New Media Bias Chart

[Belsnickel]

Some interesting stuff.

[*michaelsean*]

What's infowars? I need to get there.

[BmorePat87]

(01-30-2018, 03:29 PM)michaelsean Wrote: What's infowars?  I need to get there.

Alex Jones. Crazy ass conspiracy theorist. 

[BmorePat87]

(01-30-2018, 03:23 PM)Belsnickel Wrote:

Some interesting stuff.

Thank god the boards don't get flooded with a dozen stories a day from any of the sites in the red...

[*michaelsean*]

(01-30-2018, 04:15 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Alex Jones. Crazy ass conspiracy theorist. 

OK I've heard of him.

[GMDino]

(01-30-2018, 04:16 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Thank god the boards don't get flooded with a dozen stories a day from any of the sites in the red...

Oh man...I posted a story from FOX today!  

[Johnny Cupcakes]

(01-30-2018, 04:15 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Alex Jones. Crazy ass conspiracy theorist. 

No. My president promised me that this guy's "reputation was amazing"....right after we heard him ranting about chemicals in the water that are totally creating gay frogs, and Obama and Hilary being shapeshifting demons.

Here's a rundown of some of the best....

https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/lists/alex-jones-mis-infowars-7-bat-sht-conspiracy-theories-w467509

[fredtoast]

The Enquire is genius at niche marketing.

[Yojimbo]

I get 90% of my news from Reuters and the AP, so I’m doing pretty good on “just the facts”. I do like The Intercept, The Guardian, Democracy Now! and NPR, though.

[SunsetBengal]

Who is behind Mediabiaschart.com?

[Belsnickel]

(01-30-2018, 05:25 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Who is behind Mediabiaschart.com?

Click on the chart, it takes you to the website where you can learn about the chart, how it was derived, who does it, etc.

[Belsnickel]

(01-30-2018, 05:14 PM)Yojimbo Wrote: I get 90% of my news from Reuters and the AP, so I’m doing pretty good on “just the facts”. I do like The Intercept, The Guardian, Democracy Now! and NPR, though.

What's important to keep in mind is that things in the yellow and above are still valid journalism. Analysis pieces are good reads and provide some excellent insights. The key for anything like this is just knowing what you're reading. Many people read something that is heavily opinionated and take it for fact reporting. Opinions and analyses can be well researched, well reasoned pieces, they just need to be taken for what they are. This doesn't automatically mean they are fake (especially those in the yellow box), just recognize that this is someone giving their take on something.

I personally read The Weekly Standard, National Review, Foreign Policy, The Nation, The Atlantic, The Guardian, WaPo, Axios, Politico, BBC, NPR, PBS, CSM, The Hill, and the wires on a regular basis (which means when I am actively looking for things). But, I also follow accounts for Mother Jones, Vox, Washington Examiner, The American Conservative, and a couple of others because sometimes it is fun to see what they say.

Here is how I have things arranged, because I am a bit of a nerd:


I already had these all in my favorites, then this chart made me put separators in (and alphabetize, because why not go all the way when organizing?)

[Dill]

(01-30-2018, 03:23 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Some interesting stuff.

I believe that most of those sources in the Green box have been designated "fake news" by at least one prominent politician.

How can we know whom to trust?  

[SunsetBengal]

(01-30-2018, 05:27 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Click on the chart, it takes you to the website where you can learn about the chart, how it was derived, who does it, etc.

Wow, she did a great job of explaining how to read the chart, and her methods behind how she rated the various outlets.  I will admit that it sort of dragged on after a while, I tapped out about half way through her explanation of the metrics that she uses.  Her method of speaking reminded me of a Sociology Professor in college, so I read her in my "Dr. Judith Thompson voice". 

[Belsnickel]

(01-30-2018, 08:48 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Wow, she did a great job of explaining how to read the chart, and her methods behind how she rated the various outlets.  I will admit that it sort of dragged on after a while, I tapped out about half way through her explanation of the metrics that she uses.  Her method of speaking reminded me of a Sociology Professor in college, so I read her in my "Dr. Judith Thompson voice". 

Yeah, it's one of the reasons I love the source. She has her J.D., so a lawyer. But lawyer, professor, either one drags on a good bit.

[StLucieBengal]

Bias isn’t the problem.

Whether they own the bias up front matters. Lots of news organizations claim to be neutral but are clearly not. I wish all states their bias so at least it was clear to every reader or viewer.

I prefer partisan publications because you know where they are coming from and can weigh it accordingly. That’s why I don’t complain about msnbc. They own their bias. And I respect that

[Belsnickel]

(01-31-2018, 12:13 AM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Bias isn’t the problem.

Whether they own the bias up front matters. Lots of news organizations claim to be neutral but are clearly not. I wish all states their bias so at least it was clear to every reader or viewer.

I prefer partisan publications because you know where they are coming from and can weigh it accordingly. That’s why I don’t complain about msnbc. They own their bias. And I respect that

Bias is one thing, inaccurate information is another. There are two axes on the chart, one is bias, but the other is just the quality of the reporting. You can have quality reporting with bias, as evidenced by some of the sources shown. But when you get into the orange and red boxes, you are dealing not only with bias in most cases, but with shit quality.

When you rely on sources that lack any journalistic integrity, like those in the bottom two boxes, you fall into the trap of the quote in my signature.

[*Nately120*]

(01-31-2018, 12:13 AM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Bias isn’t the problem.  

Whether they own the bias up front matters.   Lots of news organizations claim to be neutral but are clearly not.   I wish all states their bias so at least it was clear to every reader or viewer.  

I prefer partisan publications because you know where they are coming from and can weigh it accordingly.   That’s why I don’t complain about msnbc.  They own their bias.   And I respect that

But that goes against the consumer's need to lie to himself.  People don't want to admit they believe what they believe because they are biased, nor do they want to say they watch the news they watch because it caters to their biases.  People want to say they believe what they believe because they are right and they watch the news they watch because it agrees with their views BUT is also completely fair and accurate and reliable and right.

That's just the best marketing there.  Welcome to XYZ news, where we tell you what you want to hear, not just because you want to hear it, but because it's the right thing to say.

[Johnny Cupcakes]

They have Natural News as a liberal publication? I have a high school buddy that posts stuff from that site on SM frequently and they are FAR from liberal. It's not quite alt-right Brietbart propaganda, but it isn't far off.

Also, The Hill seems like it's quickly making a shift to the other side.

[Belsnickel]

(01-31-2018, 12:13 PM)Johnny Cupcakes Wrote: They have Natural News as a liberal publication? I have a high school buddy that posts stuff from that site on SM frequently and they are FAR from liberal. It's not quite alt-right Brietbart propaganda, but it isn't far off.

Also, The Hill seems like it's quickly making a shift to the other side.

The right-wing doesn't have a monopoly on junk science, but the site is very interesting to look through. I don't know what to classify it as, myself, because there is some pro-Trump stuff, but at the same time there is a ton on that page that any conservative I know would balk at.

The Hill is one I would have put closer to center. They don't editorialize on anything very much, just report what is going on. It's not their fault who is running the government [into the ground].