• 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 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
The question is whether a nation filled with people who believe in propaganda is a nation that can survive. Also, what is the duty of those who know the difference between truth and propaganda to do about it given that those who do not know would crush the truth if they could. I would suggest that at a very minimum no commercial entity that avails itself of the publically 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.
 
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 think some of that with Huffpo at least is Google and Yahoo love directing people to them. I wouldn't be surprised if Infowars and Breitbart had a more loyal following, while HuffPo gets a lot more link based traffic.

I personally have no idea how any one can stand Huffpo. The majority of their "articles" are taking someone else's article and putting a ton of spin on them, in a terrible format.

There only site I ever read that isn't top center is The Atlantic. I can see the have some bias, but they also have good in depth articles. From my experience with them I'd think any lean was from normal biases, not an attempt to mislead like Fox or DailyKos.

I was surprised to see NPR and PBS listed as slight right,I definitely don't notice any lean to the right with them, even on business reporting.
 
Zorba said:
I was surprised to see NPR and PBS listed as slight right,I definitely don't notice any lean to the right with them, even on business reporting.
Click to expand...

I guess I can understand your surprise but my own personal experience, personal opinion about what I feel I experience, that is, is that the two of them lean so far over to be inclusive of a right point of view that they violate logic and common sense. I feel that way I guess because I see the right as insane. The only reason you would want to represent the insane in a news story is if your funding comes from a government that attacks you as being leftist and right wing donorship. I believe it is factual that truth has a liberal bias. I see the public financed media with an eye on not offending their financial supporters to the point that an inclusion of a so called balancing is objectively absurd.
 
fskimospy said:
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?
Click to expand...
When in doubt, expand your analysis.

HuffPo is #3 news site based on U.S. Traffic Rank from Quantcast and Global Traffic Rank from both Alexa and SimilarWeb. Breitbart didn't make the Top 15 list.
http://www.ebizmba.com/articles/news-websites

HuffPo is also ranked the #3 news site here based on an index using Facebook fans, Twitter followers and Alexa rating. Breitbart was #16 on this Top 100 list. (yes, it's a blog)
https://blog.feedspot.com/usa_news_websites/

And lastly, HuffPo ranks #8 (Nielsen), #7 (comScore) and #9 (Hitwise) for news websites. Breitbart didn't make the Top 15 list.
http://www.journalism.org/2011/05/09/top-25/

When it come to news site popularity, Breitbart isn't even in the same league as Huffington Post. I can't believe that you're still trying to defend a position which is so completely stupid and so completely wrong.
 
Moonbeam said:
The question is whether a nation filled with people who believe in propaganda is a nation that can survive. Also, what is the duty of those who know the difference between truth and propaganda to do about it given that those who do not know would crush the truth if they could. I would suggest that at a very minimum no commercial entity that avails itself of the publically 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.
Click to expand...

The problem is who gets to be the arbiter of truth and speech? That sure seems like a massive amount of power.
 
Doc Savage Fan said:
I prefer to use them (as well as other liberal outlets) as a source in this forum...as most liberals here trust them and find them highly credible. If I source a conservative site, both my point and the facts I'm referencing are immediately ignored while the site is bashed instead.
Click to expand...
Shoot the messenger...........

Will no one rid me of this meddlesome priest?
 
Zorba said:
I think some of that with Huffpo at least is Google and Yahoo love directing people to them. I wouldn't be surprised if Infowars and Breitbart had a more loyal following, while HuffPo gets a lot more link based traffic.

I personally have no idea how any one can stand Huffpo. The majority of their "articles" are taking someone else's article and putting a ton of spin on them, in a terrible format.

There only site I ever read that isn't top center is The Atlantic. I can see the have some bias, but they also have good in depth articles. From my experience with them I'd think any lean was from normal biases, not an attempt to mislead like Fox or DailyKos.

I was surprised to see NPR and PBS listed as slight right,I definitely don't notice any lean to the right with them, even on business reporting.
Click to expand...

I like the Atlantic, plus NPR, Wapo BBC, PBS, Vox (for detailed policy analysis), Daily Beast for short run analysis, New Yorker, Google news for up to date and randomly sourced stuff.

Less frequent, heavy dose news: the economist, CSM.

Inside baseball politics: Hill and politico

Various papers like the Guardian for international news.

Cable news I would have MSNBC on for morning wake-up fluff (morning Joe) or opinion as wanting. 11th hour is good.

They have tvs on at work and it rotates day to day, so see my fill of Fox bs.

CNN for the latest on MH370...

Never been on daily kos, rarely to HP via Google news clickbait, but it's usually a sugar high met with disappointment. Really useless site.
 
Last edited:
Doc Savage Fan said:
I prefer to use them (as well as other liberal outlets) as a source in this forum...as most liberals here trust them and find them highly credible. If I source a conservative site, both my point and the facts I'm referencing are immediately ignored while the site is bashed instead.
Click to expand...

Then that's why your arguments usually suck so bad. HP is click bait junk.

At least go over to ~Vox if you want quality liberal policy analysis to argue with.
 
realibrad said:
The problem is who gets to be the arbiter of truth and speech? That sure seems like a massive amount of power.
Click to expand...

Google is the arbiter of what shows up when you go searching for news. That is the ultimate in power is it not?
 
realibrad said:
The problem is who gets to be the arbiter of truth and speech? That sure seems like a massive amount of power.
Click to expand...
The fear is that even a Hobbit can't carry the one ring forever without being corrupted but I believe that power corrupts only those who can be corrupted by power. I believe it is possible to have a morality that is totally based on an inner unwillingness to ever disrespect ones self, not out of fear of punishment but out of love for oneself as a moral being. Who would trade gold for base metal?

It is the jeweler who knows the value of a gem.

It is the touchstone that reveals what is golden.

He who tastes, knows.

Some sayings
 
PottedMeat said:
everything looks like where they should be to me

come on, msnbc, you got a while to slide if you're gonna take on foxnews



i lol'd at infowars response chart

bF4Fh0z.jpg
Click to expand...
Maybe I'm looking in the wrong corner of the chart, but did they completely leave out Fox News? What's the matter Infowars? Afraid to recognize your "Corporate Influenced" roots?
 
Moonbeam said:
The question is whether a nation filled with people who believe in propaganda is a nation that can survive. Also, what is the duty of those who know the difference between truth and propaganda to do about it given that those who do not know would crush the truth if they could. I would suggest that at a very minimum no commercial entity that avails itself of the publically 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.
Click to expand...

I think you might call the desired truth to be a hermeneutic truth. Objective reality, if possible to actually define, is often of little value to human affairs. Neither is propaganda which sacrifices too much.
 
Doc Savage Fan said:
When in doubt, expand your analysis.

HuffPo is #3 news site based on U.S. Traffic Rank from Quantcast and Global Traffic Rank from both Alexa and SimilarWeb. Breitbart didn't make the Top 15 list.
http://www.ebizmba.com/articles/news-websites
Click to expand...

Last updated July, 2017. Mine is as of today.

HuffPo is also ranked the #3 news site here based on an index using Facebook fans, Twitter followers and Alexa rating. Breitbart was #16 on this Top 100 list. (yes, it's a blog)
https://blog.feedspot.com/usa_news_websites/
Click to expand...

Yep, it's a blog. It also has no rational methodology that I can discern, considering the fact that, as an example, the NY Daily News is ranked higher than Breitbart despite being worse in every metric it uses. It also has an inaccurate Alexa rank for Breitbart and HuffPo, meaning their accuracy is questionable at best.

And lastly, HuffPo ranks #8 (Nielsen), #7 (comScore) and #9 (Hitwise) for news websites. Breitbart didn't make the Top 15 list.
http://www.journalism.org/2011/05/09/top-25/
Click to expand...

This is taken from seven years ago. The only reason I can imagine you thought this was relevant is because you didn't bother to read your own link.

When it come to news site popularity, Breitbart isn't even in the same league as Huffington Post. I can't believe that you're still trying to defend a position which is so completely stupid and so completely wrong.
Click to expand...

I gave you two reasons why the comparison you were trying to make was bad. You ignored one, falsely claiming you had addressed it by linking a list of 'news' sites that included exactly the sort of celebrity gossip is said likely drove some of HuffPo's traffic and then here you cited a collection of old data (#1), incompetently generated blog rankings (#2), and really, REALLY old data, (#3). I imagine this is because you're simply googling for support of your already held belief as opposed to engaging your brain.

As far as news goes, I have no idea if Huffington Post's news sections reach a larger audience than Breitbart's. Alexa appears to think not. What I do know is that comparing the influence of the Huffington Post on the left's discourse with Breitbart's on the right isn't even close. Breitbart is a dominant influence on right-wing politics. The Huffington Post doesn't even register on molding left wing opinion.
 
Moonbeam said:
The fear is that even a Hobbit can't carry the one ring forever without being corrupted but I believe that power corrupts only those who can be corrupted by power. I believe it is possible to have a morality that is totally based on an inner unwillingness to ever disrespect ones self, not out of fear of punishment but out of love for oneself as a moral being. Who would trade gold for base metal?

