Media Bias Chart

[Commodus]

All "news" is biased now, co-opted by the parties. Period. Fox is GOP and CNN, MSNBC are Democrat and most of the others all into either camp as well. RT is GOP, News-max is GOP, Huff-po is liberal AF, and so on. You're not going to get straight news anymore. You're going to get both sides and then have to make your own decision.

I do read Politico and The Hill as they seem to balance both better than the others.

To some extent, this is based on an assumption that there hasn't been some significant bias all along, or that there's some perfectly neutral criteria. I'd say bias has existed all along -- It's just that the more reliable outlets (NYT, WP and the like) have been supplemented by sites that not only wear their partisanship on their sleeve, but don't feel they have to confirm to a rigorous journalistic standard... or in the case of Breitbart, Daily Caller and the like, any journalistic standard at all.

 

[Zorba]

We looking at the same chart? They are smack dab in center.

PBS is shown slightly on the right, but that might just be so you can see it. I don't know what I was thinking with NPR. I looked at the chart, then read the thread, then replied so something got mixed up. I was surprised to see The Hill on the right. I only read it when I see a link, but they seem level.

 

[Jhhnn]

Gawd. Digression into the minutiae of lesser sources is not really helpful. It ignores the basic function of a free press in democracy, which is to provide leadership. So the question is if we want to be led on the basis of facts & analysis or on the basis of partisan lies.

Given the position of Fox on the chart & their dominant market share it seems clear that a great deal of what Conservatives believe is based on lies. It can be no other way.

 

[brycejones]

Gawd. Digression into the minutiae of lesser sources is not really helpful. It ignores the basic function of a free press in democracy, which is to provide leadership. So the question is if we want to be led on the basis of facts & analysis or on the basis of partisan lies.

Given the position of Fox on the chart & their dominant market share it seems clear that a great deal of what Conservatives believe is based on lies. It can be no other way.

I'm guessing a certain poster is trying to bothsides this thread as well?

Who are you to question people and their alternative facts? All sources are equal and none should be questioned in relation to others. #truthiness

 

[HomerJS]

Gawd. Digression into the minutiae of lesser sources is not really helpful. It ignores the basic function of a free press in democracy, which is to provide leadership. So the question is if we want to be led on the basis of facts & analysis or on the basis of partisan lies.

Given the position of Fox on the chart & their dominant market share it seems clear that a great deal of what Conservatives believe is based on lies. It can be no other way.

ding...ding...ding...ding

 

[Moonbeam]

So tell me, how do you get the people that know real good into the position, and not biased people that only think they know good?

I think perhaps you may have misunderstood what I was getting at. Since all people who think they know but do not know possess the kind of certainty that would lead them to seek to crush what they believe are false beliefs, That path is precluded by those who can carry the ring. A characteristic of somebody with the moral incorruptibility to carry the ring can't be corrupted into using it. The love of self precludes the use of force in anything but self defense. It seems then to me that it would behoove a society that wishes to flourish that it have an educational system that directs attention to the problem of self deception, propaganda, and psychological manipulation. That will not be easy to do as all of those means are used by aspects of a society that is competitive to obtain power position and security.

 

[Cozarkian]

I spoke of the ratings as they were presented. That means that overall MSNBC is two rectangles better than Fox News. That means you do not pay attention to the obvious points you made because we are looking at "on average" not on occasion. As for their magical ability to hide it better, that only speaks to your magical ability to see what isn't there according to the survey. They hide it better is just your opinion, one which I would chalk up as a crack-pot theory.

So let's do this again. Fact: According to the chart Fox falls two rectangles below MSNBC but is commonly compared to it as parallel and equal but opposite in objectivity. MSNBC was rated as fair opinion and analysis while Fox News was rated as propaganda containing misleading information both inaccurate and fabricated.

I also spoke of the ratings as presented. Fact: MSNBC is only about half a box closer to the y-axis center (edit: 3/4 of a box closer), so it is pretty close in level of bias to Fox News.

MSNBC is two boxes better in reporting facts because despite it's liberal bias, on average, it does a better job of providing complete facts and fair analysis, aka hiding it's bias behind higher quality reporting.

Then you have the circles, which indicate MSNBC overall is not just as bad as Fox News, but some of it's stories are.

Put that all together and you can see why an average person who doesn't spend their life watching news might find them comparable - because they will be focusing on the left/right bias and the worst of the stories, not the up/down average quality.

 

[realibrad]

I think perhaps you may have misunderstood what I was getting at. Since all people who think they know but do not know possess the kind of certainty that would lead them to seek to crush what they believe are false beliefs, That path is precluded by those who can carry the ring. A characteristic of somebody with the moral incorruptibility to carry the ring can't be corrupted into using it. The love of self precludes the use of force in anything but self defense. It seems then to me that it would behoove a society that wishes to flourish that it have an educational system that directs attention to the problem of self deception, propaganda, and psychological manipulation. That will not be easy to do as all of those means are used by aspects of a society that is competitive to obtain power position and security.

You are not being clear and speaking in analogies. Try not using them.

How do you test if people will use their power to push wrong ideas? How do you test that they will not?

 

[Moonbeam]

[Cozarkian: I also spoke of the ratings as presented. Fact: MSNBC is only about half a box closer to the y-axis center, so it is pretty close in level of bias to Fox News.

M: I see MSNBC as between hyper partisan but closer to skews liberal whereas Fox is between hyper partisan and extreme conservative. What this says to me is that each network has a message it wishes to present. These describe the intention or purpose and are descriptive. They represent purpose and are not accidental. There isn't a value judgment to be made here.

C: MSNBC is two boxes better in reporting facts because despite it's liberal bias, on average, it does a better job of providing complete facts and fair analysis, aka hiding it's bias behind higher quality reporting.

M: I don't see how the intention to present a liberal view in a fair and rational way is designed to hide anything. The purpose is to present a liberal point of view, sometimes hyper liberal in a reasoned factual way. N

C: Then you have the circles, which indicate MSNBC overall is not just as bad as Fox News, but some of it's stories are.

Put that all together and you can see why an average person who doesn't spend their life watching news might find them comparable - because they will be focusing on the left/right bias and the worst of the stories, not the up/down average quality.

M: I started with the proposition that the average person sees them as comparable but the analysis in the OP shows they are not, which, by the way, is why I mentioned it.​

 

[Thebobo]

..

Precise and to the point!









..

 

[OutHouse]

I love how Shepard Smith will sometimes call Fox out on their own bullshit. I agree with you about CNN. Can't stand that everything is "Breaking News" crap. It will be breaking news when they don't have breaking news.

lol yea smith is awesome. love that guy.

 

[IronWing]

Precise and to the point!









..

Pretty redundant if you ask me.




.

 

[Moonbeam]

Precise and to the point! ..

That was a placeholder for a screw up I made. Sorry

 

[Thebobo]

Pretty redundant if you ask me.




.

Bah he edited it

 

[Thebobo]

That was a placeholder for a screw up I made. Sorry

No worries just having a little fun

 

[Moonbeam]

You are not being clear and speaking in analogies. Try not using them.

How do you test if people will use their power to push wrong ideas? How do you test that they will not?

Am I unclear and speak in analogies or unclear because I do? I use them as short hand for long and wordy explanations I've made repeatedly before. What do you make of the One Ring of Power in the Lord of the Ring? Is it allegorical or does it have a precise definition. Personally, I was using it as the certainty that justifies the use of violence to obtain an imaginary good. By using the Ring evil can be defeated. That is like saying evil will defeat evil. That is a bargain that evil will gladly take.

I listed three sayings to cover your test question. The not test is done by looking at their fruits via similar means.

You are seeking to understand what I sought to understand, a way to prove that good exists and can be proven. I maintain that what I discovered was an answer that simply appeared of its own accord when I died to all hope of that. Knowing is something that happens when you know you never can. Knowing is not the result of reason, it is the result of surrender. When need dies there is noting left but the joy of being. You bathe every moment in truth. No where to go, nothing to do, nothing to achieve.

 

[realibrad]

Am I unclear and speak in analogies or unclear because I do? I use them as short hand for long and wordy explanations I've made repeatedly before. What do you make of the One Ring of Power in the Lord of the Ring? Is it allegorical or does it have a precise definition. Personally, I was using it as the certainty that justifies the use of violence to obtain an imaginary good. By using the Ring evil can be defeated. That is like saying evil will defeat evil. That is a bargain that evil will gladly take.

I listed three sayings to cover your test question. The not test is done by looking at their fruits via similar means.

You are seeking to understand what I sought to understand, a way to prove that good exists and can be proven. I maintain that what I discovered was an answer that simply appeared of its own accord when I died to all hope of that. Knowing is something that happens when you know you never can. Knowing is not the result of reason, it is the result of surrender. When need dies there is noting left but the joy of being. You bathe every moment in truth. No where to go, nothing to do, nothing to achieve.

You still have not given an answer to how you would give the power to the right people. I'm assuming you don't have one, but it would have been interesting to see what you would come up with.

 

[Guurn]

I'd agree with most of the chart except I'd tick CNN one full place left. I haven't watched it that much in truth but comparing it to the few times I've seen Fox it feels like they just avoid a large part of the story at times instead of beating on stupid bias points like Fox. As far as Reddit, most of it is in the stupid territory both ways, neutral politics can be amazing at times however. The BBC seems fine most of the time. Where is Al-Jazerra?

 

[Starbuck1975]

Fairly accurate. I would drop MSNBC to the same level as Huff Post and elevate CNN.

The Atlantic and the New Yorker are of superior analysis relative to Slate and Vox.

I would drop the American Conservative and the Washington Times to in line with Huff Post.

 

[Moonbeam]

You still have not given an answer to how you would give the power to the right people. I'm assuming you don't have one, but it would have been interesting to see what you would come up with.

The right people have the power. The right people have the power to resist the lure of power because they have died to the reality of any such possibility anything good could come of it. I can't give you that power. I can only point to how you might gain it. Can you die to the notion there are right people who would use power to destroy evil. Evil isn't defeated in the world. It is defeated in the self. The only revolution that is possible is within you. Yes, the more that know the more quickly others may see, but you (not you in particular) can't even make yourself see much less others. Everything we see we see through the eyes of ego.

Think if it as the ego is the One Ring. It will not defeat itself. It only pretends to. It will tell you it is OK to use force to achieve the good because the ends justify the means.

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

Goddammit, I really thought I was listening to some pinko, commie, leftist anti-fa shit by listening to NPR. Oh well.

 

[JujuFish]

Alexa ranks HuffPo 14th as a news site. Breitbart doesn't even rank in the Top 50. According to Alexa you are wrong. Will you acknowledge this?

https://www.alexa.com/topsites/category/News

That's because Breitbart isn't categorized. So no, according to Alexa, fskimospy is not wrong, you are. Will you acknowledge this yet?

 

[Jhhnn]

I also spoke of the ratings as presented. Fact: MSNBC is only about half a box closer to the y-axis center (edit: 3/4 of a box closer), so it is pretty close in level of bias to Fox News.

MSNBC is two boxes better in reporting facts because despite it's liberal bias, on average, it does a better job of providing complete facts and fair analysis, aka hiding it's bias behind higher quality reporting.

Then you have the circles, which indicate MSNBC overall is not just as bad as Fox News, but some of it's stories are.

Put that all together and you can see why an average person who doesn't spend their life watching news might find them comparable - because they will be focusing on the left/right bias and the worst of the stories, not the up/down average quality.

The part you're missing is that facts have a liberal bias. It's just the truth. Fox can't elevate their slant to that of MSNBC because the facts can't support it.

When we go up the chart to the Weekly Standard, National Review & Reason.com they have to be very sharp & work very hard to fit the facts with their ideology but they manage after a fashion. They have the money to hire the best. They're not in the News business like several of their counterparts on the other side, either.

That's obviously a whole lot easier for the outfits in the same elevation on the other side of the picture or there wouldn't be nearly so many of them.

 

[realibrad]

The right people have the power. The right people have the power to resist the lure of power because they have died to the reality of any such possibility anything good could come of it. I can't give you that power. I can only point to how you might gain it. Can you die to the notion there are right people who would use power to destroy evil. Evil isn't defeated in the world. It is defeated in the self. The only revolution that is possible is within you. Yes, the more that know the more quickly others may see, but you (not you in particular) can't even make yourself see much less others. Everything we see we see through the eyes of ego.

Think if it as the ego is the One Ring. It will not defeat itself. It only pretends to. It will tell you it is OK to use force to achieve the good because the ends justify the means.

You are avoiding the question.

I would suggest that at a very minimum no commercial entity that avails itself of the publicly owned media of data transmission should be allowed to broadcast opinions of single opinion origin. For example Hannity, should not be allowed to broadcast without immediate rebuttal by others that he is a lying propagandist. He should be allowed to speak but only with immediate refutation by other opinions.

That is what you said. How would you make something like that happen. You are purposing something there, and all I wanted was for you to flesh that out, because, from what I can understand what you want would be prone to abuse. How do you get the right people to decide who is the other opinion? What opinions need to be rebutted? I presume you don't think that someone saying murder is bad and then needing someone to say its good, so explain.

 

[Bitek]

I also spoke of the ratings as presented. Fact: MSNBC is only about half a box closer to the y-axis center (edit: 3/4 of a box closer), so it is pretty close in level of bias to Fox News.

MSNBC is two boxes better in reporting facts because despite it's liberal bias, on average, it does a better job of providing complete facts and fair analysis, aka hiding it's bias behind higher quality reporting.

Then you have the circles, which indicate MSNBC overall is not just as bad as Fox News, but some of it's stories are.

Put that all together and you can see why an average person who doesn't spend their life watching news might find them comparable - because they will be focusing on the left/right bias and the worst of the stories, not the up/down average quality.

What is this "hiding behind" nonsense?

Your are either using facts or not.

They are categorizing MSNBC as: partisan, but fair use of facts to make a liberal argument. Overall fair interpretation of the news.

Fox is categorized: Conservative propaganda, contains misleading info. Nonsense damaging to public discourse.

This is how you get stories such as the Uranium One fake "scandal" being a heavy feature on Fox, even continuing after one of their own journalists call it out on air as just bullshit.

This bs then gets picked up by Tweeter in Chief and he runs with it.

Just one example.

Where does this happen with MSNBC?

That's the distinction they are making.