Current Events > Opinion on this media bias chart?

(+) Yeah! (+)

https://www.adfontesmedia.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/Media-Bias-Chart_4.0_8_28_2018-min.jpg
---

Seems about right
---

Is ABC really that good?
---

Drudge Report is way too high. A place that pushed Pizzagate should definitely be in the orange at least
---

infowars almost off the chart lol
---

AssultTank posted...

It honestly looks like a chart made based on opinion...

What would you change?
---

Hmm
---

Most news is a joke. This is what passes as natural fact based reporting these days.

https://thegoldwater.com/static/media/dfbe3e515b28e63512fad470e5e0500e612128f3b78b624ef7d3aa2578c724fd.png
---

AssultTank posted...

BuzzFeed is news? Oh god... My sides...

I mean, they've got a legitimate investigative journalism group
like, the clickbaity stuff exists in part to fund their real stuff

AssultTank posted...

Quote a few things. BuzzFeed being ranked higher than CNN for factual reporting for one...

if you note, it's not Buzzfeed, it's Buzzfeed News
the latter is a division under the former, and it has been nominated for several journalistic awards, including the Pulitzer Prize

it feels like you're conflating the two and are only looking at Buzzfeed circa 10 years ago
---

AssultTank posted...

It honestly looks like a chart made based on opinion...

Yeah, that's why I'm asking for people's opinions on it.
---

Time Magazine isn't neutral. They at least skew left.

and lol @ CNN being that close to the center

AssultTank posted...

Fox and MSNBC should both be at the infowars level

Come on, you surely don't actually believe this
---

Lol at buzzfeed being the skewed left equivalent to the wall street journal
---

MSNBC is not "hyper-partisan left", and CNN does not skew left. lol

that graphic is... not good
---

Way too generous to Buzzfeed, CNN, The Guardian.

They are just as biased if not more than Fox News.
---

Fox should be in the middle because it's fair and balanced

It doesn't make any sense to consider the outlets in the center to be "neutral" when they're right wing.
---

Anti-245 posted...

It doesn't make any sense to consider the outlets in the center to be "neutral" when they're right wing.

Lol, which ones?
---

AssultTank posted...

Quote a few things. BuzzFeed being ranked higher than CNN for factual reporting for one...
But honestly MSNBC, CNN, and Fox are all rated either too high on the truth scale or too close to center. Fox and MSNBC should both be at the infowars level with CNN slightly above on factual reporting. I would say on the bias line CNN might be accurately placed, but MSNBC is too far right and Fox is too far left on that chart.

Also HuffPost being rated highly? LMAO

I agree with zero of the things you posted.

I'll focus on the last one though. Huffpost is shown in this chart to be comparable to the washington times. Publications on the yellow/orange border should not be seen as 'Fair interpretations of the news' but rather 'unfair, bordering on extreme interpreations of the news'

The only reason they look good here is this chart includes actual fake news sites like the gateway pundit, infowars, etc, and propaganda sites like occupy democrats.
---

averagejoel posted...

and CNN does not skew left. lol

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sGtY1aPrOMQ" data-time="
---

The more I look at it, the worst it gets. Most liberal news sources should be shifted to the left a bit more and "overall quality" is way off except for the sources near the top and near the bottom.
---

Darkman124 posted...

I agree with zero of the things you posted.

Darkman believes Buzzfeed is more legit than CNN and then causally downplays it in the hope no one will notice.

But I noticed.
---

UnfairRepresent posted...

Darkman believes Buzzfeed is more legit than CNN and then causally downplays it in the hope no one will notice.

Buzzfeed news, not buzzfeed the site, UR.

And yes, I definitely do think that of buzzfeed news.
---

Just glancing around:

1. It seems weird to call a generally snarky, satire site like Wonkette "nonsense damaging to public discourse". I don't really feel like it tries to fit the role of "news" the same way most of the other outlets on here do.

2. Some things like "Infowars" are placed to far to the right. In general, I think "alt-right" is conflated with being politically far right, which I think is inaccurate.

