Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Funny Comments

Comments flagged as "funny" by users within the last 48 hours.

mediabiasfactcheck.com

Um, MSNBC scored lower than Fox.

So by your reasoning, you cant use MSNBC or CNN, right?

You can read the entire article, but the last sentence, conveniently placed at the end, is all that matters.

www.dailymail.co.uk

While her father's asylum case remains pending, her own legal status hangs in the balance. It is understood her family arrived in the US on a tourist visa, which they overstayed.

So they werent "tourists"? Why didnt they go back home? She's been here 10+ years and still not legal? Why havent the parents done something? ----, they are illegal too..

No sympathy. Go back home, come back the right way.

Newsworthy Comments

Comments flagged as "newsworthy" by users within the last 48 hours.

From a link that MGST introduced me to ...

mediabiasfactcheck.com

...
Fox News (foxnews.com) -- Bias and Credibility

A questionable source exhibits one or more of the following:

extreme bias, consistent promotion of propaganda/conspiracies, poor or no sourcing to credible information, a complete lack of transparency, and/or is fake news.

Fake News is the deliberate attempt to publish hoaxes and/or disinformation for profit or influence (Learn More). Sources listed in the Questionable Category may be very untrustworthy and should be fact-checked on a per-article basis.

Please note sources on this list are not considered fake news unless specifically written in the reasoning section for that source. See all Questionable sources.

Overall, we rate Fox News right biased based on editorial positions that align with the right and Questionable due to the promotion of propaganda, conspiracy theories, pseudoscience, the use of poor sources, and numerous false claims and failed fact checks.

Straight news reporting from beat reporters is generally fact-based and accurate, which earns them a Mixed factual rating.


Detailed Report

Questionable Reasoning: Conspiracy Theories, Pseudoscience, Propaganda, Poor Sources, Numerous Failed Fact Checks




More from the article...

... The consequences are measurable and severe: studies now show touchscreen vehicles require up to four times longer to perform basic functions than their button-equipped counterparts, creating a distracted driving crisis that automakers refuse to acknowledge.

A Swedish car magazine, Vi Bilgare, conducted a study comparing how long it takes drivers to perform basic tasks like adjusting climate controls or changing the radio station using touchscreens versus traditional physical buttons. The results showed that in the worst-performing modern car, it took drivers up to four times longer to complete these tasks compared to an older vehicle with physical controls. ...

Even after allowing drivers time to familiarize themselves with each system, touchscreen-equipped cars consistently required more time and attention, which could translate into increased distraction and reduced safety on the road.

So while not every touchscreen system is equally inefficient, the general trend supports the idea that physical buttons are quicker and less distracting to use.

The psychology behind this dangerous trend reveals an uncomfortable truth about today's automotive industry. Car manufacturers aren't prioritizing safety or usability - they're chasing cost savings and tech bro aesthetics at the expense of driver attention.

Physical buttons, switches, and knobs require expensive tooling, individual wiring, and mechanical engineering. A single touchscreen replaces dozens of these components while creating the illusion of cutting-edge sophistication. The result is a generation of vehicles where adjusting the air conditioning or changing the radio station now requires the same focused attention as sending a text message. ...


Drudge Retort
 

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy