Reporter asks Ron DeSantis why he can affirm his height with lifts, but stands against gender-affirming care

Do you think my comment did a reasonable job of responding to the previous comment's question?

I agree that leaving out details is bias, and everyone has bias. Bias can't be avoided.

The article is about DeSantis's bigoted hypocrisy. He is a bigot and hypocrite.

It's not relevant that he's also a failed presidential nominee. It's not relevant that he is backed by anti government extremists (his candidacy was aligned with that organization's gross priorities).

The additions only serve to further alienate the reader from DeSantis and DeSantis supporters. It's clearly biased against him.

This is an appropriate place for anti-DeSantis bias, but the person saying they were put off by the bias is entitled to feel that way too. If a person can't see how that article is biased it says a lot about them.

Lol yeah, but in this case you can do it while staying on topic.

Exactly

Some people, yourself included, have gone overboard on the sensitivity towards bias. You're at the point that including facts reads to you as bias.

No, I have no problem with the bias. Yes deciding what facts to include is a way bias manifests. Everything has bias.

I do not have a preference for centrism. I've said that this community is an appropriate place for anti-desantis bias.

Someone asked how is this article biased and I gave an example of how it's biased and everyone concluded I'm a radical centrist.

As you or someone else pointed out, a preference for centrism is a bias. I agree, but it's a less overt bias.

You've gone too far.

What the fuck, no! Someone asked how this article is biased and I gave an example.

The truth is Ron is a piece of shit. If speaking that truth is biased, then reality is biased.

I agree he is a piece of shit, but I don't think you understand bias.

I hope he'll recognize the harm his rhetoric is causing and spend the rest of his life helping people he has harmed.

It's scant hope, but IMO more likely than the existence of a Christian god.

None of the people claiming to be Christians actually believe or are devout worshippers. They do it for financial gain. Just like the moms for liberty woman claiming Christian values while making sex tapes. It’s all a game, easily played.

That's not the issue, he's talking about the credibility of the source.

Because credibility and bias are not mutually exclusive, it's just harder on the reader. You have to check the facts presented. It isn't hard to do in this case.

The advocate can be pretty hard leaning towards specific issues and viewpoints in what articles they choose to write about, and will advocate for lgbtq+ issues almost to the point of excluding any other possibility. They'll just not cover an issue before they write against their subject matter.

But they have a long history of staying true to facts in what they report. This isn't some fly by night thing.

And, a very easy search can pull up the same information from multiple sources, with and without extraneous jokes at desantis' behalf.

For the comment that we're discussing, it shows both unfamiliarity with the site/source The Advocate (certainly excusable, it's not exactly well known outside of a segment of the community it focuses on), and an unwillingness to check to see if the accusation of bias holds water before making the comment.

The article simply is not biased, and the publisher of the article is not only historically good about adhering to facts being vetted, even when publishing things that include opinions; but is considered to be a reliable source on its range of subject matter.

If you go digging into various bias/accuracy ratings on news outlets, the advocate places either left leaning or center/neutral in bias. Which is directly in contradiction to the claim of bias made by the comment above. It's also rated high in accuracy.

All of this together means that the person making the comment didn't bother to check. Which makes their claim of bias not only tangential, but misleading. And that is down vote worthy.

Now, on a tangential level, I'm amazed that this community isn't already aware of the advocate as long standing source for news relating to trans issues, not just gay issues. For decades they were the only major outlet for such news.

I don't object to general questions about bias and accuracy, I object to someone claiming bias that leads to inaccuracy without doing their due diligence. And, when you consider how often communities like this get targeted for active disruption via manipulation exactly like that, sowing distrust and misinformation, that is a very glaring problem.