It is the jeweler who knows the value of a gem.

It is the touchstone that reveals what is golden.

He who tastes, knows.

Some sayings
Click to expand...

The folly is in the assumption that its just corruption that you must worry about. Corrupt people can use power to do horrible things. People with good intentions can also do horrible things.
 
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.
 
fskimospy said:
Last updated July, 2017. Mine is as of today.



Yep, it's a blog. It also has no rational methodology that I can discern, considering the fact that, as an example, the NY Daily News is ranked higher than Breitbart despite being worse in every metric it uses. It also has an inaccurate Alexa rank for Breitbart and HuffPo, meaning their accuracy is questionable at best.



This is taken from seven years ago. The only reason I can imagine you thought this was relevant is because you didn't bother to read your own link.



I gave you two reasons why the comparison you were trying to make was bad. You ignored one, falsely claiming you had addressed it by linking a list of 'news' sites that included exactly the sort of celebrity gossip is said likely drove some of HuffPo's traffic and then here you cited a collection of old data (#1), incompetently generated blog rankings (#2), and really, REALLY old data, (#3). I imagine this is because you're simply googling for support of your already held belief as opposed to engaging your brain.

As far as news goes, I have no idea if Huffington Post's news sections reach a larger audience than Breitbart's. Alexa appears to think not. What I do know is that comparing the influence of the Huffington Post on the left's discourse with Breitbart's on the right isn't even close. Breitbart is a dominant influence on right-wing politics. The Huffington Post doesn't even register on molding left wing opinion.
Click to expand...

Without googling, can anyone name a HP writer/contributor?

Maybe Sam Stein if I'm just guessing of one?

Meanwhile you have Bannon and Milo over at BB.

No way that's an even comparison of impact on policy and the movement.
 
realibrad said:
The folly is in the assumption that its just corruption that you must worry about. Corrupt people can use power to do horrible things. People with good intentions can also do horrible things.
Click to expand...
The road to hell is paved with good intentions because of the nature of bigotry or bias. The confusion lies in equating the fact there is a good with the idea that what you have been conditioned to think is the good are one and the same thing when they can't ever be. Knowledge of what the good really is depends on becoming aware and of rejecting the sacred cows we were told to believe, One has to have delved into what one feels on an unconscious level by feeling what one really feels. That, sadly, is the last thing anybody wants to do and why people of real knowledge are not only rare but basically invisible.
 
Moonbeam said:
The road to hell is paved with good intentions because of the nature of bigotry or bias. The confusion lies in equating the fact there is a good with the idea that what you have been conditioned to think is the good are one and the same thing when they can't ever be. Knowledge of what the good really is depends on becoming aware and of rejecting the sacred cows we were told to believe, One has to have delved into what one feels on an unconscious level by feeling what one really feels. That, sadly, is the last thing anybody wants to do and why people of real knowledge are not only rare but basically invisible.
Click to expand...

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?
 
Bitek said:
Without googling, can anyone name a HP writer/contributor?

Maybe Sam Stein if I'm just guessing of one?

Meanwhile you have Bannon and Milo over at BB.

No way that's an even comparison of impact on policy and the movement.
Click to expand...

The easiest way to see their relative influence is to do a thought experiment:

- The Huffington Post decides to endorse a candidate in the Democratic Primary. What are the odds that anyone cares or even that anyone notices?
- Same with Breitbart. I guarantee conservatives with both notice and care.
 
Thebobo said:
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.
Click to expand...

Precisely. Fox News with Hannity and Fox and Friends solidly crossed the line from bias into making bat shit mainstream.
 
Interesting chart, but still a bit "incomplete" there. As many of the "news" sources have subsections. Fox news on the right? Sure. All of fox news that far right? Nope. Some is further, and some less, depending on the content/host at the moment. I personally get most of my news on my daily drive these days commuting to/from work using NPR. They run a few more "left" leaning stories and op-eds. They've certainly been pushing the gun control left side version far more than they ever the other side. However, it is pretty easy to tell when the story is left, or right leaning on NPR based on the host. More so for the local affiliates. In my case being TPR for Texas, which is a bit more left when it comes to guns, abortion, and immigration, but right when it comes to financial, land, education, and crime news.

I guess the chart is meant to be an aggregate whole of the news and op-eds? I find straight news factual reports that are just concise reports with no opinions given to be mostly non-partisan from most sources. Not always the case though as there are more than a few that really like to cherry pick news stories/facts that push their agenda. Overall this chart is fairly correct in that and I guess can serve to help people figure out how to analyze their news source to help filter out fact from opinion a bit.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top