How biased is your news source? You probably wont agree with this chart..............

[riversedge]

I had not seen these charts before. I like visuals.


How biased is your news source? You probably won’t agree with this chart

Published: Mar 1, 2018 5:07 a.m. ET



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.



?uuid=659e15a6-1ca8-11e8-83b2-9c8e992d421e

“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. .....................................

.......................................





Then there’s Infowars, which Otero deems “nonsense damaging to public discourse.” Infowars, after the chart first surfaced, responded with one of its own:



?uuid=f467e122-1ca8-11e8-8507-9c8e992d421e

[NurseJackie]

1. Looks accurate.

[democratisphere]

2. MSNBC is not hyper-partisan liberal.

Truth and facts are reality which is in short supply these days. Long live MSNBC!

[Glamrock]

5. Yeah wasn't sure about that one

I'll admit Lawrence falls into that category, but that's about it. I mean shit, Hugh Hewitt, Joe Scar, and what's her name from the Bush admin? Not exactly hyper liberal shows....

[sharedvalues]

37. Here's proof that CNN, MSNBC are both centrist and Fox is propaganda.

This is a really, really good economics paper.
https://www.gsb.stanford.edu/faculty-research/publications/bias-cable-news-persuasion-polarization

It shows that MSNBC and CNN pursue maximal profit, and do not affect their viewers' votes.
While Fox is biased too far right to be optimized for profit (as if it were being used as a propaganda tool) and it DOES affect its' viewers' votes.

So that paper is conclusive proof that Fox is far right and MSNBC and CNN are both centrist. I don't want to see any more of this equal sides BS equating Fox and MSNBC. It's a terrible idea that corrodes American public debate by normalizing Fox propaganda.

[Hortensis]

46. Varies from show to show, but agree no one category

could be accurate; perhaps they weighed the evening shows more heavily.

The real takeaway here is that FACT producing sources tend to be the most neutral. Of course, because they're fact oriented.* That's why I eventually learned to pay far more attention to them than to interpretive sources. And I only search "most extreme" sources to see what ideas and deceptions they're pushing.

I learned long ago that I provide plenty of left-wing bias all by myself. Embarrassing, unpleasant moments. But we can get wiser with age if we don't block the process.

* Never, ever forgetting the AP's massive campaign hit on Hillary, second only to Comey's, proven a major lie the first day and in spite of national outcry left up for something like two weeks. The AP is both highly factual and, we now know also, highly corrupt and untrustworthy--if you're a Democrat or just someone who cares about truth and democracy.

[Leith]

10. As Stephen Colbert Said

Last edited Sun Mar 4, 2018, 09:49 PM - Edit history (1)

Truth has a liberal bias.

My main sources for news are (TV) MSNBC, (Internet) The Guardian, The Hill, and (Radio) NPR (which includes the BBC news hour at noon). I don't generally read newspapers or magazines.

It's hilarious that infowars puts Sputnik and RT on the "freedom" side.

Edited to add: Oops. The actual quote was "Reality has a well known liberal bias." Well, nobody seemed to mind.

[Honeycombe8]

18. I think it probably ended up there because there are some top leftie talk shows...

like Maddow, Ali, All In, and such. Not strictly "news." But they are intended to be partisan, although factual (they are still in the "factual" category), just left. OTOH, they turn the network over to Joe Scarborough (w/liberal sidekick) every morning for several hours. So, I don't know. Scarborough has left the Repub Party for the time being.

So it's not the raw reporting of news that's biased. If you notice, Fox is at the bottom. Didn't even rate "factual." It's rated as propaganda.

It's probably not what it would be in normal times. Because of Trump, many things are skewing left, because of Trump and the extremist Republicans.

[progressoid]

30. Sure it is.

It can be both hyper-partisan and truthful.

[sharedvalues]

39. Good point.

As Josh Marshall said once, truthful coverage of the Cleveland Browns does NOT have equal coverage that is good and bad. Because the TEAM is bad.
Similarly, since the GOP has become an autocratic party slavishly controlled by billionaires we EXPECT them to get coverage calling them out. But we don't, because the GOP has somehow persuaded our media members that both sides should get equal time.

[D23MIURG23]

43. Interestingly, MSNBC was also the furthest up the chart...

of the cable news networks. The chart has CNN bordering on "unfair interpretations" and Fox in the "nonsense" box.

I think MSNBC is good about reporting real facts. That still leaves room for bias in the stories that they emphasize most strongly vs. the ones that they don't give much attention to or don't report on at all.

