observer to one side or the other (or even both, just for fun).
There are no truly neutral parties and there is no such thing as unbiased. If a source or a media tells you they are unbiased and/or perfectly neutral, they are either lying to you or don’t properly understand what biases are and how they work.
However, some sources are more biased than others on different things.
Take the American election observers who endorsed the election results mentioned by the article for example.
Like I’ve mentioned, they aren’t truly unbiased or neutral as that’s not possible.
BUT
At the very least, they don’t have a money trail linking them the international terrorist organization that tried to overthrow Venezuela’s government multiple times (CIA and it’s ecosystem of right wing think-tanks), unlike the one you’ve cited.
I’d like to hear how the heck you can possibly think that this ☝️ isn’t a VERY OBVIOUS bias.