Check your bias

No need to apologise if you've done nothing wrong.

In actual fact, I'm responding to topics created by others with an inherent American bias, but let's not allow a false reading to spoil your fun bro.

Edit: I find these type of websites to be the very embodiment of what they're trying to explain - observer bias! I mean, who do these academics/writers think they are - rating hundreds of media outlets based on some artificial metrics they define themselves?

It's just not credible.

What i find is that the closer we come to the truth, the more likely that the BLOB will try to paint the media as "right wing" or "conservative". Truth is inherently, conservative, while propaganda is often exceptionally progressive un-factual nonsense.

Ultimately, the left-right divide is a false artificial narrative designed to perpetuate discord and argument in the general population, allowing free air above for those self-appointed elites to rule.

Hmm, bias. First you find the mean and then sort to the right and left of that. America being self absorbed and parochial ignores the biases of other countries. It turns out the right in America is practically fascist, the far right definitely is fascist, the left is moderately right, and the far left is moderately left.

That chart above has a right biased mean. If you put PBS smack in the middle you get a more realistic picture from an international perspective.

Also the notion that truth is inherently conservative is ridiculous. Ask any conservative how many genders there are and then consult the science. Listen to anything American Congresspersons have to say, or Trump, or any of the right wing rump like Ben Shapiro or Charlie Kirk or Denis Prager etc etc. They are all full of bull**** and the dummies that follow them repeat their nonsense in the sure confidence that they have found the source of truth. smh.

www.seabreeze.com.au/forums/General-Discussion/Chat/Ouch?page=5#lastpost

Wow, gone into overdrive today. I counted 6 8 posts in a row. RUOK p&l?

God-damn msn, can't fault that logic.

And even if he did have a skoda, anyone with an ounce of motoring knowledge or heritage wouldn't be proud of the fact and go sprouting off about it in public to tens of thousands of Seabreeze forum members.

Be-jeeze, I'd hate to play you in a game of Cluedo.

Although this doesn't get us any closer to the answer to the question :
Does any single man or single woman have the right to judge p&l's brother?

This might be one of those very rare occasions that can only be solved using remery's scientific mind, so unfortunately it seems we will have to wait...

But I do fear that if p&l's brother is an idiot, then we may never find the answer.

congrats you two, this is the best read for miles around. Keep it up if you can

"Our survey goes beyond commonly studied correlates of trust in scientists in four important ways. First, we investigate how trust in scientists relates to science-related populist attitudes. Science-related populists deny that scientists are knowledgeable experts and believe that they do not act in the interest of the general public-two key aspects of trust in scientists. Second, we investigate whether trust in scientists is related to people's Social Dominance Orientation (SDO), which has been defined as "the degree to which individuals desire and support group-based hierarchy and the domination of 'inferior' groups by 'superior' groups". Individuals high in SDO are arguably less likely to trust scientists, as they perceive universities as hierarchy-attenuating social institutions. Previous research supports this, showing that high SDO is a predictor of low trust in scientists and distrust in climate science.
..
Trust and its correlates such as right-leaning and conservative political orientation, education and religiosity clearly vary across countries. This exemplifies the need for more international research that includes underrepresented countries and understudied subpopulations. Our findings also highlight the inconsistency in the association between political orientation depending on the measure used (left-right versus liberal-conservative) and the country of study, as well as the importance of ideology-specifically SDO-in relating to trust in scientists. While previous research finds that SDO is associated with the rejection of specific scientific information, such as the reality of climate change or the safety and efficacy of vaccines, our findings support the idea that SDO may play a more fundamental role in undermining trust in scientists more generally. Scientists who challenge unjust social hierarchies might increase benevolence perceptions among some groups but would probably further decrease trust among people with SDOs. Interventions could be developed to build the perceived trustworthiness of scientists and involve trusted communicators outside of scientific institutions."

Cologna, V., Mede, N.G., Berger, S. et al. Trust in scientists and their role in society across 68 countries. Nat Hum Behav (2025). doi.org/10.1038/s41562-024-02090-5