Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by jkcerda, Dec 16, 2016.
so accurate do you think this chart is?
This chart is junk. The idea that the New York Times and NBC are categorized as "Mainstream (minimal partisan bias)" is complete Bravo Sierra.
Needs a poll.
Also, I suspect that how one judges the accuracy of this graphic will depend on where one's own political views lie. Everything to the right of one's views will be right-wing reactionary rubbish, and everything to the left will be leftist lunacy. In other words, the response probably says more about the person posting it than it does about the news source being judged.
Move it all left a grouping and you might be close.
Relative to the American political spectrum it looks pretty accurate. If you're comparing it to the rest of the world then move everything to the right.
It's not perfect, but it's an interesting way to graph a couple of things at once.
The "questions" need work.
PM them, that's as good as I get while I wait for the CO sponsored lunch
I saw that chart too, and was going to post it, but I could only find a small version online.
I pretty much agree with this I think Fox and Huff Po have problems with bias, but in different ways... I can't comment much on the bottom (far left & right) ones, but will say be careful of the economist (), it's primarily focused on a more corporatist level.
If you're to the left of JFK, you're a left-wing zealot, and if you're to the right of Ronald Reagan, you're a right-wing extremist.
If you're in the middle, between the two, you're a conformist.
Choose your news accordingly.
This chart does nothing to address corporate bias, which runs thick through everyone from Fox News, to MSNBC, to NPR.
So in other words, in missing the forest for the trees.
you and I know that is really hard to put into the chart, corporate bias bias would cover ALL the media to one degree or another.
LOL, "extreme right" is so far to the left of this scale it's laughable that the word "Liberal" are even on it.
LOL at The Hill being "in-depth".
In my opinion CNN needs to be grouped just like FOX except on the liberal side.
What I like about FOX is you know their opinion shows like Hanity are opinion with a conservative bias. CNN masquerades Clinton advocacy shows like Erin Burnett, Anderson Copper, and Don Lemon as unbiased journalism.
I turned them off.
Sure, not only is it missing the LA Times and the Boston Globe, but it's missing ProPublica, all the members of the Independent News Network, etc.
Though, I think corporate bias can be overstated. For a group like the local NPR affiliate, the corporation doesn't matter much and AP's business model is about ensuring it's a valuable wire service, so it doesn't have the same relationships.
ThompsonReuters is an odd animal because it's a financial services company and a news wire service.
The other thing that many people are missing is how local newspapers can be a good source of non-partisan, in-depth journalism.
A pox on both of networks for their obsession with talking heads, but at least CNN has a news gathering organ, and hosts CNN International and some incredible documentary work.
Fox News does almost no news gathering—I can't think of a single story that Fox News broke—but I'm going to assume they've done something first in the last 20 years.
CNN's partisanship is really problematic, but its because they've followed the profitable model created by Roger Ailes that continues to be Fox News' stock and trade.
I'd like to see the cable news networks shift back to documentaries and feature stories, and collapse the "people yammering in a studio" model.
All the news outlets think we're stupid! Hello?
It's just someone's opinion, and it's obviously normalized with respect to US based news sources. They did place msnbc considerably further to the left of the chart. It also places the New York Times roughly in line with the Washington Post.
I don't think this is true, but based on reader comments and emails, I can't blame any news agency for thinking that a fairly large percentage of their audience is a bunch of illiterate nimrods.
What? And cut into profit? Follow the money.
No one in this world, so far as I know—and I have researched the records for years, and employed agents to help me—has ever lost money by underestimating the intelligence of the great masses of the plain people. Nor has anyone ever lost public office thereby.
(Sept. 1926)90 years and still true.
I did say, "I'd like." I'd also like a pegasus and an all-you-can-eat taco truck in my front yard.
Oh Mencken, you cynical, lovable bastard.
As long as you're stretching the bounds of probability, you could economize by having the pegasus poop tacos on demand. Yeah, it may seem gross, but is it really any worse than knowing what hot dogs are made from?
Two of the top “most trusted,” in many respects, are two of the worst: Slate and Vox are pure trash. Otherwise, most of the graph is fairly accurate as to skew.
LOL well they modernized their website, it loads inside half an hour with less than 10k tracking scripts