New Media Bias Chart

[BmorePat87]

(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.

It's an interesting crossroads of Conservative anti-intellectualism (don't trust doctors, government, and pharmacies) and Liberal natural cure culture (chemicals are bad for your body, etc) but it's mostly liberal leaning. 

[BmorePat87]

(01-31-2018, 10:47 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: 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.

It's like when James O'Keefe tries to feed fake Roy Moore stories and WaPo instantly smelled it out and didn't run with it. While sometimes things get by and editors usually pay for it, there's a series of safeguards to ensure that what they are reporting passes as many tests as possible. Was it confirmed by X number of sources? Do all holes check out? Other outlets will then consult their sources before they run with it.

On the other side you have a media source that has a clear stated goal of appeasing a group of people so they will take fake facebook posts and run with it. 

[Johnny Cupcakes]

(01-31-2018, 02:31 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: 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].

(01-31-2018, 03:09 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: It's an interesting crossroads of Conservative anti-intellectualism (don't trust doctors, government, and pharmacies) and Liberal natural cure culture (chemicals are bad for your body, etc) but it's mostly liberal leaning. 

It wasn't the junk-science that made me think they were conservative, and I know liberals do it as well (looking at you, anti-vaccine, anti-GMO crowd).  It is the articles that I've seen posted that are obvious conservative sensationalism, such as "The left thinks black people are STUPID", "Did Michael Moore just call for the ethnic cleansing of all white people in America?", and "Anti-White racism running rampant on college campuses." Those seem like thread titles from everyone's favorite far-right poster, not articles from a liberal leaning publication.

[Belsnickel]

(01-31-2018, 03:30 PM)Johnny Cupcakes Wrote: It wasn't the junk-science that made me think they were conservative, and I know liberals do it as well (looking at you, anti-vaccine, anti-GMO crowd).  It is the articles that I've seen posted that are obvious conservative sensationalism, such as "The left thinks black people are STUPID", "Did Michael Moore just call for the ethnic cleansing of all white people in America?", and "Anti-White racism running rampant on college campuses." Those seem like thread titles from everyone's favorite far-right poster, not articles from a liberal leaning publication.

Yeah, I looked through it a bit and found it hard to get a read on. I don't know what the raw data looked like that she used to put it that far left. I probably would have put it closer to the Enquirer, myself, just based upon my preliminary glance. Utter rubbish, slightly skewed because of it going both sides.

[Johnny Cupcakes]

(01-31-2018, 03:32 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Yeah, I looked through it a bit and found it hard to get a read on. I don't know what the raw data looked like that she used to put it that far left. I probably would have put it closer to the Enquirer, myself, just based upon my preliminary glance. Utter rubbish, slightly skewed because of it going both sides.

Ha....at least she got it right when she stuck it at the bottom of the graphic.

[StLucieBengal]

(01-31-2018, 10:47 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: 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.

A lot of the sites listed on the far right side are yes biased. But they are sites who take other stories which have been reported and adds a conservative point of view. They are taking stories from alleged neutral ones and adding commentary. So the facts of the story are the same, adding commentary doesn’t affect the facts originally reported.

Dailywire for instance since we know how much you love that site. They do not do any original reporting. It’s commentary based on other media reports. Facts are the same as the original story. The commentary just allows the discussion to go in another direction of the same topic with the same facts.

[Belsnickel]

(01-31-2018, 04:20 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: A lot of the sites listed on the far right side are yes biased. But they are sites who take other stories which have been reported and adds a conservative point of view. They are taking stories from alleged neutral ones and adding commentary. So the facts of the story are the same, adding commentary doesn’t affect the facts originally reported.

Dailywire for instance since we know how much you love that site. They do not do any original reporting. It’s commentary based on other media reports. Facts are the same as the original story. The commentary just allows the discussion to go in another direction of the same topic with the same facts.

The commentary is often taking the discussion in a direction away from any facts. There is a reason why it is in the red box, and that is it. What you are talking about is just opinion or analysis journalism, which is fine if it gives a fair representation of the facts. This is not a description of something the Daily Wire is known for.

