• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Media Bias Chart

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
fskimospy said:
I have no idea how they determine top news sites or when that list was generated but as we already covered Breitbart has a higher Alexa rank than Huffington Post. As far as I’m aware that is their official ranking of a site. If you can show me otherwise that’s fine, but if not will you admit you were wrong?

Also, why did you ignore the point that the Huffington Post reports on a wide range of issues while Breitbart is exclusively political? You’re trying to lump people looking for Leonardo DiCaprio’s latest girlfriend in with liberal news. Surely you can see why that’s dumb.
Click to expand...
I didn't ignore your point (that Huffington Post reports on a wide range of issues while Breitbart is exclusively political) as I specifically cited Alexa's rankings of news sites. And now you're going to question Alexa's credibility because you don't understand how they determined the top news sites? Unbelievable.
 
Doc Savage Fan said:
Looking at news site traffic rankings, I don't see Infowars and Breitbart coming anywhere close to the volume of traffic that just Huffington Post gets alone. There is no way Infowars and Breitbart are more widely read by conservatives on a proportional basis than HuffPo and DailyKos is among liberals. You are dead wrong on this point imo.
Click to expand...
I counter that with more prominent mainstream right wing sites quoting Infowars and Breitbart. Even current POTUS gets information from them which has more of an impact.
 
Bitek said:
But it has Reddit as #1. What does that mean for bias?

Not disputing HuffPo is liberal and a crap site, just seems more geared toward tabloid sensationalism and gossip from celebs to politics. It's like if TMZ also covered politics.

Ny post may be a fair counter part.
Click to expand...
I don't know in regard to bias. But it's a pretty damn sad to see it as #1 imo.
 
Doc Savage Fan said:
I came across the chart below and thought others might be interested as well. The rankings look reasonable to me...but I'm sure some may find their "trusted" news sources to be a little more biased than they imagined. My favorite line from the article is..."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."

How biased is your news source? You probably won’t agree with this chart
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/h...y-wont-agree-with-this-chart-2018-02-28#false



MW-GE557_MediaB_20180228115701_NS.jpg
Click to expand...

I don't think that chart is shocking at all or would really shock a lot of people. ...well obviously depends on the self-assurance of the individual. NPR, PBS, NYT and Post, BBC, AP and Reuters of course, Pretty much the only sources I pay any attention to, and the New Yorker for long-form investigative journalism.
 
Doc Savage Fan said:
I didn't ignore your point (that Huffington Post reports on a wide range of issues while Breitbart is exclusively political) as I specifically cited Alexa's rankings of news sites. And now you're going to question Alexa's credibility because you don't understand how they determined the top news sites? Unbelievable.
Click to expand...

It seems that you're the one questioning Alexa's credibility as you're ignoring their explicit rankings of the two sites.

A few simple questions:

1) Is Breitbart's Alexa ranking lower than HuffPo's or higher?
2) Does a lower Alexa rank indicate a more highly visited site or a less visited site?
3) Is a site's Alexa rank considered to be Alexa's authoritative judgment on their relative popularity or do you believe another metric is used?
 
Bitek said:
But it has Reddit as #1. What does that mean for bias?

Not disputing HuffPo is liberal and a crap site, just seems more geared toward tabloid sensationalism and gossip from celebs to politics. It's like if TMZ also covered politics.

Ny post may be a fair counter part.

Drudge gets more traffic than NBC news. What does that say?
Click to expand...

As far as I can tell he's trying to #bothsides this, which I think we all know is ridiculous nonsense.
 
Um, first glance: Natural News belongs in bat shit right territory. Whoever made this has not looked at Natural News. A quack conspiratard who is so so bad, he was banned from Youtube and other social media.
 
My go toos are the guardian and the BBC. I'd pretty much agree with their position. I might have put The Guardian a bit more to the left but thats more to do with their editorials and articles rather than their news reporting.

I agree with the posts earlier about the Huff post not really being a serious news source. I always think of it more as a lifestyle and editorial website rather than a true news site.
 
zinfamous said:
I don't think that chart is shocking at all or would really shock a lot of people. ...well obviously depends on the self-assurance of the individual. NPR, PBS, NYT and Post, BBC, AP and Reuters of course, Pretty much the only sources I pay any attention to, and the New Yorker for long-form investigative journalism.
Click to expand...