3. CNN should be more neutral. One shouldn't conflate pro-decorum attacks on Trump as being inherently a left leaning thing.

4. Generally, I haven't dug deep into the methodology, but the fact that you get essentially an upside down U is an indication that the methodology itself is skewed. They say analysis is "worse" than just reporting facts, but that's not really what I think of when it comes to quality journalism. Otherwise most local news outlets would be scoring in the yellow/green squares, despite the fact that lots of local news sucks. It just happens to be mostly fact reporting and without clear bias, but with a lack of quality in most other aspects. Because of this the chart inherently builds in a dependence between non-centrist political beliefs and low quality scores.

I mean, hypothetically I could make a far left/far right news outlet with high journalistic standards which provides news. But it seems that the only way mediabiaschart would be able to determine your bias is through pieces that are mainly analysis, and as I said, they've set up "more analysis" to be bad.
---

It's pretty accurate. Buzzfeed News puts out the occasional high quality piece of investigative journalism but otherwise it's the usual clickbait garbage so I would not rate it as highly, and it's certainly not as non-partisan as it is on the chart.
---

You guys can't just be judging the quality of the news org by their name lol
---

Anteaterking posted...

4. Generally, I haven't dug deep into the methodology, but the fact that you get essentially an upside down U is an indication that the methodology itself is skewed. They say analysis is "worse" than just reporting facts, but that's not really what I think of when it comes to quality journalism. Otherwise most local news outlets would be scoring in the yellow/green squares, despite the fact that lots of local news sucks. It just happens to be mostly fact reporting and without clear bias, but with a lack of quality in most other aspects. Because of this the chart inherently builds in a dependence between non-centrist political beliefs and low quality scores.

the methodology isn't 'good quality news' vs 'bad quality news'

but rather 'fake news' vs 'real news'

opinion/analysis that is not presented as such and instead is woven into a reporting piece is misleading and intended to push the reader in a certain direction, hence why it's lower.

fake news like infowars is the extreme end wherein the motivation to push the audience towards a conclusion supercedes all interest in actually reporting anything. so you might also view it as an axis of "news" vs "propaganda" although infowars is so insane that it doesn't really even qualify as propaganda. honestly, it kind of needs to be off on its own deeper in the bottom.
---

I'd say TYT, Buzzfeed, and CNN should be further left. Huffpo, Buzzfeed, and TYT should be further to the bottom too.

Drudge probably more right
---

UnfairRepresent posted...

averagejoel posted...

and CNN does not skew left. lol

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sGtY1aPrOMQ" data-time="

I'd argue CNN is more anti trump than they are anti conservative or pro liberal
---

AssultTank posted...

I'll be honest, I'm going on the elevation on the chart because I can't tell the color differences in the squares...
But I would classify both publications you mentioned as unfair and often extreme interpretations of the news.

As would I. Huffpost's agenda leads their reporting even moreso than the washington times, though, but both are on that same border because the washington times' bias is stronger.

The borders are not easy to read, and they overlap one another in sometimes unclear ways, but the intent is to showcase a spectrum, not define boundaries within which everything is good/bad.
---

Darkman124 posted...

the methodology isn't 'good quality news' vs 'bad quality news'

but rather 'fake news' vs 'real news'

opinion/analysis that is not presented as such and instead is woven into a reporting piece is misleading and intended to push the reader in a certain direction, hence why it's lower.

Yeah, I guess that's probably a better way of thinking about it. I still think the setup means that we'd always expect to see the curve that's drawn.
---

Solid Snake07 posted...

UnfairRepresent posted...

averagejoel posted...

and CNN does not skew left. lol

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sGtY1aPrOMQ" data-time="

I'd argue CNN is more anti trump than they are anti conservative or pro liberal

they're pro liberal, but they're not left leaning.
---

Anteaterking posted...

Yeah, I guess that's probably a better way of thinking about it. I still think the setup means that we'd always expect to see the curve that's drawn.

The curve is mostly a result of selecting only enough sources to fill said curve.

Infowars' audience is a lot bigger than whatever the hell patribotics is.
---

Drudge and The Weekly Standard need to be further right. Everything else is roughly where it needs to be
---

I think it is too committed to the idea that falsehood is a reflection of directional bias. Like, Wonkette is listed further to the left of Jacobin and Current Affairs not because it's actually further left, but rather because it's less reliable. The idea that basically nothing in the mainstream counts as "propaganda" or "contains misleading info" is wild. And the point that Breitbart and Infowars are significantly more prominent than their counterparts on the other side is worth noting too.
---

the left-hand side of it falls apart under scrutiny in a number of places

patribotics is apparently the blog of a british conservative

it's probably more like center-left (but still near-bottom credibility)

the trouble with the narrative of the u-curve is the idea that liberals and conservatives are equally susceptible to fake news

conservatives are a lot more susceptible. data proves this.

https://www.ft.com/content/611d5c90-0a87-11e8-8eb7-42f857ea9f09
---

Darkman124 posted...

Infowars' audience is a lot bigger than whatever the hell patribotics is.

Yeah, I don't know if I just got too deep in the right wing media weeds at some point or what, but I recognize almost all of the names on the right, but a lot of the names on the left are new to me. Like "Occupy Democrats" is a facebook page that creates no original news content afaik and things like "Guacamoley" are completely new to me.
---

Darkman124 posted...

the left-hand side of it falls apart under scrutiny in a number of places

patribotics is apparently the blog of a british conservative

it's probably more like center-left (but still near-bottom credibility)

the trouble with the narrative of the u-curve is the idea that liberals and conservatives are equally susceptible to fake news

conservatives are a lot more susceptible. data proves this.

https://www.ft.com/content/611d5c90-0a87-11e8-8eb7-42f857ea9f09

it also assumes, incorrectly, that liberals are on the left -- an idea which never stops annoying me
---

I dont recognize all of those names but the ones I do seem fairly accurate
---

averagejoel posted...

it also assumes, incorrectly, that liberals are on the left -- an idea which never stops annoying me

it must be hard being you
---

Anteaterking posted...

Darkman124 posted...

Infowars' audience is a lot bigger than whatever the hell patribotics is.

Yeah, I don't know if I just got too deep in the right wing media weeds at some point or what, but I recognize almost all of the names on the right, but a lot of the names on the left are new to me. Like "Occupy Democrats" is a facebook page that creates no original news content afaik and things like "Guacamoley" are completely new to me.

Out of everything in that section Occupy Democrats is the only thing I even recognized and all they do are repost memes.

As several people have pointed out, extreme left wing news sites are generally rare and unheard of for the most part because they seem to have an easier time filtering that stuff out compared to the right with stuff like Breitbart
---

Darkman124 posted...

averagejoel posted...

it also assumes, incorrectly, that liberals are on the left -- an idea which never stops annoying me

it must be hard being you

it's certainly very tiring
---

CNN is near neutral?
MSNBC is considered less left than FOX News is right?
The National Review is less to the right than OAN?
CNN, Huffing Paint and MSNBC are "Fair representation of the news."
The fucking Young Turks aren't as far left on that chart as InfoWars is far right? Are you fucking kidding me?!

Did anyone that made that chart bother to watch any of the sources on there? I mean Jesus tapdancing Christ. That chart is the most lol of things I've seen in a while.
---

EternalDivide posted...

CNN is near neutral?
MSNBC is considered less left than FOX News is right?
The National Review is less to the right than OAN?
CNN, Huffing Paint and MSNBC are "Fair representation of the news."
The f***ing Young Turks aren't as far left on that chart as InfoWars is far right? Are you f***ing kidding me?!

Did anyone that made that chart bother to watch any of the sources on there?

I would ask you if you view any of these sources yourself, because my answer to each of those, aside from CNN (which is listed under 'skews left') and your misunderstanding about the yellow/orange border that i explained in post #24 indicated huffpo et al were not being shown as 'fair representations of the news', is 'yes'
---