Scores above 40 are generally good scores below 24 are generally problematic. Reliability scores for articles and shows are on a scale of 0-64. The reliability rating, demonstrated on the chart’s vertical axis, rates sources on a scale from original fact reporting to analysis, opinion, propaganda and inaccurate/fabricated information. The bias rating, demonstrated on the Media Bias Chart ®️ on the horizontal axis, ranges from most extreme left to middle to most extreme right. We add each of these scores to the chart on a weighted scale, with the average of those creating the content’s overall bias score. To determine sample content’s bias score, we consider its language, its political position, and how it compares to other reporting or analysis from other sources on the same topic. We add each of these scores to the chart on a weighted scale, with the average of those creating the sample content’s overall reliability score. To determine its reliability score, we consider the content’s veracity, expression, its title/headline, and graphics. The team considers a variety of factors when rating content. Each panel of analysts comprises one left-leaning, one right-leaning, and one center-leaning analyst. Panels of analysts from Ad Fontes Media regularly review representative sample content to rate it for reliability and bias. The following are the overall bias and reliability scores for Reason according to our Ad Fontes Media ratings methodology. It is published by the Reason Foundation, a non-profit organization, and is based in Los Angeles and Washington, D.C. Reason is a monthly libertarian magazine founded in 1968. Find responsible coverage of the event at Friendly Atheist.Ad Fontes Media rates Reason in the Skews Right category of bias and as Generally Reliable/Analysis OR Other Issues in terms of reliability. As a 15 year military veteran, foxhole atheist, libertarian, and long-time reader and follower of Reason, I expect better.”Īpparently in covering the Conservative Political Action Committee, Ms Slade and Reason editors have adopted some of the anti-atheist discrimination common at such events. And former Special Forces Sergeant First Class Adam Jennings said, “Free Minds and Free Markets should be more than just a tagline under the ‘Reason’ heading. I spent many a night in a foxhole as such until the end of my combat tour,” said retired Major John Kieffer. “I served as a rifle platoon leader with a US Army mechanized infantry unit (1/61, 5th Infantry Division) in Vietnam in 1970. Several foxhole atheists wrote in to remind reason of their service. And we know that a good many of our service members are indeed atheists. The fact that as an atheist, I was invited to an environment presumed to be an inhospitable one, doesn’t rise to the standard of what our service members face in foxholes. I am wholly disappointed that Reason Magazine, known for being, well, reasonable has fallen to this same tired and trite expression that is too easy to debunk. Jamila Bey, subject of the article and journalist herself, told MAAF of her support for foxhole atheists and for good journalism: In response to MAAF objections, there is now an update saying that someone complained but Ms Slade refused to delete, change, or retract her statement, apparently standing firm in her denial of the service of all atheists in foxholes, with the support of Reason Magazine editors. Maybe this isn’t so much discrimination as it is lazy and irresponsible journalism. Stephanie Slade, Deputy Managing Editor at Reason, authored an article with the subheading, “ There may be no nonbelievers in a foxhole-but there were some this year at CPAC.” This denies my service and that of many others like me who are atheist and have served in war. With a name like Reason Magazine, one would expect a certain level of respect for, well, reason. Ma| Filed under: External, Featured, Marquis, News | Posted by: Jason Torpy
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |