Do you want to see my Media Political Bias chart?

[AmandaYVR]

I don't want this thread to turn into a nasty, aggressive, screaming match about politics. So be nice, like my badger is (see my 'What kind of people do you like?' q.)
But here, for informational purposes, is an infographic about media bias.
This does not, therefore, mean "fake news". If you use that phrase on here I might just flip the f out, so let's stay away from cliches, shall we?

And no, no anon on this one.

Updates

+1 y

Here's the Interactive chart version:

www.adfontesmedia.com/.../

[Sensmind]

That would seem to be a fair representation of news bias to me - For me the issue is not bias but the appetite for BIASED NEWS - Okay fair enough news presenting has always been biased but we have gone to the extreme of bias - It's like I am left or right and want my news giving to me only by people who agree with me.
Often times the news can be complex and to hear a one side coloured view only warps on cements your views. There are days when I wish for a neutral broadcast devoid of interpretation but then would be 5 mins long rather than an hour of "Analysis" - There are people on the various outlets I call the sane people who give their view simply with no hyperbole and often try to analyse both sides' viewpoints. They are usually the moderates.
The further right or left I go, I am thinking the town drunk at the bar. So the question have we hit the low point or is their further to go. Sometimes I just take a break from the news and the peace/quiet go back a fortnight to the very same thing just different factors but the very same partisan angles at play. Honestly sometimes I just say to heck with it blanket ban on news just go into the various elections blind especially these days it is very rare to meet anyone who changed their mind just because of a debate on CNN or FOX

[AmandaYVR]

Take a bow, Sir. Very well done.

[Sensmind]

Thanks for MHO

[OddBeMe]

It appears pretty accurate. Now which news outlets have the most informed viewers?

[AmandaYVR]

Right.

[Wowgirl30q]

That's cool Ms

[hellionthesagereborn]

That's not correct. For starters half the ones in the center are actually left leaning (CNN is more then left leaning and for some reason they are not acknowledging their unfair coverage of Trump (whom they actually edited videos in order to misrepresent (provably so). Almost all journalists are left leaning, either by admission or by deed (who they donate to). You'll also notice that not one right leaning news network (the vast majority of which are independent and quite small in comparison) is given any credibility. Not one? Not a single republican outlit is reliable? Doesn't that strike you as odd? If I said every single left leaning person was a liar wouldn't you think that was a bit biased? Also what are the parameters in which she determines what is left leaning and what is right leaning? We have reliable sources showing that most journalists vote democrat, only 7% of those surveyed where republican. We also know that most have negative views for republicans in their media, they donate democrat etc. So these are metrics of which we can measure who is or is not left or right leaning, what metric is being used here? As far as I can tell none. Then you have the issue that its showing that almost every conservative outlets are unreliable, how did they come to that conclusion? Why is CNN who was caught lying multiple times, who even edited video to manipulate their viewers perception of the president (the whole fiasco with them claiming Trump called immigrants animals when he provably didn't (thanks to unedited videos leaked to the public)), why are they reliable but Fox news which as far as I know while being biased have not said anything that is patently false let alone actively edited video to create propaganda and slander those they don't agree with. So how are they determining all of this? Also by the creator of this graphs own words, this is entirely subjective and based upon her opinion. What isn't subjective is that almost all journalists either identify as being on the left or donate to left leaning candidates.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/yes-liberal-media-bias-is-real-and-heres-how-it-affected-the-cnbc-debate
https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/media-bias-against-conservatives-real-part-reason-no-one-trusts-ncna895471 https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/nov/8/republicans-media-bias-claims-boosted-by-scarcity-/
https://www.redstate.com/erick/2012/10/09/chucktodd-and-the-incest-conspiracy/
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/04/25/media-bubble-real-journalism-jobs-east-coast-215048
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/04/narrative-message-media-president-barack-obama-administration-communications-213830?paginate=false
https://publicintegrity.org/federal-politics/journalists-shower-hillary-clinton-with-campaign-cash/
https://shorensteincenter.org/news-coverage-donald-trumps-first-100-days/?utm_source=POLITICO.EU&utm_campaign=ab6d830a9d-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2017_05_19&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_10959edeb5-ab6d830a9d-189799085
https://www.dailywire.com/news/study-network-news-spent-70x-more-time-talking-hank-berrien
So again, this is completely inaccurate based upon not only the admission of the person who created it but also by objective data gathered from many many different sources. (i'm not even republican either and I can see the extreme bias against them).

[Lliam]

I've seen this chart before and it cracks me up. It's like seeing a chart on where to get the best health food that lists only corporate fast food chains and implies that 'actual' health food is either fake or nonexistent. And guess what. The chart is created by the National Fast Food Association. Every single one of the media outlets on the chart is politically biased. Therefore they omit and spin information to pander to their target demographic. Yet every single one of them tells the corporate/government narrative, the whole narrative and nothing but the narrative. They insure that information that conflicts with that narrative never ever sees the light of day. Combined, they create the illusion on consensus on U. S. government policy. What's funny is, as this chart illustrates, they give the illusion of diversity. Which is like saying that our political system gives us a 'full diversity' of choices between one of two nearly identical oligarchic, neoliberal, corporate, kleptocratic, imperialist, war-hawk parties. And the name of the game is to play up the differences between a Big Mac and a Whopper.

[AmandaYVR]

Holy shit, Lliam. You should smoke some weed. "There's no place like home, there's no place like home..."

[Lliam]

Amanda, does this mean that you disagree with my assessment? tee hee
It's cool.

[AmandaYVR]

I don't know. I neither agree nor disagree. I just think the discussion would be more enjoyable with some weed (or whatever makes you chill.)

[Lliam]

Hahahaha Yeah, a person almost needs something to take the edge off of the awful realities we face.

I read what I wrote to my wife to see if it sounded angry or hostile. Then read what you said about weed and "there's no place like home" and she busted up.

by the way, my original comment was broken into paragraphs. The minute I clicked send, GAG condensed it into one run-on paragraph. Have you noticed that happening with anything you write? That just started happening a few days ago.

[Lliam]

It didn't do it this time. How odd. Maybe it's because I called it to GAG's attention yesterday.

[talloak]

I don't have big conflicts with these rankings. I would have put Daily Kos further to the left and Washington Times further to the right. I'm not clear how they ranked them on reliability and bias using numeric scores. I suppose they look at misrepresentations of facts (for reliability) and which political philosophy benefits by them (for bias)?

I've tried without success to establish a common source of facts that we could come to any kind of mutual understanding with political opponents. It amazes me that so many consider Wikipedia to be an opinion page! And it's not just conservatives I argue with. I was shocked when a relative declared that the New York Times was a conservative propaganda source! I bet no conservative would agree with that.

[Spencer10]

I am gonna give this an A... I have found I enjoy The Economist and BBC world to get the facts and just the facts. The Economist also has excellent editorials. CNN has lost its way a bit but is entertaining and a little left while I watch Fox when i need a good belly laugh!
What about The National Post, Globe and Mail and CBC, CTV fellow Canuck?

[AmandaYVR]

I know... boooooo! No fairsies.

[Spencer10]

I read and watch em all. National Post is more Conservative, G & M is slightly Liberal. CBC and CTV seem pretty fair and accurate.

[JayParris]

I disagree with it. In general, it seems kinda funny to use a chart from Forbes media to rank other media outlets on bias. Their majority shareholder is a communist media outlet. So "neutral" to them is probably far left to most others.

[AmandaYVR]

Forbes?

Ad Fontes Media, Inc. is a company founded in 2018 by Vanessa Otero, creator of the Media Bias Chart. The mission of Ad Fontes Media is “making news consumers smarter and news media better.”

Ad Fontes Media is incorporated as a Public Benefit Corporation (PBC)[1] in Colorado. The stated public benefit of Ad Fontes Media is the same as its mission.

Ad Fontes is Latin for “to the source,” because at the heart of what Ad Fontes Media does is look at the source—analyze the very content itself—to rank it. We are not measuring consumer opinions, clicks and views, or “user engagement.” Plenty of other companies do that in order to sell ads, and we think that is part of the problem we face in the current media landscape.

