Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

How biased is your news source?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • How biased is your news source?

    Found this chart while browsing MarketWatch. Seems to be more or less on the money.
    https://www.marketwatch.com/story/ho...ry_top_stories

    Are we even aware of our biases anymore?

    If you look at this chart and are convinced your “extreme” source belongs in the middle, you just might be part of the problem plaguing America today.



    “In the past, national evening news programs, local evening news programs, and the front pages of print newspapers were dominated by fact-reporting stories,” says the chart’s creator, patent attorney Vanessa Otero. “Now, however, many sources people consider to be ‘news sources’ are actually dominated by analysis and opinion pieces.”

    She released the first version of the chart back in 2016, and she’s updated it several times since. Over the past year, it’s gone viral, with thousands of educators at both the high school and college levels using the compelling visual. She says she’s “shocked” by all the attention it’s received and still gets requests every day.
    Last edited by Ironduke; 03 Mar 18,, 16:57.
    "Every man has his weakness. Mine was always just cigarettes."

  • #2
    Wireline services about as close to the centre as you can get. Reuters, AFP, AP etc

    Bloomberg being there comes as a surprise, would have expected it to be a little further away from the centre. whether to the left or right am not sure, maybe right.

    No way in hell does FP skew conservative, they are liberal pretty obvious if you listen to their podcasts.

    Expected WSJ to be more right leaning than indicated here, their editorials certainly qualify. Non editorial i suppose its correct.

    Going by Trump coverage pre election, ABC, CBS & CNBC need to be more to the left where CNN is. They do not belong in the same space as NPR or PBS
    Last edited by Double Edge; 03 Mar 18,, 18:29.

    Comment


    • #3
      Going by Trump coverage pre election, ABC, CBS & CNBC need to be more to the left where CNN is. They do not belong in the same space as NPR or PBS
      What journalists and commentators say about Trump isn't necessarily a left-right thing. One can't say if they're critical of Trump, they're on the left, if they support him, they're on the right.

      There are plenty of right-wing media organizations who publish material that is critical of Trump. The National Review, for example, you can find plenty there. Fox News though, for example, pro-Trump day in, day out, is essentially an import of a UK Murdoch tabloid adapted as a 24 hour a day cable news broadcast station. News of the World/The Sun 24, US edition.
      Last edited by Ironduke; 03 Mar 18,, 18:52.
      "Every man has his weakness. Mine was always just cigarettes."

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Ironduke View Post
        What journalists and commentators say about Trump isn't necessarily a left-right thing. One can't say if they're critical of Trump, they're on the left, if they support him, they're on the right.
        ok but i found NPR& PBS coverage of trump a great deal more even handed than those other cable networks. As in explaining what happened than interjecting whatnot over what happened.

        More informative then is the word i'm looking for.

        Comment


        • #5
          That charts not too bad, except cnn WaPo, BBC and nyt need to move a square to the left.

          Cnn actually needs to move 1.5 squares left and further down to where buzzfeed is.


          My preferred source these days is Reuters and cnbc, which is a distinctly different thing than nbc.
          Last edited by citanon; 03 Mar 18,, 21:20.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Double Edge View Post
            ok but i found NPR& PBS coverage of trump a great deal more even handed than those other cable networks. As in explaining what happened than interjecting whatnot over what happened.

            More informative then is the word i'm looking for.
            The publicly funded broadcasters do tend to focus on very informative programming. Keep in mind though, that they are dependent on government funding which means they're not going to try to be too controversial.
            "Every man has his weakness. Mine was always just cigarettes."

            Comment


            • #7
              this chart is fairly old but there's a number of inaccuracies.

              ====

              Slate/New Republic/Daily Kos is not to the left of Jacobin, lol.

              Vox is not to the left of The New Yorker.

              BBC/NPR/PBS (!) is not to the right of the NYT/WaPo.

              Economist is one square too far right.

              The Hill is not to the right of The Wall Street Journal.

              Washingtom Times is not the same level of right as The National Review-- it is a square over.

