Media Bias

[Cow Poke]

That was SUPPOSED to annoy you!

Not even a tad.

[Juvenal]

I avoided terms like "robbed" and "theft" because those denote illegality. It is nonetheless done against my will.

Strong-armed implies robbery.

Tax breaks given to churches happens against my will, but I don't fuss about it, because democracy requires compromise, and there are things done with my taxes others don't appreciate.

Christian ethics is about voluntary giving, which I am happy to do.

It's not as if tax dollars used to help other Americans prevent you from giving independently.

[Darth Executor]

Strong-armed implies robbery.

Tax breaks given to churches happens against my will, but I don't fuss about it, because democracy requires compromise, and there are things done with my taxes others don't appreciate.

How generous, their money actually belongs to you but you'll take a pass on claiming it as a compromise.

[Sparko]

[QUOTE=lao tzu;514139
It's not as if tax dollars used to help other Americans prevent you from giving independently.[/QUOTE]

Means we have less to give.

[carpedm9587]

Not even a tad.

Wascally wabbit...

[carpedm9587]

I was recently introduced to this site: https://mediabiasfactcheck.com

I have been doing some digging, and I have to say that I find them excellent. Their results have a high correlation with other sites I admire (e.g., www.allsides.com), with general media classification in the press, and with my perspective in general. Although I am constantly accused of being "liberal" or "ultra liberal" on this site, I actually hold views across the spectrum, more conservative on fiscal matters, more liberal on social matters. I work pretty hard to try to vet out any given claim and find support/refutation for it from various sources across the political spectrum.

Based on this site, I am also adjusting my assessment of both Fox News and CNN. I have considered both of them to be "soft" left and right (respectively). Mediabiasfactcheck refers to this as "right-center" and "left-center" respectively. These news outlets, however, are rated as "right" and "left" respectively (which puts them far out on the bias metric), and (more importantly) the factual nature of their reporting is considered "mixed," which means they tend to use highly partisan language and are not particularly consistent with accuracy. I am not that surprised by Fox News, but I am surprised by CNN. I actually have not watched/read them for a bit, but I had thought better of them. It's sad to see they've slipped so badly.

I recommend this site to anyone interested in trying to find a balance in news reporting.

[carpedm9587]

I have been thinking a lot about this over the past year. Media bias is something I think we need to all take seriously. But I think bias is sccondary to accuracy. I can sort through bias is I know the information is accurate. That means if we sort bias as extreme, moderate, and slight (I doubt that any outlet, today, is free of bias), and accurary as also good, moderate, and poor (I doubt any outlet can claim perfection), that leads to nine classifications:

• Extreme bias, poor accurary
• Extreme bias, moderate accurary
• Extreme bias, good accurary
• Moderate bias, poor accurary
• Moderate bias, moderate accurary
• Moderate /bias, good accurary
• Slight bias, poor accurary
• Slight bias, moderate accurary
• Slight /bias, good accurary

If I take this list and try to sort media outlets against it, I get:

• Extreme bias, poor accurary: Jezebel; Breitbart
• Extreme bias, moderate accurary: Huffington Post; Fox News
• Extreme bias, good accurary: I know of none. bias seems to trump accuracy.
• Moderate bias, poor accurary: Again, I have found none
• Moderate bias, moderate accurary: Boston Herald; ABC News
• Moderate /bias, good accurary: Fortune/WSJ; CBS News
• Slight bias, poor accurary; None that I can find
• Slight bias, moderate accurary; None that I can find
• Slight /bias, good accurary: Associated Press, Financial times

I conclude, after some digging, that there is a dirrect link between bias and credible sources. The more bias ed a site is (left or right) the more it appears to draw on uncredible sources. The more unbiased a site is, the more is draws on credble sources.

[Mountain Man]

I was recently introduced to this site: https://mediabiasfactcheck.com

A quick sanity check shows that they rate the left-leaning Snopes as unbiased and highly accurate when they routinely spin true statements from conservatives as false. They also rate far-left rags like Politico and Washington Post as merely center-left and also rate their accuracy as high when their fact checking articles regularly pull a Snopes and take a true statement from a conservative and keep spinning it and spinning it until they can claim it's false. Liberals, of course, are usually treated with kid gloves by these same organizations.