[StLucieBengal]

(01-31-2018, 04:22 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: The commentary is often taking the discussion in a direction away from any facts. There is a reason why it is in the red box, and that is it. What you are talking about is just opinion or analysis journalism, which is fine if it gives a fair representation of the facts. This is not a description of something the Daily Wire is known for.

That list has aljazeera, npr, and the bbc as neutral. State run media isn’t neutral.

Most of that nuetral list should be in the yellow at least. And the yellow to the orange and the orange to the red. I also think Fox News should be higher as they have a good hard news wing and that has some good reporting. It feels like they are being judged on their commentary people.

That nuetral Group should have maybe 2-3. Bloomberg and Wall Street Journal are pretty fair. There are a couple others who have their moments. Overall that top group is way too big.

[GMDino]

(01-31-2018, 04:31 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: That list has aljazeera, npr, and the bbc as neutral.   State run media isn’t neutral.    

Most of that nuetral list should be in the yellow at least.   And the yellow to the orange and the orange to the red.   I also think Fox News should be higher as they have a good hard news wing and that has some good reporting.   It feels like they are being judged on their commentary people.  

That nuetral Group should have maybe 2-3.    Bloomberg and Wall Street Journal are pretty fair.   There are a couple others who have their moments.   Overall that top group is way too big.

[Belsnickel]

(01-31-2018, 04:31 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: That list has aljazeera, npr, and the bbc as neutral. State run media isn’t neutral.

Most of that nuetral list should be in the yellow at least. And the yellow to the orange and the orange to the red. I also think Fox News should be higher as they have a good hard news wing and that has some good reporting. It feels like they are being judged on their commentary people.

That nuetral Group should have maybe 2-3. Bloomberg and Wall Street Journal are pretty fair. There are a couple others who have their moments. Overall that top group is way too big.

If you read the blog post, you will see why news organizations like Fox News ranks where they do. There are some liberal leaning sites in the same boat. As for the state run bit, it is more neutral than most news sources if you read it. Also, NPR is not state run.

[JustWinBaby]

It's a nice chart, and rotated about 40 degrees to the left it would even be accurate!

[Belsnickel]

(01-31-2018, 09:36 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote: It's a nice chart, and rotated about 40 degrees to the left it would even be accurate!

I will be sure to take your hyper-partisan opinion over data-based analyses any time.

[StLucieBengal]

(01-31-2018, 09:36 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote: It's a nice chart, and rotated about 40 degrees to the left it would even be accurate!

Agree totally.

[StLucieBengal]

(01-31-2018, 04:44 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: If you read the blog post, you will see why news organizations like Fox News ranks where they do. There are some liberal leaning sites in the same boat. As for the state run bit, it is more neutral than most news sources if you read it. Also, NPR is not state run.

What blog post? The only link is some polls about black lives matter. I don’t need to know anything about them since they are a Russian funded group.

[Belsnickel]

(01-31-2018, 11:40 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: What blog post? The only link is some polls about black lives matter. I don’t need to know anything about them since they are a Russian funded group.

The OP picture is a link to the post about how the rankings were made.

[StLucieBengal]

(02-01-2018, 12:10 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: The OP picture is a link to the post about how the rankings were made.

Ah. You hid it. Ok will check it out later on

[BmorePat87]

(01-31-2018, 11:40 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote:  I don’t need to know anything about them since they are a Russian funded group.

How exactly?

[StLucieBengal]

(02-01-2018, 08:57 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: How exactly?

Russian groups funded their advertising. Advertising meant to disrupt America. There has been multiple stories on this.

[Belsnickel]

(02-01-2018, 10:05 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Russian groups funded their advertising. Advertising meant to disrupt America. There has been multiple stories on this.

I've seen unfounded claims saying this, including some from Louise Mensch, who notoriously has a tentative grasp on reality. There was also the one ad they purchased that was not endorse by the movement and was actually intended to inflame communities against BLM.

[StLucieBengal]

(02-01-2018, 10:26 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I've seen unfounded claims saying this, including some from Louise Mensch, who notoriously has a tentative grasp on reality. There was also the one ad they purchased that was not endorse by the movement and was actually intended to inflame communities against BLM.

I saw it on CNN. But if your saying they are fake news then so be it.

[/url]