              Fox News is not to the right of The Drudge Report, or the Daily Caller, or The Blaze.
              There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."- Isaac Asimov

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Ironduke View Post
                The publicly funded broadcasters do tend to focus on very informative programming. Keep in mind though, that they are dependent on government funding which means they're not going to try to be too controversial.
                Which is what i want to avoid. I use them in India as well. Focus tends to be on the subject rather than some made up talking points that may or may not be important but always attention grabbing.

                My test is how i feel after the program. If i'm worked up for any reason then i know i got spiked. Controversial stuff always gets shot down in this site so its not worth the time. Unless i have a few angles to cover it. Not easy

                See, the difference for me before joining this place is earlier i wanted my news spiked. Must have some emotional impact otherwise it was boring.

                After joining this place i want it as interesting as boiled vegetables. Zero emotional impact. Any emotional impact is bad. Took many years to realise this.

                Fake news works well i bet, spotting this sort of thing does not come easily or without the right coaching.
                Last edited by Double Edge; 03 Mar 18,, 23:09.

                Comment


                • #9
                  I use a couple of vetting websites to check sources. This is probably my favorite https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/
                  My fellow Americans, our long national nightmare is over.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Actual news sources? Tend to lean left, I suppose. New York Times, and NPR. Occasionally click through to something on CNN, but rarely watch actual CNN as it is garbage. Also, get the Chicago Tribune, which is conservative leaning. I look at Bloomberg, but that's more for business news.

                    My commentary sources lean conservative. Econ blogosphere, mostly.....try to avoid twitter, which is a cesspool.
                    "The great questions of the day will not be settled by means of speeches and majority decisions but by iron and blood"-Otto Von Bismarck

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      I've never liked cable news to begin with, just a bunch of talking heads who think they're important, talking over one another.

                      I was at the laundromat a few days ago. I saw one of those Mexican telenovelas on the TV screens they have playing non-stop on one of the Spanish channels, and I thought to myself... that's what cable news is. I would say they're masquerading and pretending to be the news, but they actually think they're serious journalists.

                      It's as if you took a telenovela, made a parody of it, except in a TV news format, where talking heads seen from the shoulders up say stuff in either a grave and serious tone, or an outraged and affronted tone. But in the end, it's just a telenovela nonetheless.
                      Last edited by Ironduke; 29 Apr 18,, 06:46.
                      "Every man has his weakness. Mine was always just cigarettes."

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Ironduke View Post
                        It's as if you took a telenovela, made a parody of it, except in a TV news format, where talking heads seen from the shoulders up say stuff in either a grave and serious tone, or an outraged and affronted tone. But in the end, it's just a telenovela nonetheless.
                        This format is seen in India on a number of channels. Prime time slot. It's infotainment, not news. Summary of the arguments could be had in less than five minutes instead of some one and half hour 'discussion' show.

                        The format is successful in getting people to watch.

                        Rule of thumb i use is ...more than 3 panelists ? change the channel
                        Last edited by Double Edge; 29 Apr 18,, 16:18.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          NYT and WaPo are liberal rags. What they report might be true, often its not but worse is what they fail to cover at all. Of the ones at the top, The Hill is probably the best.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Ironduke View Post
                            I've never liked cable news to begin with, just a bunch of talking heads who think they're important, talking over one another.

                            I was at the laundromat a few days ago. I saw one of those Mexican telenovelas on the TV screens they have playing non-stop on one of the Spanish channels, and I thought to myself... that's what cable news is. I would say they're masquerading and pretending to be the news, but they actually think they're serious journalists.

                            It's as if you took a telenovela, made a parody of it, except in a TV news format, where talking heads seen from the shoulders up say stuff in either a grave and serious tone, or an outraged and affronted tone. But in the end, it's just a telenovela nonetheless.
                            Yepppp, that's cable news. It's a f'in soap opera, but with nuclear weapons.
                            "The great questions of the day will not be settled by means of speeches and majority decisions but by iron and blood"-Otto Von Bismarck

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Double Edge View Post
                              This format is seen in India on a number of channels. Prime time slot. It's infotainment, not news. Summary of the arguments could be had in less than five minutes instead of some one and half hour 'discussion' show.

                              The format is successful in getting people to watch.

                              Rule of thumb i use is ...more than 3 panelists ? change the channel
                              Rajya sabha TV uses talking heads, but it is quite serious analysis
                              "Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?" ~ Epicurus

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X