The Atlantic has good long form too. Chief editor is David Frum, neo con and former W speechwriter, therefore "liberal" according to chart.

Vox also can have some really good long analysts from a liberal perspective.
 
WelshBloke said:
My go toos are the guardian and the BBC. I'd pretty much agree with their position. I might have put The Guardian a bit more to the left but thats more to do with their editorials and articles rather than their news reporting.

I agree with the posts earlier about the Huff post not really being a serious news source. I always think of it more as a lifestyle and editorial website rather than a true news site.
Click to expand...
I consider it a liberal tabloid. Not much depth. Motherjones has much more in depth articles.
 
Bitek said:
The Atlantic has good long form too. Chief editor is David Frum, neo con and former W speechwriter, therefore "liberal" according to chart.

Vox also can have some really good long analysts from a liberal perspective.
Click to expand...
Yea, Frum's a Never Trumper Republican.
 
What the chart tells me (aside from some quibbles on scope) is that there is a very robust market for complex analysis on the liberal side, with some junk food sites like HP.

On the right, few analysis sites, and those are in declining influence ( Eg neocon and never trumper Bill Kristol and the Weekly Standard.) National Review also never Trump, in severe decline, and lost bigly in 2016 with their never Trump cover roundly ignored.

All the major conservative traffic is in junk food sites or full on batshit terrority.


You see this play out in politics. Lots of complex liberal white papers and policies ( socialized medicine, UBI) while on the Right we get steel tariffs announced on Twitter and tax "reform" with no impact hearings, rushed through with no public comments, and mostly targeted for doner class.
 
Moonbeam said:
What I want to know wasn't listed. I need to know how biased I am when I read whatever news I am reading. Information is useless to me if I don't know how brainwashed I am when I read it. How can I know it is actually me that's the problem when it is obvious that all of the sources you listed are skewed so far to the right?

I notice also that MSNBC and FOX NEWS are often used as counterparts even though they are two triangles away and MSNBC, which deals almost exclusively with political news is described as fair opinion.
Click to expand...

Pay attention to the circles too, those account for the fact that MSNBC will sometimes drift into selective news and unfair opinions and that Fox sometimes drifts upward.

MSNBC is as far left as Fox is to the right, but MSNBC hides it more often, so it is higher up.
 
Cozarkian said:
Pay attention to the circles too, those account for the fact that MSNBC will sometimes drift into selective news and unfair opinions and that Fox sometimes drifts upward.

MSNBC is as far left as Fox is to the right, but MSNBC hides it more often, so it is higher up.
Click to expand...

Yes, facts have a libruhl bias. That's why the upper part of the chart is a helluva lot more crowded on the left than the right. That's also why the lower left corner is populated by little known sites & the lower right is populated by conservative favorites.
 
Cozarkian said:
Pay attention to the circles too, those account for the fact that MSNBC will sometimes drift into selective news and unfair opinions and that Fox sometimes drifts upward.

MSNBC is as far left as Fox is to the right, but MSNBC hides it more often, so it is higher up.
Click to expand...
This is perfect example of a bubble or someone who needs their eyes checked. Position of Fox/MSNBC is not equidistant right/left. Second Fox is mostly in nut-job conspiracy dangerous to the public territory. MSNBC is in fair persuasion territory.

Damn people can't even agree what's in front of their faces. Are apples, bananas? Do we have two moons?
 
I always thought to be a reporter you had to have an open mind. I don't know many conservatives with open minds. ~
 
Cozarkian said:
Pay attention to the circles too, those account for the fact that MSNBC will sometimes drift into selective news and unfair opinions and that Fox sometimes drifts upward.

MSNBC is as far left as Fox is to the right, but MSNBC hides it more often, so it is higher up.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Cozarkian said:
Pay attention to the circles too, those account for the fact that MSNBC will sometimes drift into selective news and unfair opinions and that Fox sometimes drifts upward.

MSNBC is as far left as Fox is to the right, but MSNBC hides it more often, so it is higher up.
Click to expand...

MSNBC does not have anyone who is like Hannity or even close.

Oh I can just see it a new FoX show, Hannity and Trump well Trump and Hannity. Although it's not so new their on FoX every night.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top