Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Media/News & Bias

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Media/News & Bias

    Often as we present sources we get push back from others about the bias or slant of the source/link/site presented.

    Seems it's hard to find any source that isn't slanted or biased, which might not practice information exclusion, or distortions or "out of context", etc. And if the source and content conforms to our views and perspectives we may not see such as having a "bias" while noticing such in others' sources presented that don't match our views and positions.

    Another complication comes from some sources being "commentators" which will automatically be expected to have a bias, such as editorial or opinion pieces, not always clearly marked as such. Then there are supposed "real" "news" sites/sources that might slant their presentation, omit (consciously?) essential data, inject partisan dialogue or presentation styles, or in other ways come across as not neutral, not objective.

    So here's a thread for presentation of what one feels might be a biased source and how/why; or a more neutral/objective one; or shades in-between.

    I'm going to lead off with some posts that have charts and links showing first of examples of how seemingly unbiased ratings/ranks might have bias themselves, as the differences in the various charts and graphs will show.
    TANSTAAFL = There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch

  • #2
    https://jerz.setonhill.edu/blog/2016...rvative-chart/



    https://twitter.com/vlotero/status/808696317174288387


    TANSTAAFL = There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch

    Comment


    • #3
      Another version of the above...

      https://jerz.setonhill.edu/blog/2017...hart-4-0/#main

      TANSTAAFL = There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch

      Comment


      • #4
        https://www.adfontesmedia.com/intera...ia-bias-chart/

        TANSTAAFL = There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch

        Comment


        • #5
          https://www.allsides.com/media-bias/media-bias-chart

          TANSTAAFL = There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch

          Comment


          • #6
            https://ei.marketwatch.com/Multimedi...d-ac162d7bc1f7

            TANSTAAFL = There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch

            Comment


            • #7
              I think the AllSides chart probably is the more accurate so far.

              Media bias has always existed....the problem is up until now they (medias) pretended they were not. Nowadays, they don't even try to hide, but rather come right out and shill for one side or the other.

              The fact that NPR would appear as left-center/left on the bottom two charts is disturbing given they receive federal funding. What other medias out there receive taxpayer funds?
              You'll live, only the best get killed.

              -General Charles de Gaulle

              Comment


              • #8
                Bari Weiss on why she left the New York Times

                Saying that “Twitter has become its ultimate editor,” New York Times columnist and editor Bari Weiss resigned yesterday with a scathing letter to the paper.

                Weiss, one of the few centrist voices at The Times, said she faced bullying at the paper for her views, and that the free exchange of ideas on the opinion pages was now dead. The search for truth has been replaced by “orthodoxy already known to an enlightened few whose job is to inform everyone else.”

                In the letter addressed to publisher A.G. Sulzberger, Weiss bemoans how the Times has strayed from the ideals laid out by Adolph Ochs in 1896, that the paper should publish “all shades of opinion.”

                Here is the full text of the letter.

                (Actually, some excerpts since it is rather long.)
                ...
                I joined the paper with gratitude and optimism three years ago. I was hired with the goal of bringing in voices that would not otherwise appear in your pages: first-time writers, centrists, conservatives and others who would not naturally think of The Times as their home. The reason for this effort was clear: The paper’s failure to anticipate the outcome of the 2016 election meant that it didn’t have a firm grasp of the country it covers. Dean Baquet and others have admitted as much on various occasions. The priority in Opinion was to help redress that critical shortcoming.
                ...
                But the lessons that ought to have followed the election — lessons about the importance of understanding other Americans, the necessity of resisting tribalism, and the centrality of the free exchange of ideas to a democratic society — have not been learned. Instead, a new consensus has emerged in the press, but perhaps especially at this paper: that truth isn’t a process of collective discovery, but an orthodoxy already known to an enlightened few whose job is to inform everyone else.

                Twitter is not on the masthead of The New York Times. But Twitter has become its ultimate editor. As the ethics and mores of that platform have become those of the paper, the paper itself has increasingly become a kind of performance space. Stories are chosen and told in a way to satisfy the narrowest of audiences, rather than to allow a curious public to read about the world and then draw their own conclusions. I was always taught that journalists were charged with writing the first rough draft of history. Now, history itself is one more ephemeral thing molded to fit the needs of a predetermined narrative.

