Media Bias Fact Check Is the Biggest Scammer on the Internet!

4
1074

Following is an example of the threat to free speech that we currently face – the fake news fact checking industry. We have been victimized here at the Sentinel but it’s not the first time. My life has been threatened, I’ve been cursed at, told I’m going to Hell, and badgered even by government employees.

The Sentinel is just a small website with a quarter million to a half million to a million readers a month. If we are under threat, can you imagine the enormous power and venom behind the movement to silence the opposition?

As an example, two years ago, we did a series of articles on behalf of ranchers in Texas losing their land in a government land grab. We received threats and traced the threats to the offices of the Bureau of Land Management. After that, the head of the Oklahoma BLM office contacted me to do an interview. I researched him and was very concerned about the type of person he is so I declined the interview.

Now we are being haunted by a fake fact check website.

FAKE FACT CHECKING is a new money-making industry popping up on the Internet, aimed primarily at right-leaning websites.

The fake fact check website called MediaBiasFactCheck has been listing Republican, Conservative, Libertarian and some left-wing sites under fake news or other reputation-ruining titles.

Beware of these sites.

The fake news industry has given rise to slews of scammers, some trying to make money off ads. Fake news detectors are part of, in some cases, a lucrative and growing industry, especially for the left who want to oppress differing opinions.

This media bias/fact check website was labeled by one Democrat Underground user as one of the worst scammers on the Internet. Others agreed though some are actually taking the site seriously.

The author of the alleged fact check site is a fraud without credentials who has declared himself the overseer of speech on the Internet.

The author of the website, and seemingly the only author, is Dave Van Zandt, who describes himself as a freelance writer of 25+ years, but we could find no evidence of him on the Internet outside of his site.

He says he has four fact checkers with different political leanings though we could only find three listed.

He is able to bring his fact check site to the top of google immediately, following  many or all websites he has trashed. Mr. Van Zandt contacted me to say he does not pay to trail sites. He said he knows SEO.

Websites listed as “Questionable” include: Allen West Republic, American Family Association, Center for Immigration Studies, David Horowitz Freedom Center, Eagle Rising, Frontpage Magazine, Jihad Watch, MILO News, The Federalist Papers Project, The Gateway Pundit, The Independent Sentinel, Truth Revolt, VidMax, among others.

Other bias categories take in pretty much any major Conservative, Republican, and Libertarian website and include Fox News. There are left-wing sites listed as well, but it’s overwhelmingly anti-right, although he says that is not the case. However, he lists organizations like CNN as reliable.

Since we published, Mr. Van Zandt reconsidered the rating and put me in his right-bias category.

Readers who want to know more should go to palmerreport.com. Mr. Palmer is a man of the left who wrote:

But that fear has also created an opportunity for scam artists to maliciously sow confusion for their own personal agenda or amusement. Perhaps the most jarring instance of these scams is a site called “Media Bias Fact Check” which turns out to be just one guy making up whatever he feels like about news outlets, based on what he admits is his personal opinion, while typically providing no evidence – and then altering the ratings of news outlets who point out his scam…

…There’s nothing inherently malicious about posting ones personal opinions about news outlets, as Van Zandt. It becomes sketchier when one does so without bothering to back it up with sourcing, examples, or evidence. But doing so while masquerading as some kind of internet security site? That makes it a scam. And changing the bias ratings of sites that call out the scam? That makes Van Zandt guilty of criminal fraud.

As we note in our mission statement, The Sentinel provides news, opinion and commentary, analysis, factual and original content, mostly political, usually right-of-center, for a Conservative, Libertarian, Republican audience.

We are not a news agency and have never claimed to be but we do a great deal of research and are reliant on mainstream media.

Mr. Van Zandt says my headlines are charged but who will read a boring title? Mainstream news does the same.

We use more than one mainstream source for most articles, always provide links and readers have to decide whether they agree or not. We trust our readers.

If Republicans, Conservatives and Libertarians aren’t allowed to post news commentary and analysis without being unfairly vilified, can we still call ourselves the USA?

FAKE POLL

Anyone and everyone could vote on the MediaBiasFactCheck website in the poll and do so as many times as they want.

We clicked on the website and out of 41 people voting, 32 classified Sentinel as “extreme right”, the remaining voters classified Sentinel as right-center, least-biased, left-center and extreme left. The Sentinel can’t be all those things.

To show you how ridiculous their site is, one person then voted for the Sentinel as “right-center” over and over until “right-center” took the lead. The poll only judged the majority votes and one person can vote as many times as one chooses.

This is how it looked as of 4pm EST on May 14 2017:

The idea of any random, anonymous person deciding something like this subjectively, while pretending they’re objective, is unAmerican. Classifying Sentinel as “Questionable” took only 32 votes and they could have been from one person.

The anti-free speech bloggers are trying to silence people with whom they disagree and apparently, all they have to do is .

Zerohedge has already reviewed mediabiasfactcheck and we are posting his review below.

Media Bias Fact Check

MediaBIasFactCheck.com describes itself as “the most comprehensive media bias resource in the Internet.” The site is owned by Dave Van Zandt from North Carolina, who offers no biographical information about himself aside from the following: “Dave has been freelancing for 25+ years for a variety of print and web mediums (sic), with a focus on media bias and the role of media in politics. Dave is a registered Non-Affiliated voter who values evidence based reporting” and, “Dave Van Zandt obtained a Communications Degree before pursuing a higher degree in the sciences. Dave currently works full time in the health care industry. Dave has spent more than 20 years as an arm chair researcher on media bias and its role in political influence.”

WND was unable to locate a single article with Van Zandt’s byline. Ironically, the “fact checker” fails to establish his own credibility by disclosing his qualifications and training in evaluating news sources.