Ad Fontes Media will never sell ads to make money. Ad Fontes is currently funded by its founder, by a crowdfunding campaign which ran in late 2018, by sales of licenses and prints, by donations through this site by individuals who believe in its mission. Any future additional sources of funding will be disclosed on this site and in future annual reports.

Funding for Ad Fontes Media is currently used to fund 1) a content ratings research project, in which 20 analysts from all over the country are rating thousands of articles and shows, and 2) the development of interactive web version of the Media Bias Chart.

[1] The difference between a PBC and a regular C-corporation is that a PBC’s shareholders are required to consider the stated public benefit of the corporation in addition to the financial interests of the stakeholders when making business decisions. This is a formation option that has recently become available to companies in most states. A PBC can receive grants and donations, but those are not tax-deductible. It can also sell shares like a C-Corporation. This information about PBCs is not tax or legal advice.

www.adfontesmedia.com/about-ad-fontes-media/

[JayParris]

Ah. I couldn't see it clearly. What are they using as the metrics to determine left, right or neutral?

[AmandaYVR]

Here's their methodology:

www.adfontesmedia.com/.../

[JayParris]

I dug into their site explaining how they make the determination. They don't give many specifics. What I did learn is that they have a panel of people of different politics who rank each article based on its content. Needless to say, its hardly within the realm of science. There's a lot more going on in the art of media manipulation of the masses than meets the eye (or ear).

For instance, why would you rank Infowars as far right? It makes sense on the surface, but not when you dig deeper. There's a pretty good chance that Alex Jones intentionally blows everything way out of proportion to purposely wreck the credibility of the raw facts.

A better way to rank rank them would be to take the key statements in an article - the most extreme statements - and present them in a survey-style questionnaire. But you'd have to have good standards for whether the reviewers were left, right, or neutral to begin with, which is tough on its own.

As an example, if you would, I'd like to know exactly what you consider to be politically neutral. How exactly do you determine political neutrality?

[AmandaYVR]

I really don't want to get into any detail expressing my personal views (I haven't seen enough respect, self-control, or neutrality for it to be beneficial, other than to those who crave a debate, and that is not me. So these topics too often turn ugly and people have their own biases and generalizations which they don't like to admit to.) I also don't see enough rational thought. And as @dangerDoge reminds us, there is so often Identity Fallacy. What's a fallacy you hear often that tars your feathers? ↗ And anybody who over-generalizes with misuse of "all", "never", or the bastarditization of words which already clearly have historical meaning and foundational basis, etc., no matter what your chosen party affiliation, I walk away from. These things simply do not allow for deeper analysis, they shut it down.
But ok, to answer your question, I use my own judgement and experiences of course. I have never been one for groupthink. What I am proud of is living in a culturally progressive country, yet also spent many years in the U. S. so I have first-hand knowledge of that to compare, as well, my husband is an avid reader and smart as f**** (we talk about this stuff all the time), and my background is European. So I do not look through one, limited lens.
I don't think the organizations placed in the centre neutral section are inaccurate, and I respect NPR, Bloomberg, The Economist, and I watch the local Canadian CBC news, all of which are good, in my opinion. There are others I also have no issue with, but I'm not going to name them because I don't want a battle. And I'm not here to attempt to sway minds, which I never see works online. I'm merely providing information here.

[JayParris]

I completely understand. I have no party affiliation, but I'm not completely unbiased myself. I doubt that anyone could ever be, and that's the reason for needing metrics.

[AmandaYVR]

Exactly. I think all this choosing side/party affiliation is a huge part of the problem. But when push comes to shove, the more aggressive things feel, adversarial, the more people will dig in their heels, and ultimately pick a side, because they like the feeling of allies. (Though not to discount, if you choose issues that one party cares about or doesn't, it doesn't take long to see approximately where you fall.) Admitting you have biases in the first place is the first step in finding a way to communicate with others. These are ideologies, preferences, not fact, much of the time. The issues/divides happen in the analysis.