                My own forays into Wrongthink have made me the subject of constant bullying by colleagues who disagree with my views. They have called me a Nazi and a racist; I have learned to brush off comments about how I’m “writing about the Jews again.” Several colleagues perceived to be friendly with me were badgered by coworkers. My work and my character are openly demeaned on company-wide Slack channels where masthead editors regularly weigh in. There, some coworkers insist I need to be rooted out if this company is to be a truly “inclusive” one, while others post ax emojis next to my name. Still other New York Times employees publicly smear me as a liar and a bigot on Twitter with no fear that harassing me will be met with appropriate action. They never are.

                There are terms for all of this: unlawful discrimination, hostile work environment, and constructive discharge. I’m no legal expert. But I know that this is wrong.
                ...
                Part of me wishes I could say that my experience was unique. But the truth is that intellectual curiosity — let alone risk-taking — is now a liability at The Times. Why edit something challenging to our readers, or write something bold only to go through the numbing process of making it ideologically kosher, when we can assure ourselves of job security (and clicks) by publishing our 4000th op-ed arguing that Donald Trump is a unique danger to the country and the world? And so self-censorship has become the norm.

                What rules that remain at The Times are applied with extreme selectivity. If a person’s ideology is in keeping with the new orthodoxy, they and their work remain unscrutinized. Everyone else lives in fear of the digital thunderdome. Online venom is excused so long as it is directed at the proper targets.
                ...
                The paper of record is, more and more, the record of those living in a distant galaxy, one whose concerns are profoundly removed from the lives of most people. This is a galaxy in which, to choose just a few recent examples, the Soviet space program is lauded for its “diversity”; the doxxing of teenagers in the name of justice is condoned; and the worst caste systems in human history includes the United States alongside Nazi Germany.

                ...Too wise to post on Slack, they write to me privately about the “new McCarthyism” that has taken root at the paper of record.

                All this bodes ill, especially for independent-minded young writers and editors paying close attention to what they’ll have to do to advance in their careers. Rule One: Speak your mind at your own peril. Rule Two: Never risk commissioning a story that goes against the narrative. Rule Three: Never believe an editor or publisher who urges you to go against the grain. Eventually, the publisher will cave to the mob, the editor will get fired or reassigned, and you’ll be hung out to dry.

                For these young writers and editors, there is one consolation. As places like The Times and other once-great journalistic institutions betray their standards and lose sight of their principles, Americans still hunger for news that is accurate, opinions that are vital, and debate that is sincere. I hear from these people every day. “An independent press is not a liberal ideal or a progressive ideal or a democratic ideal. It’s an American ideal,” you said a few years ago. I couldn’t agree more. America is a great country that deserves a great newspaper.
                ...
                https://nypost.com/2020/07/14/bari-w...ew-york-times/
                TANSTAAFL = There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch

                Comment


                • #9
                  I rely on Media Bias/Fact Check to vet unknown sources. I find their commentary is accurate and conservative (in the sense they talk about what they know about the source, no speculation).

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    The first chart is just ridiculous, listing NaturalNews as a far left site when they're very obviously right wing. That chart seems to be created by a random person on Twitter, so funny enough it's a bad source to categorize sources.

                    Personally, I don't think the source matters as long as it's not a conspiratorial site. Questioning sources has just become a cop-out response for ignoring news or information someone doesn't want to address.

                    But, the only site I really respect and appreciate is https://reason.com/

                    Their bias is towards the constitution and not a political party, so they will call out anyone, republican or democrat.
                    Last edited by TactiKill J.; 15 Jul 20, 14:57.
                    "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
                    - Benjamin Franklin

                    The new right wing: hate Muslims, preaches tolerance for Nazis.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      One interesting point is how the general media landscape can vary from country to country.

                      Despite the common belief that media has a left wing bias, Canadian newspapers have overwhelmingly endorsed right of center candidates in the last few national elections. Like, it's not even close.

                      The one major, commonly recognized left of center newspaper, the Toronto Star, was just recently purchased and taken private by a pair of entrepreneurs who have historically been right of center. Expectations are that it will start moving right in its opinion pieces, though there's likely a limit as to how far that can go with in a market like Toronto.