This proves that Media Bias Fact Check is a joke. Looks like just another liberal website trying to provide cover for their buddies in the liberal media.

[Mountain Man]

They also list Politifact as unbiased and highly accurate!



You're a sucker if you take anything Media Bias Fact Check says seriously. Looks like they're just telling gullible, low-info liberals what they want to hear.

[Adrift]

A quick sanity check shows that they rate the left-leaning Snopes as unbiased and highly accurate when they routinely spin true statements from conservatives as false. They also rate far-left rags like Politico and Washington Post as merely center-left and also rate their accuracy as high when their fact checking articles regularly pull a Snopes and take a true statement from a conservative and keep spinning it and spinning it until they can claim it's false. Liberals, of course, are usually treated with kid gloves by these same organizations.

This proves that Media Bias Fact Check is a joke. Looks like just another liberal website trying to provide cover for their buddies in the liberal media.

If you google Media Bias Fact Check, you get all sorts of views about it online. Typically left leaning places like Huffington Post, and Rational Wiki seem to love it. More conservative websites seem to hate it, which kinda tells you all you need to know about it I guess.

[carpedm9587]

A quick sanity check shows that they rate the left-leaning Snopes as unbiased and highly accurate when they routinely spin true statements from conservatives as false. They also rate far-left rags like Politico and Washington Post as merely center-left and also rate their accuracy as high when their fact checking articles regularly pull a Snopes and take a true statement from a conservative and keep spinning it and spinning it until they can claim it's false. Liberals, of course, are usually treated with kid gloves by these same organizations.

This proves that Media Bias Fact Check is a joke. Looks like just another liberal website trying to provide cover for their buddies in the liberal media.

Yeah - I'm aware that you reject any site that doesn't rate things the way you think they should. That's a rather circular mindset. I look for consistency between the ratings of sites, not alignment with my own preconceptions. It helps me avoid the "bubble" phenomenon. It's for that reason that I have adjusted my viewpoint of CNN and MSNBC. I don't frequent either a great deal, but it is clear that they have slipped significantyl since I last did, and have become the "Fox News" of the left.

[carpedm9587]

If you google Media Bias Fact Check, you get all sorts of views about it online. Typically left leaning places like Huffington Post, and Rational Wiki seem to love it. More conservative websites seem to hate it, which kinda tells you all you need to know about it I guess.

Or, perhaps, the right dislikes any suggestion that their favorite news sources are biased, and the left is more willing to look at it? That would also explain the distinction. As I said, I look for alignment between the various sites, not alignment with my preconceptions. Unless I am willing to consider a vast conspiracy by most of these sites to dump on the right, and I see no basis for such a view. When they rank CNN and MSNBC as "left-biased" and "mixed" in their accuracy, they are being critical of left-leaning news sources, ranking them essentially as the "Fox News" of the left. Given how dominant CNN and MSNBC are as media outlets, the left should be up in arms. I'm not seeing that. But I do see the right highly offended when their favorite news sources are likewise critically ranked.

That tells me something, as does the alignment between multiple such sources, and their published methodology.

[Adrift]

Or, perhaps, the right dislikes any suggestion that their favorite news sources are biased, and the left is more willing to look at it?

I'm curious, why do you think that would be the case? Do you think that the Left are generally more open minded, and less biased in general?

[Mountain Man]

Yeah - I'm aware that you reject any site that doesn't rate things the way you think they should. That's a rather circular mindset.

I, of course, could accuse you of the same.

But then you're the one who had a good opinion of CNN until this website told you to think otherwise. What does that suggest?

[Darth Executor]

I have been thinking a lot about this over the past year. Media bias is something I think we need to all take seriously. But I think bias is sccondary to accuracy.

It really isn't. Skewing content is worse than posting the odd bit of fake news. Because it's harder to objectively nail someone on it, most media outlets tend to do it with absolute impunity, and often not even realizing they're doing it.