Media Lens get back to banning again

This was the MediaLens response to this post:


Joe wriggled:

What is the more reasonable conclusion to draw
from these facts
1) There is probably politcal bias - even at
the level of gathering facts - in IBC's data
though it is hard to quantify.
2) We can assume there is none, and place the
burden of proof on others to show that there is.

Joe, the data is what it is!

If *you* want to use it to support *your* position then the burden of proof is on *you*.

The Media Lens Editors are using the data to support their position and they are having to lie to do it.

Your position would suggest that *their* lying is somehow the fault of IBC because the IBC should be able to create data which cannot be abused in any way.

Let's test the theory by asking you to work out 5 per cent of 300,000. Does the IBC figure account for less than 5 per cent of Les Roberts' estimate?

Now explain to me how IBC have caused The Editors to publish a big whopping lie?

Or explain how I am mistaken and what they've written isn't a lie.

Or, just carry on musing on the "propaganda model" so that you can avoid acknowledging that The Editors are a pair of lying propagandists who use the very same techniques as the corporate media that you despise.

--
Martin