An Experiment in Media Bias

[Mountain Man]

And yet two separate sites with two separate and published methodologies arrive at reasonably consistent results, and those results generally align with my pre-check assessment. They also generally align with a vast number of more ad hoc "political skew" assessments from individual and groups across the Internet. For me, that is adequate information for using them as a general measurement of bias. You appear to looking for the usual "absolute" standard of consistency, yet the very basis is about something that is subjective, highly variable, and modifies over time as new writers and new management pass through.

Sorry, MM. I don't look for perfection in the tools I use. I look for "the best I can get." So far I have found both Allsides and MediabiasFactCheck fairly reliable. I can understand why you would reject them, however. They don't paint the sites you generally use as reliable or balanced - so you cannot accept their findings without having to look at your own reading habits and sources.

I'm not asking for perfection or an "absolute". That's a red herring on your part. I'm merely asking for objectivity, and as far as Biased Media Fact Check is concerned, there is none. That's why you can put their methodology into different hands and get completely different results.

[Starlight]

I don't think the left is without its vitriolic voices, by any means. But I don't think the left has very many of those voices with the kinds of platforms those on the right have.

Pretty much. There are crazies on both sides, but the left ignores their crazies while the right thinks being crazy is the best possible qualification for a prime time media slot and a multi-million dollar contract.

[carpedm9587]

I didn't have room to include all the other people you mentioned. You just said

so I thought I would educate you.

The expression "such voices" may have been too vague. I meant "voices from the left with that kind of vitriol and that kind of platform." Your list doesn't seem the same to me, in those terms.

[lilpixieofterror]

Pretty much. There are crazies on both sides, but the left ignores their crazies while the right thinks being crazy is the best possible qualification for a prime time media slot and a multi-million dollar contract.

So sayeth a crazy member of the left. In reality land, they are elected members of congress and do/say crazy things (like the New Green Energy Deal).

[lilpixieofterror]

The expression "such voices" may have been too vague. I meant "voices from the left with that kind of vitriol and that kind of platform." Your list doesn't seem the same to me, in those terms.

The View is one of the most popular daytime talk shows. What hole have you been living in?

[carpedm9587]

I'm not asking for perfection or an "absolute". That's a red herring on your part.

Yet you are asking for a scientific-like methodology which, when applied by two different people will yield the same results.

I'm merely asking for objectivity, and as far as Biased Media Fact Check is concerned, there is none.

So first, how you would go about showing "there is none" is interesting to me. Besides pointing to a few places who object to the methodologies of MBFC (and presumably Allsides, as well?), how do you propose to show this?

That's why you can put their methodology into different hands and get completely different results.

I suggest you can put their methodology into different hands and get different results if the people applying the methodology bring bias to the application. We are talking about assessing bias. If someone approaches it in biased fashion, you will get biased results. Assessing bias is itself an at least partially subjective process.

So how do you propose showing that these organizations approached the problem in a biased way. I told you why I find them reasonably compelling. What is your basis for asserting bias?

[carpedm9587]

So sayeth a crazy member of the left. In reality land, they are elected members of congress and do/say crazy things (like the New Green Energy Deal).

What is the basis for calling the "Green New Energy" framework (as far as I know, there is no bill at this time) "crazy?"

[carpedm9587]

The View is one of the most popular daytime talk shows. What hole have you been living in?

I don't watch daytime TV. I know of it from a few links people have sent with a "watch this" request. Other than that, I have never seen an episode.

[lilpixieofterror]

What is the basis for calling the "Green New Energy" framework (as far as I know, there is no bill at this time) "crazy?"

Did you not read the stuff in the released FAQ?

[lilpixieofterror]

I don't watch daytime TV. I know of it from a few links people have sent with a "watch this" request. Other than that, I have never seen an episode.

[mossrose]

The expression "such voices" may have been too vague. I meant "voices from the left with that kind of vitriol and that kind of platform." Your list doesn't seem the same to me, in those terms.

You're moving the goal post to suit your narrative.

[Mountain Man]

Yet you are asking for a scientific-like methodology which, when applied by two different people will yield the same results.

Of course I am. Otherwise it's just someone's opinion.

I suggest you can put their methodology into different hands and get different results if the people applying the methodology bring bias to the application. If someone approaches it in biased fashion, you will get biased results. Assessing bias is itself an at least partially subjective process.

Bingo. And because there are no controls in Biased Media's methodology (even though they pretend to be objective), there is nothing to prevent someone from unfairly coloring the results with their own bias.

You actually agree with me. You just don't realize it yet.

[Starlight]

What is the basis for calling the "Green New Energy" framework (as far as I know, there is no bill at this time) "crazy?"

She's a crazy person, and she has a conspiracy theory that an inaccurate old draft document, that was meant to be redrafted was instead mistakenly released to the media and then immediately retracted, gives her true insight into what All the Dems are "Really" trying to accomplish. No amount of pointing her to the actual text of the actual resolution that Dems are putting before the House for a vote will dissuade her from her crazy beliefs that she Totally Knows What It's Truly All About.

It's a variant of "they want to put us all in Hobbit Homes / Concentration Camps" / "Obama is coming to take away all our guns" insanity that flourishes in demented right-wing brains. They don't let the fact that they didn't get put in Hobbit Homes and Obama didn't seize all their guns stop them from seizing on whatever the latest crazy train is. In this case it is that the Green New deal is going to abolish all Cars, Planes and Cows, as well as many other things.

[rogue06]

See my amended post. I think you're comparing apples to oranges - for the most part. I don't think the left is without its vitriolic voices, by any means. But I don't think the left has very many of those voices with the kinds of platforms those on the right have. And the ones that do tend to be comedians. It has always amazed me that the right just doesn't seem to have very many comedians.

Bottom line, with the exception of watching Oliver once a week and listening to Colbert's nightly monologue, because I simply find them humorous, I don't follow any of the "far left" either.

I think that you'll find that Rachel Maddow now has a bigger audience than her Fox counterparts and TV shows like The View where Goldberg and Behar have considerably larger audiences than anyone on cable. And while you might find someone humorous than doesn't automatically mean they can't be vitriolic

[rogue06]

I don't watch daytime TV. I know of it from a few links people have sent with a "watch this" request. Other than that, I have never seen an episode.

So if you don't watch something then they don't count as being vitriolic unless they're conservative (several on your list you've indicated that you don't watch).

Got it.