Check out this website with all these biases tests. I've taken a few over the years.
(You don't have to give them an email. Just select the bottom left option with the U. S. flat icon, change country if you want, and take some tests...
Nobody's goona be neutral. But it's a good exercise to remind some people.

implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/selectatest.html

[JayParris]

You're absolutely right. The more people argue instead of debate reasonably, and the more they act like toddlers by name-calling and belittling, the more entrenched they get in opposition politics instead of anything beneficial. That's why I prefer to ask questions and let them struggle with themselves.

I'll definitely take some of those tests and see exactly what biases I have (other than those I already know). Thanks for the link

[AmandaYVR]

👌 Welcome.

[JayParris]

Interesting results so far. It says I have a slight preference to white people over black, and a slight preference for Trump over Reagan. I would have thought the opposite on both tests.

[AmandaYVR]

Wow. Yeah I remember taking the Ageism one and I was pretty sure I was going to be biased towards older people, but I was the opposite (which apparently most people are). It's quite illuminating.

[MAINEVENTMAFlA]

I figured it was something like that because this chart is fake as fuck.

[wankiam]

looks interesting. i do think the dailly mail needs to be further to the right on that map though and cnn further south. also i wonder how far bloomberg will drift leftwards as the primaries get closer

[mike5150]

I think allsides. com has it about right

https://www.allsides.com/media-bias/media-bias-ratings

[Tru-陳]

This is all fake. All media works for the deep state. Left and right is an illusion used to cause division in society at a superficial and simpleton level. Those who know will know that the left/right media outlets both work for the same people. You're not fooling anyone.

[MAINEVENTMAFlA]

100% fake to act like Fox is alt right and CNN is closer to the truth CNN lied about Trump Russia collusion for 2 fucking years straight.

[COMMODOREII]

It shows how what you watch may not be totally unbiased. 😊 i don't see fox news in there though cause i know they would be far right. Lol

[AmandaYVR]

Yeah, they're there... grey and white on the lower right.

[COMMODOREII]

I see it now. Lol

[DanOh2018]

Center with elements from both sides. Everyone is a liar, the game is figuring out why and what about.

[AmandaYVR]

Well said.

[DanOh2018]

Thanks

[MoscowMitch]

Nice chart. I expected the Guardian to be further to the left and the Daily Mail to be somewhat to the right of Infowars but I don't see any major inaccuracies.

[Manlyman1]

It's time to get all that nice wool cut off.

[MoscowMitch]

So I don't know, maybe the US editions are different to ours. Re: the American media I think MSNBC tends towards very selective reporting

[MoscowMitch]

@Manlyman1 haha bite me

[AmandaYVR]

Agreed. Sadly MSNBC and CNN are not what they used to be. Ever since the 24 hr news cycle began, it detrimentally changed the nature of content. Plus a little Kardashian thrown in there, to boot.

[MAINEVENTMAFlA]

Fuck this chart to even have CNN closer to original fact reporting when we know they lied about Trump and Russia for 2 years. They lied about the kids in the MAGA hats they lied about Tulsi Gabbard being a Russian agent. Whoever made this chart is a liar plain and simple.

[October808]

Before

https://www.youtube.com/embed/1fwsLvfmn_Yhttps://www.youtube.com/embed/OKL_I4pJs84

During

https://www.youtube.com/embed/vC20Ej6E99A

After

https://www.youtube.com/embed/o2dsChf3Wl0

[lightbulb27]

OANN? obviously right
I like the chart approach, I won't judge the placements.

[ecfresh]

Would move many of the neutral outlets to skews left but mostly I agree

[TheWombRaider]

y'all 4 Real

[Exorcist_Rampage]

Awesome but the words are so jammed up, it is hard to realize what is what.

[AmandaYVR]

I know. Try the interactive version I posted in the Update.

[Jjpayne]

Nah I think it's too bias :)

[bamaslamma]

I'm impressed! Genuinely!

[NickiB]

Did you make this?

[bamaslamma]

If she did, it's truly pretty awesome no matter what it says!

[AmandaYVR]

No, Credit is at the bottom of the graphic. And I also posted additional information about them on @JayParris exchange between he and I.