New Media Bias Chart

[Belsnickel]

(02-01-2018, 10:59 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: I saw it on CNN. But if your saying they are fake news then so be it.

[/url]

I mean, CNN is bullshit, but I'll just bold something for you.

(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.

[StLucieBengal]

(02-01-2018, 11:02 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I mean, CNN is bullshit, but I'll just bold something for you.

Yes, I never said the Russians ONLY funded Black Lives Matter ads. I just said they did. Which they did according to very fake news (CNN)

[JustWinBaby]

(01-31-2018, 09:53 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I will be sure to take your hyper-partisan opinion over data-based analyses any time.

LMFAO.....Do you honestly not see the bias in those results?  "Data-based"?!?  Did you mean to type "data biased", beacuse it's VERY EASY to manipulate results based on what criteria you set.  I mean, c'mon, just look at where MSNBC and Economist are.  And notice how most truly conservative outlets are very low on the "fact" scale.  

I thought you were smarter than that....But the I still laugh at how you got duped on the whole Trump thing by "reporters you know, trust and respect" having a lot more information to come - and the "bombshells" referred to were pretty obvious, but it was all fake news.  You guys in the Beltway live in a completely different world.  

[Belsnickel]

(02-02-2018, 12:29 AM)JustWinBaby Wrote: LMFAO.....Do you honestly not see the bias in those results?  "Data-based"?!?  Did you mean to type "data biased", beacuse it's VERY EASY to manipulate results based on what criteria you set.  I mean, c'mon, just look at where MSNBC and Economist are.  And notice how most truly conservative outlets are very low on the "fact" scale.  

I thought you were smarter than that....But the I still laugh at how you got duped on the whole Trump thing by "reporters you know, trust and respect" having a lot more information to come - and the "bombshells" referred to were pretty obvious, but it was all fake news.  You guys in the Beltway live in a completely different world.  

And it is still more data based than your hyper-partisan opinion. I don't think it is perfect, but I trust someone that can actually explain their methodology more than someone that is just basing their claim on biased opinion.

As for the second part, I really don't know what it is to which you are referring. I haven't been one that has jumped on all of the salacious Trump news.

[BmorePat87]

(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.

Russian groups bought fake ads for them and many other groups across the entire political spectrum. The ads often promoted ridiculous positions with the hope to cause strife between people within those groups and people opposed to them. Running a fake ad for a group to cause issues for them and others doesn't mean you fund them.

[GMDino]

(02-02-2018, 08:38 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: And it is still more data based than your hyper-partisan opinion. I don't think it is perfect, but I trust someone that can actually explain their methodology more than someone that is just basing their claim on biased opinion.

As for the second part, I really don't know what it is to which you are referring. I haven't been one that has jumped on all of the salacious Trump news.

Just assume that any news that comes out AGAINST Trump is "fake news" and if ANY report turns out to not be accurate that means none of them are or ever will be.

That's life inside the Trump bubble.

[Johnny Cupcakes]

(02-02-2018, 12:29 AM)JustWinBaby Wrote: And notice how most truly conservative outlets are very low on the "fact" scale.  

Oh, we notice this every single day.

[Belsnickel]

(02-02-2018, 10:29 AM)Johnny Cupcakes Wrote: Oh, we notice this every single day.

Well, the further from center any of the sources get on the x-axis, the lower down on the y-axis they fall. It's pretty much how it works on both sides. But if you are unable to look at things more objectively then you are perceiving the more partisan sources as higher up on the y-axis than they really are. It's a trap that many people fall into. It's why I have a quote about it in my signature.

[BmorePat87]

(02-02-2018, 12:29 AM)JustWinBaby Wrote: LMFAO.....Do you honestly not see the bias in those results?  "Data-based"?!?  Did you mean to type "data biased", beacuse it's VERY EASY to manipulate results based on what criteria you set.  I mean, c'mon, just look at where MSNBC and Economist are.  And notice how most truly conservative outlets are very low on the "fact" scale.  

I thought you were smarter than that....But the I still laugh at how you got duped on the whole Trump thing by "reporters you know, trust and respect" having a lot more information to come - and the "bombshells" referred to were pretty obvious, but it was all fake news.  You guys in the Beltway live in a completely different world.  