Asked for information concerning his expertise in the field of journalism and evaluating news sources, Van Zandt told WND: “I am not a journalist and just a person who is interested in how media bias impacts politics. You will find zero claims of expertise on the website.”

Concerning his purported “25+ years” of experience writing for print and web media, he said: “I am not sure why the 25+ years is still on the website. That was removed a year ago when I first started the website. All of the writing I did was small print news zines from the ’90s. I felt that what I wrote in the ’90s is not related to what I am doing today so I removed it. Again, I am not a journalist. I simply have a background in communications and more importantly science where I learned to value evidence over all else. Through this I also became interested in research of all kinds, especially media bias, which is difficult to measure and is subjective to a degree.”

WND asked: Were your evaluations reviewed by any experts in the industry?

“I can’t say they have,” Van Zandt replied. “Though the right-of-center Atlantic Council is using our data for a project they are working on.”

Van Zandt says he uses “three volunteers” to “research and assist in fact checking.” However, he adds that he doesn’t pay them for their services.

Van Zandt lists WND on his “Right Bias” page, alongside news organizations such as Fox News, the Drudge Report, the Washington Free Beacon, the Daily Wire, the Blaze, Breitbart, Red State, Project Veritas, PJ Media, National Review, Daily Caller and others.

“These media sources are highly biased toward conservative causes,” Van Zandt writes. “They utilize strong loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes), publish misleading reports and omit reporting of information that may damage conservative causes. Sources in this category may be untrustworthy.”

His special notes concerning WND link to Snopes.com and PolitiFact.com, websites that have their own questionable reputations and formulas as so-called “fact checkers.” (See the “Snopes” and “PolitiFact” entries below.)

Van Zandt says he uses a “strict methodology” in determining which news sources are credible, but his website offers vague and typo-ridden explanations of his criteria, such as the following:

VanZandt-categories

Asked if his own political leanings influence his evaluations, Van Zandt said: “Sure it is possible. However, our methodology is designed to eliminate most of that. We also have a team of 4 researchers with different political leanings so that we can further reduce researcher bias.”

Bill Palmer of the website Daily News Bin accused Van Zandt of retaliating when the Daily News Bin contacted him about his rating. Palmer wrote:

“[I]t turns out Van Zandt has a vindictive streak. After one hapless social media user tried to use his phony ‘Media Bias Fact Check’ site to dispute a thoroughly sourced article from this site, Daily News Bin, we made the mistake of contacting Van Zandt and asking him to take down his ridiculous ‘rating’ – which consisted of nothing more than hearsay such as ‘has been accused of being satire.’ Really? When? By whom? None of those facts seem to matter to the guy running this ‘Media Bias Fact Check’ scam.

“But instead of acknowledging that he’d been caught in the act, Van Zandt retaliated against Daily News Bin by changing his rating to something more sinister. He also added a link to a similar phony security company called World of Trust, which generates its ratings by allowing random anonymous individuals to post whatever bizarre conspiracy theories they want, and then letting these loons vote on whether that news site is ‘real’ or not. These scam sites are now trying to use each other for cover, in order to back up the false and unsubstantiated ‘ratings’ they semi-randomly assign respected news outlets. …

“‘Media Bias Fact Check’ is truly just one guy making misleading claims about news outlets while failing to back them up with anything, while maliciously changing the ratings to punish any news outlets that try to expose the invalidity of what he’s doing.”

But Van Zandt accused Palmer of threatening him, and he said MediaBiasFactCheck welcomes criticism. If evidence is provided, he said, the site will correct its errors.

“Bottom line is, we are not trying to be something we are not,” he said. “We have disclaimers on every page of the website indicating that our method is not scientifically proven and that there is [sic] subjective judgments being used as it is unavoidable with determining bias.”

Read the rest of Zerohedge’s article  about FAKEST FACT CHECKERS ON THE INTERNET on this link.


PowerInbox
0 0 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
guest
4 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Dave Van Zandt
Dave Van Zandt
5 years ago

I just saw this article this morning (5/18/17) at 9 am. So no, we did not fix the poll. The poll is designed to allow an IP address to vote once. I suppose someone could keep logging in and out of a proxy or VPN to get around this. But, why? I loved the part about being paid to have top search engine rank. It would be nice for this small site to generate that type of revenue. Regarding more right wing sites being listed, that is due to what is submitted to us. We seem to get more right wing sites on our request list. Anyway, I appreciate the write up. Whenever a highly biased right or left wing site attacks our credibility it validates our work. I see you also feel that Snopes and Politifact are scammers. I appreciate you placing Media Bias Fact Check in such great company.

Frag
Frag
4 months ago

Hi Dave, I was wondering if you could tell us about the work you did with the council on foreign relations (CFR) and now this “The new school”? Are they related to the fact checking website by any chance? or social engineering attempts? I did a quick “fact check” of my own and found that you have a very interesting background. I advise others to do searches on any “fact checkers” and keep all records. Now is the time to keep all names and addresses of those involved with crimes or the covering up of crimes, Nuremburg trial version 2.0 is coming very soon, so pick your sides carefully my people.

Frag
Frag
4 months ago
Reply to  M Dowling

Thank you. It would be great to have an article on the practices of the social engineering and fact checkers. I had some very interesting experiences with social engineers on facebook, I found some social media debate steering professionals and science consensus steering professionals steering the climate debate, I found crisis acting agencies advertising for actors in the next crisis, etc. I tried to keep all names, photos, etc. I would be happy to have a talk with you about my experiences some day and perhaps give some materials to back up many of the claims (to undermine future fact checking attempts).