[Mike Nelson]

3. The top one...

...looks okay. They should have a special asterisk for the worst - FOX "News" claims to be "fair and balanced" while MSNBC hosts do not blatantly lie like that.

[sharedvalues]

40. Yes. Fox is propaganda, MSNBC is centrist. They are very, very different

above I posted the econ paper which proves that - it's a great read I think.

[Different Drummer]

4. Interesting. Thanks for posting this! n/t

[ismnotwasm]

6. Thats actually not bad

[csziggy]

7. Where is a link to the source?

Thanks.

[Generic Brad]

8. The Conservative portion is mislabeled

It needs to be retitled as "Bullshit"

[edhopper]

9. Wonder how a chart

showing accuracy in reporting looks.

Just kidding, we know which outlets lie.

[Va Lefty]

11. Don't think The Washington Post skews liberal anymore

If anything they like to play the "both sides do it" card

[Nitram]

20. The Post skews liberal because the truth skews liberal...

Have you checked out the latest news from right wing sources?

[sharedvalues]

32. +100

As Krugman has said "The facts have a well-known liberal bias"

[Igel]

12. Pretty good.

Every once in a while I find some glaring lapses. I don't look at some of the sources often, but The Guardian's one I regularly visit and not infrequently splutter at: "You mention this source and this source as authoritative, but I know of 5 others generally considered more reliable than that one." But the ones TG pick support TG's prevailing views. This happens with all sources that I look at, but sometimes TG's lapses strike me as the most egregious.


Then there's the weirdness that the opinion and news pages might diverge, at least slightly.

And the fact that every news source has to be selective. That's usually forgivable. But at some point the difference between selection bias and agitprop becomes trivial.


Those in the red box (and just above it) I can't read. I've tried from time to time. I can't. I find that my universe and theirs are too disparate. I either get pissed off at their inanity or burst out laughing at their inanity, sometimes after running for the gin and tonic to help provide a slightly different perspective. (No, I can't predict whether a given hairball of inanity makes me laugh or fume. Depends on the topic and how important I think it is, I guess.)

Infowar's presentation I just view as having in mind "how anti are the sources, because anything that's generally accepted must be false and anything not accepted must be true."

[LAS14]

13. When you said we probably wouldn't agree...

... what were you imagining our reactions would be? Just curious.

[rgbecker]

14. What? They didn't list the DU? That's where I get all my news....

Sometimes filtered from some of the others listed.

[mythology]

15. Are they talking in terms of strict news or are they including punditry and oped pieces?

For example generally the Wall Street Journal had a good history of factual reporting even while the oped page was a bastion of right wing pieces.

[sharedvalues]

33. Pyschology tells us it doesn't matter: most readers don't differentiate between news/oped

That's a trick Fox uses often - when people call some of their shows propaganda, they say "oh, that's our opinion shows, but our NEWS shows are fair". That's BS sleight of hand. They know that their viewers watch both; it's just a way to deflect criticism.

[rurallib]

16. Is there a link to the top chart?

before Reagan the ones to the left would be more in the middle and the ones on the right would have to be extended more to the right.

Our perception of right and left has truly been skewed by the onslaught of right wing media and has driven perception's to accept what was once the very far right as center to slightly right.

I would consider NPR and Politico as skews right.

[FuzzyRabbit]

22. I agree.

This nation has become so conservative that what was once middle of the road is now considered to be far left. What was once batshit crazy right-wing is now only moderately conservative.

[sharedvalues]

34. You're corect all around. See the plot below: shows NPR skewing right!

NPR is in green, rightward of NYT, WaPo, CNN and closer to the right.

[Liberty Belle]

17. Here is link to the top chart and article in Market Watch:

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/how-biased-is-your-news-source-you-probably-wont-agree-with-this-chart-2018-02-28

[Nitram]

19. Hasn't this been out for a few months now?

[sharedvalues]

35. Who did this?

Because it sucks. And it would be great to know who's behind it.

[Atman]

42. Vanessa Otero

She apparently has a pretty popular blog/website. She goes by simply Vanessa. You can Google her.

[TygrBright]

21. My eyes ain't what they used to be. Where is VOA on this chart?

I've been increasingly impressed by their reporting the past year or so, they have an amazing team worldwide but their Washington bureau is out-and-out stellar.