                      It's interesting that a country like Canada, which most Americans would say is left of center, has a generally right of center media. Now, again, right of center in Canada doesn't mean the same thing as it does in the US.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Social media are also topic for this thread ...

                        Conservative alternative to Twitter wants to be place for free speech for all; rules still apply

                        In late June, two days after Twitter put a fifth warning label on one of President Donald Trump's tweets, Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, tweeted that he was joining Parler, calling it "a platform [that] gets what free speech is all about."

                        The social media site, which has been described as a conservative Twitter, is on a tear with people who say Twitter and Facebook are silencing conservative voices. In one week, it gained 1 million users, bringing its total to 2.8 million by early July.

                        Some of its most prominent users are part of the conservative establishment. Trump campaign director Brad Parscale is on Parler, as is Eric Trump, the president's son, and White House press secretary Kayleigh McEnany. Conservative commentator Dan Bongino announced in mid-June that he had taken an ownership stake in the company.

                        A crackdown by Twitter and, more reluctantly, Facebook, against messages from President Trump that the companies said violate their policies is fueling Parler's rise. Parler bills itself as a place for "free expression without violence and a lack of censorship," key words that many conservatives have picked up as a rallying cry to promote the app online.

                        Parler chief executive and co-founder John Matze said the app welcomes all voices. But the company appears to cater to a right-wing base fed up with what they view as censorship on traditional social media sites.

                        "We initially attracted conservative users because they felt disenfranchised by other social media platforms," Matze said in an email sent through a spokesperson.

                        But Parler is quickly discovering the limits of free expression. On June 30, Matze took to Parler to explain its house rules, apparently frustrated with some of Parler's new users testing the limits of its free-expression motto by posting pornographic images and obscenities.
                        .....
                        The social media site did not burst into the spotlight until June, after Twitter had labeled five of the president's tweets with warnings. Trump retaliated by signing an executive order that opened the door for an Internet shield law to be reconsidered. Facebook announced that it would start labeling posts from politicians who violate its policies. Republican politicians and pundits called the companies out, saying they were biased against conservatives.

                        Two Republicans on the House Judiciary Committee asked Parler last week to meet with the panel to discuss social media competition.

                        "Parler differentiates itself on the quality and features of its platform - namely, its commitment to not 'censor or editorialize, share or sell user data,' " Reps. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, and James Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., wrote. "This commitment positions Parler in stark contrast to Twitter, which has made increasingly clear in recent weeks and months that only users who refrain from expressing certain unfavored political beliefs are welcome to fully participate on its platform."
                        ....
                        Social media experts point out that many conservative politicians, notably Trump, perform well on Twitter because the company rewards posts that get more attention. Trump's account is among the most popular on Twitter, with more than 83 million followers.

                        Some users, including Matze, are calling for people to exit Twitter altogether, using the hashtag #Twexit on Parler. But it seems unlikely that a sizable number of people will leave Twitter. Even the politicians promoting Parler online still have active Twitter accounts. And Parler has a long way to go if it wants to appeal to the masses across a broad political spectrum.

                        Twitter has 166 million monthly average users, and Facebook has 2.6 billion each month. Parler says it has a total audience of 2.8 million users.
                        .....
                        Parleyers, as the company calls its users, also have more casual conversations; they discuss Bible verses, share recipes or devise ways to persuade Trump to join the app. (Trump's campaign has a Parler account, but the president does not.)

                        Parler's Matze said the app has "broad ideological diversity" and recently gained some members of Generation Z and Black Lives Matter supporters.

                        "You know @parler has been a success when you see how many liberal snowflakes have come here to reply to every parley Nazi & Racist," a fan account for Trump posted on the site recently.

                        Although it has become the poster child for free expression online, Parler since its inception has had a long list of community guidelines that outline what it won't allow, including obscenity, terrorist content and "fighting words," or calls to incite violence.
                        ...
                        Parler said it has brought on 200 volunteer content moderators. The company's support team posted on Parler that it needed volunteers because it is "experiencing a high number of brigading attacks from individuals who wish to see us fail!"

                        Matze said he does not see any conflict between the company's guidelines and promoting free speech.

