Siewert finishes by writing that “a glance at their sister site gives you their right bias right off the top from just the article headers.” That statement is rife with ignorance. This inane standard would apply to just about every scholar. Thus, she must not understand the context in which Just Facts cited the paper, or she is lying about it.īy Siewert’s logic, if someone cites a peer-reviewed paper, and anyone argues against it, then the person who cited the paper is “deceptive” and “masking their bias” if they don’t cite the critique-regardless of whether it has any merit or relevance. Worse still, the lone excerpt that Siewert cited from these articles does not even take issue with the facts from Stanford Law Review paper that were presented by Just Facts. Neither of these articles appeared in a journal, and one of them is from a publication “written and published entirely by Harvard undergraduates.” Siewert does not even attempt to prove whether the critiques have any factual or logical value. Siewert goes on to write that Just Facts is “a deceptive site because they do use facts, but not all the facts in order to mask their right Bias.” As proof of this, she cites two articles that take issue with the Stanford Law Review paper cited by Just Facts. The flagrant and simplistic nature of these bogus critiques suggests that Media Bias Fact Check is either inept and/or dishonest. ![]() Just Facts does not offer any “hypothesis” in this research, much less “support the notion of black intellectual abilities being inferior.” To the contrary, the opening section of Just Facts’ research on racial issues covers the topic of science and presents multiple facts that challenge that notion.Just Facts’ full research on racial issues has 498 footnotes, and this paper is two of them. The research contains more than 60 footnotes, and this paper is just one of them. Just Facts does not use this paper to support “much of” its research on affirmative action.It is a peer-reviewed journal paper that was published in the Stanford Law Review. “A Systemic Analysis of Affirmative Action in American Law Schools” is not just an essay.Those two sentences contain three demonstrable falsehoods: ![]() ![]() On their article, they use the Richard Sander’s (law professor at UCLA) essay “A Systematic Analysis of Affirmative Action in American Law Schools.” To support much of their hypothesis, obviously against affirmative action (seeming also to support the notion of black intellectual abilities being inferior). In the opening paragraph of her review of Just Facts, Media Bias Fact Check contributor Faith Locke Siewert writes: A recent example of such comes from “Media Bias Fact Check,” an “independent media outlet” that claims to be “dedicated to educating the public on media bias and deceptive news practices.” With this higher profile, Just Facts has also been subject to deceitful attacks. As Just Facts grows in prominence and reputation, an increasing number of scholars, major organizations, and eminent people have cited and recognized the quality work of Just Facts.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |