Quote:
Originally Posted by BigThief
|
That's the conclusion you draw from that page?
Their critique is this:
Quote:
|
Overall, we rate Fraser Institute as strongly Right-Center biased based on policy positions that favor business and Mixed for factual reporting due to false and misleading claims regarding global warming.
|
Being Right-Center biased "on policy positions that favor business" is not itself a reason to disqualify a source entirely, any more than being Left-Center biased 'on policy positions that favor labour unions' would be. It just means you should consider the perspectives that run counter to this source's implicit bias, which is why having a variety of sources to aggregate from is valuable.
For the latter, "Mixed for factual reporting due to false and misleading claims regarding global warming" says to me that you should be very skeptical of claims they make regarding climate change. For anything else (the other half of the 'mixed' rating), hold it in uncertainty until you can verify. Any technical or scientific claim deserves verification. Fraser Institute also hasn't failed a fact-check in the past five years (as of their page update in Dec 2024); this isn't blanket approval, but definitely runs counter to the idea that they cannot be trusted on any subject, ever.
Such a rating is no justification to entirely reject a source out of hand. Their numbers might be bang on, but you should critically appraise the opinion behind what you're reading, as you should with any source, even (
and especially) those that tend to fit your own personal political biases.