Does the article say that Maduro appointed the judges? Thus far I only see a claim that it’s packed with Maduro loyalists… which is pretty far from an unbiased framing
Trump doesn’t have even a double-digit number of loyalists in the Senate and proportionately probably about the same in the House. This is a relevant detail because his enablers in Congress are overwhelmingly party loyalists who will drop him like a sack of potatoes the moment it becomes more expedient to. The reason that matters is that it was mainly the Republican Party that got all those Congresspeople elected, not Trump, even in the races where Trump endorsed them, so the relative locus of power is the Republican Party (and really it’s the donor class, but we don’t need to get into that).
All this to say that AP’s simplistic and unsubstantiated flattening of Venezuelan politics to “There’s one guy in charge of everything, his lockstep minions, and the brave rightists fighting them” is below you to believe.
I can do it too. MBFC is a hack website that equivocates between centrism and lack of bias. See this arbitrarily picked page for an example. See that graphic, the very first thing beneath the title? It’s giving the game away right there, with a left-right spectrum where the center is “least biased”. What about a centrist bias? Doesn’t exist, and the closer you get to centrist, the less “biased” you are.
I’m tempted to just laugh at mbfc being used as a gotcha, but I’m still bummed that it got this much cultural inertia behind it. It’s sort of like quoting an uncited Wikipedia article at someone to prove you’re right.
Does the article say that Maduro appointed the judges? Thus far I only see a claim that it’s packed with Maduro loyalists… which is pretty far from an unbiased framing
Ahhh yes, AP is known for being very biased…unlike the bastion of fair news sources that is “the peoples dispatch”
I believe this is the “whataboutism” that liberals love to cry about so much (more properly, you’re deflecting to a completely different topic)
Mudoro doesn’t need to appoint the judges for them to be or become loyalists. Did trump appoint any of his enablers in the house or Senate?
Trump doesn’t have even a double-digit number of loyalists in the Senate and proportionately probably about the same in the House. This is a relevant detail because his enablers in Congress are overwhelmingly party loyalists who will drop him like a sack of potatoes the moment it becomes more expedient to. The reason that matters is that it was mainly the Republican Party that got all those Congresspeople elected, not Trump, even in the races where Trump endorsed them, so the relative locus of power is the Republican Party (and really it’s the donor class, but we don’t need to get into that).
All this to say that AP’s simplistic and unsubstantiated flattening of Venezuelan politics to “There’s one guy in charge of everything, his lockstep minions, and the brave rightists fighting them” is below you to believe.
https://swprs.org/the-propaganda-multiplier/
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/swiss-policy-research/
MBFC is just some zionists blog site, it has no connection with journalistic integrity.
I could create a site called “world’s official bias and impartiality meter”, and do my own rankings.
https://citationsneeded.libsyn.com/episode-83-the-unchecked-conservative-ideology-of-us-medias-fact-check-verticals
I can do it too. MBFC is a hack website that equivocates between centrism and lack of bias. See this arbitrarily picked page for an example. See that graphic, the very first thing beneath the title? It’s giving the game away right there, with a left-right spectrum where the center is “least biased”. What about a centrist bias? Doesn’t exist, and the closer you get to centrist, the less “biased” you are.
I’m tempted to just laugh at mbfc being used as a gotcha, but I’m still bummed that it got this much cultural inertia behind it. It’s sort of like quoting an uncited Wikipedia article at someone to prove you’re right.
World has a stupid bot for it now and ignores anyone that points out it’s flaws
I’m not talking about OP’s article, I’m talking about yours.