The distribution of sources is actually even on both sides. The common trend is the more partisan an outlet, the further down the Y axis it is. Maybe it has something to do with the fact that sources that keep their slant out of their work tend to just focus on facts. 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

I'm surprised that no one has commented on where CNN fell on this chart. Trump certainly casts a wide net with his "fake news" accusations, but in the case of CNN he has a point. Has an organization's reputation ever fallen so far from it's original standing? In my teens/early twenties CNN was comparable to the MacNeil Lehrer Report. Bring back Bernard Shaw!

[BmorePat87]

(02-02-2018, 12:07 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I'm surprised that no one has commented on where CNN fell on this chart.  Trump certainly casts a wide net with his "fake news" accusations, but in the case of CNN he has a point.  Has an organization's reputation ever fallen so far from it's original standing?  In my teens/early twenties CNN was comparable to the MacNeil Lehrer Report.  Bring back Bernard Shaw!

I disagree with where CNN and Fox fall. They should be with MSNBC.


But here's her response
http://www.allgeneralizationsarefalse.com/everybody-has-an-opinion-on-cnn/

Her 3 big issues are:
1. the use of "breaking news" on headlines for things that aren't breaking news
2. Their use of extreme representatives from two sides
3. Their focus on political drama

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(02-02-2018, 12:47 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: I disagree with where CNN and Fox fall. They should be with MSNBC.


But here's her response
http://www.allgeneralizationsarefalse.com/everybody-has-an-opinion-on-cnn/

Her 3 big issues are:
1. the use of "breaking news" on headlines for things that aren't breaking news
2. Their use of extreme representatives from two sides
3. Their focus on political drama

I'd include releasing news without properly vetting it and having it turn out to be completely false as well.  I agree with your position on where they and Fox fall on the chart.

[Belsnickel]

I'm not going to bother quoting you two, but I'm with you both on the whole CNN and Fox thing.

[*Wyche'sWarrior*]

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

Some interesting stuff.

Pretty much how I've seen it for years.....being a centrist independent.

AP, Reuters, USA Today, PBS, NPR, BBC, Wall Street Journal, Time, and WaPo, are where I get most of my news from....and a somewhat tilt one way or the other in some regards, though not over the top.

The rest I pretty much use for laughs, or to start the coals up for my smoker.


Fun fact.....I usually have a fun time doing pic in pic and swapping the channels during elections....the crying/back-patting is something to behold, and the bias is breathtakingly obvious.

[Belsnickel]

(02-02-2018, 11:52 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: The distribution of sources is actually even on both sides. The common trend is the more partisan an outlet, the further down the Y axis it is. Maybe it has something to do with the fact that sources that keep their slant out of their work tend to just focus on facts. 

I was going to say that there is more of a grouping of liberal leaning sites further up on the y-axis and so she may be more fair to them, but looking again I think it is just a result of more agencies skewing left.

[*Wyche'sWarrior*]

(02-02-2018, 02:18 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I'm not going to bother quoting you two, but I'm with you both on the whole CNN and Fox thing.

I'll second that.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

Further proof, if any was needed, of the different realities people inhabit based on their choice of news provider; HuffPo labels the newly released memo "a dud" and Fox news calls it a "bombshell".


I don't want to live on this planet anymore. 

[Belsnickel]

(02-02-2018, 04:55 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Further proof, if any was needed, of the different realities people inhabit based on their choice of news provider; HuffPo labels the newly released memo "a dud" and Fox news calls it a "bombshell".


I don't want to live on this planet anymore. 

Yeah, it is rather sad to see this all play out.

[*michaelsean*]

(02-02-2018, 10:38 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: Well, the further from center any of the sources get on the x-axis, the lower down on the y-axis they fall. It's pretty much how it works on both sides. But if you are unable to look at things more objectively then you are perceiving the more partisan sources as higher up on the y-axis than they really are. It's a trap that many people fall into. It's why I have a quote about it in my signature.

I gotta admit, I really don't get your signature.  It sounds intelligent, and maybe it is and i'm the dumb one, but to me it makes no sense.  

[Nebuchadnezzar]

They are all garbage, Bengals Board P&R and local news is all you need!