No. of Recommendations: 2
I will give MBFC some credit for designing what appeared to be a decent methodology, but nothing to convince me their conclusions are dispositive.
And, as I say, they are a starting point, or corroborate your POV, or don't. No one is saying they are dispositive, and when I looked, I just like the fact that respected people hired good people who rode here over the fact checkers. But they beat the hell out of anything you or Dope have, don't they? They can be pretty much on the mark and that pisses Dope off. Let him be pissed.
Good lord you ought to read some of the disputes over certain facts that are part of history by historians. Well respected historians can go bonkers in their old age. veer onto strange paths. But they're one person. A group, lead and supervised by someone who cares, and is paid to care by someone who cares, is much better than any shill that appears on FOX. I never looked, but the person Dope praised as being tops in her area is going to have her detractors.
So let me reiterate -ultimately YOU MAKE THE DECISION. The original was ad fontes, the visual that so crowded now it's hard to use. But it tells you something about our environment that we need these media bias fact checkers. And they are an order of magnitude better than whatever Dope's Russia Contacts Discussion = bad.