Not seeing them on there, though, which could be a function of old eyes...?

curiously,
Bright

[agincourt]

23. Unfortunately some progressives I know want to watch Faux news,

to get "both sides of the story". I tell them pick up a National Review at the public library instead. It may be BS as well, but at least it isn't scientifically formulated to make you stupid.

[ooky]

44. No progressive I know would have a reason like that to watch Fox News.

When I turn on Fox News its to see how they are presenting and distorting or intentionally leaving out the information they present to their viewers. Or just telling outright lies. I view that as a different reason than wanting to get the “other side”, which implies that they would think there is something believable they are hearing in the Fox News garbage “reporting”.

I think when a progressive turns on Fox News they are doing it for the same reason I do. Its important to have an understanding of what the opposition is saying to best push back on their propaganda.

[yuiyoshida]

24. no surprises here

none at all.

[erronis]

25. While many of my news "inlets" are in these graphics, I prefer to get a broader range of perspective

I like to get RSS feeds from German, Ukrainian, British, Arab, French, Aussie, multi-national science and health organizations, etc.

This is one of the reasons I think traditional media will die. They generally purvey a linear monologue about their topics. I guess this really applies to T.V. and radio.

Most of us pick and choose our inlets and also want to have a quick headline/abstract before committing to spend 5-10 minutes on ingesting and digesting.

I do like sites like DU or Reuters or Google News where I can see a lot of relevant (to me) updates fairly quickly and then dive deeper if I want.

[not fooled]

26. Sorry, not buying it

I see a contrived bell curve constructed out of "what used to be right wing is now the center US-pushed-to-the rightism" + "both sidesism". No way is Alternet as factually biased as the phony Drudge report.

Nice try at clickbait, though.

[sharedvalues]

27. Riddled with huge errors, mainly due to BS "equal time"

God this is a horrible, horrible chart.
Infowars and Breitbart should be ten times farther out from center than the New Republic.

:vomit:

I don't know who created this but they're don't have a clue what they are doing.

[MrModerate]

28. Some notable clunkers on the assignments . . .

Like Huffpo and Slate.

Also, the scale is off, IMO. It should be Neutral > Skews > Partisan > Hyper-Partisan. You don't want your graphic to be as shrill an Alex Jones rant.

Notwithstanding those imperfections, it's a useful view.

[Nevernose]

38. And Patribiotics is not liberal

Neither is Louise Mensch. Anti-Trump is not the same thing as liberal.

And the bottom chart’s X axis is actually scaled between “tyranny” and “freedom.”

[MrModerate]

47. Yeah. The second chart . . .

. . . from InfoWars, no less . . . is completely bonkers.

[sharedvalues]

29. Better chart, from Harvard, CJR: New Republic is FAR more mainstream than Breitbart

Truth here:



Note how all the right-wing sites cluster near themselves, FAR FAR away from the left?
That's because we have basically two kinds of media sources: centrist and rightwing propaganda. The stupid false equivalence given by the mediabias chart is absolutely corrosive to public discourse.

Truth: HuffPo, WaPo, CNN, NYT are all quite similar. Vox, Daily Kos, Guardian, Slate, Mother Jones, TNR are all quite close. Fox, Breitbart, Gateway Pundit, Daily Caller, Wash Ex, Wash Times are all FAR away and clustered together. They are all similar. Yes, Gateway Pundit, which makes news up and is proud of it, is very similar to Fox and Breitbart and Daily Caller.

But we already knew that. Anyone with half a brain knew that. There's two types of media in this country -- infotainment profit-seeking centrist media, and right-wing, money-losing, billiionaire-funded propaganda.

[RandomAccess]

31. I rather object to the terminology, but otherwise agree

"Hyer-partisan Liberal" seems a bit of an overreach, terminology-wise.

ETA: Yeah, I like the terminology suggested here better: https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=10318806

[LonePirate]

36. I need to disagree with Politico skewing liberal. They have become a right wing megaphone lately.

[sharedvalues]

41. Modified to give a more accurate version of that chart.

[img][/img]

[ooky]

45. I think its a pretty good chart.

Not a bad first stab at interpreting the mediia bias in reporting, at least for the media sources I view. The most important part to me is the left axis that judges the degree of truth or fiction in the reporting. I like truth. I don’t know why any intelligent person would want to make their news universe a source which makes stuff up, i.e., Fox.

[Jamaal510]

48. The only thing I'm

surprised about from that chart is that The Guardian wasn't placed further left. In fact, they might need to switch places with MSNBC on there.