                        "The purpose of the restrictions is to create a proper town square without people ruining it by violating it with speech not protected by the First Amendment or FCC guidelines, while still allowing everyone to illustrate their point without experiencing any ideological censorship," he said in an email.
                        .....
                        Parler's guidelines attribute many of its rules to Federal Communications Commission regulations and Supreme Court decisions, but social media companies are subject to very few laws when it comes to material posted on their sites. A law called Section 230 shields them from liability for nearly everything their users post online. Trump and his supporters - including Cruz - have criticized that law recently, saying it gives social media companies too much power.

                        "That's the irony - content moderation is always necessary," said Daniel Kreiss, a media professor at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. "Just depends where you draw the line."
                        .........
                        https://www.sfgate.com/news/article/...e-15409996.php
                        TANSTAAFL = There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by DingBat View Post
                          One interesting point is how the general media landscape can vary from country to country.

                          Despite the common belief that media has a left wing bias, Canadian newspapers have overwhelmingly endorsed right of center candidates in the last few national elections. Like, it's not even close.

                          The one major, commonly recognized left of center newspaper, the Toronto Star, was just recently purchased and taken private by a pair of entrepreneurs who have historically been right of center. Expectations are that it will start moving right in its opinion pieces, though there's likely a limit as to how far that can go with in a market like Toronto.

                          It's interesting that a country like Canada, which most Americans would say is left of center, has a generally right of center media. Now, again, right of center in Canada doesn't mean the same thing as it does in the US.
                          I meant a few Canadians at the Mirage poker room in Vegas in 2016. They were all Trump fans. And they believed in numerous conspiracy theories surrounding Hillary Clinton. Similar situations occurred at the fallsview as well as at a restaurant(I believe It was Carpaccio) on Lundys lane , Canada. Pictured in the attachment is the overpriced salmon and lentil I had at the Canadian restaurant.



                          I would imagine that over 50% of Canadians over the age of 65 are conservative leaning...the type of conservative that abhors Justin Trudeau and his dad while praising Trump.
                          Attached Files
                          Last edited by Stonewall_Jack; 15 Jul 20, 15:34.
                          Long live the Lionheart! Please watch this video
                          https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_c...&v=jRDwlR4zbEM
                          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f3DBaY0RsxU
                          Accept the challenges so that you can feel the exhilaration of victory.

                          George S Patton

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Stonewall_Jack View Post

                            I meant a few Canadians at the Mirage poker room in Vegas in 2016. They were all Trump fans. And they believed in numerous conspiracy theories surrounding Hillary Clinton. Similar situations occurred at the fallsview as well as at a restaurant(I believe It was Carpaccio) on Lundys lane , Canada. Pictured in the attachment is the overpriced salmon and lentil I had at the Canadian restaurant.



                            I would imagine that over 50% of Canadians over the age of 65 are conservative leaning...the type of conservative that abhors Justin Trudeau and his dad while praising Trump.
                            Well, according to 3 2019 election day exit polls, this is not accurate. On election day, voters over 55 voted for the right of center party 39%, 35%, and 38%. And that was the best result for a right of center party in a decade.

                            Canada has people with conservative beliefs, to be sure, but election results are more often center-left.

                            The spectrum of "conservative" in Canada has been fighting an internal, civil war for the past decade or two. "Small c" conservatives are still like centrist Republicans (who might be called RINOs today): fiscal restraint, prefer small government, perhaps increased military spending, etc. Social conservatives are more like a contemporary Republican. But even far right candidates in Canada think three or more times before even voicing an opinion against our network of social services.

                            The two sides split a couple of decades ago, were re-united in the mid-2000s and now look as if they're in the process of re-splitting.

                            The problem our right of center party in Canada faces is that social conservative issues are dead on arrival in most of Canada. They're literally electoral suicide. But without the social conservatives there's not enough weight to challenge the centrist party. So they have to try to stitch together this Frankenstein monster right of center party and it's not working very well at the moment.

                            It's a fairly serious problem as we need a counter-weight to the centrist party. The minority government result in our last election was widely considered the best possible outcome.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Just watching you so called "president".s performance to day in Atalanta on the news just shows how much he cares for all who live under him....he dosnt give a **** about the citizens of the USA....just his won image........May your God help you...you sure as hell need it\

                              Comment

                              Latest Topics

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X