What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Media Bias Chart (1 Viewer)

matuski

matuski

Footballguy
Link

I've enjoyed this site for a while now.  

I find I agree more and more with this chart. The frustrating part is that more and more you see the "opinion" pieces on the left and right camouflaged as news.

Anyone take issue with this?

eta - the site will have a link for each story labeled "from the center", "from the right", "from the left"  :thumbup:

 
Last edited by a moderator:
matuski said:
Bias effects credibility right?
Click to expand...
From the site’s FAQ:

We disagree with the idea that the more extreme an outlet is, the less credible it necessarily is.
Click to expand...
I’d say there is a correlation. Regardless, though, ignoring credibility makes this chart much less useful than others out there.  Bias is important to understand but the bigger problem is so many people believing things they pick up from media that are untrue.  If you hear the truth from one side and a lie from the other, these don’t “balance” each other.

To that point, I have as issue with their slogan: “Don’t be fooled by media bias and fake news.” Fake news? They aren’t measuring credibility!  So weird.

 
matuski said:
Bias effects credibility right?
Click to expand...
Some .  But a site can have bias but still ne credible (see the NYT and Washington Post)

That chart is a bit simplistic that area...it equates those places with a place like the Washington Examiner.

When you dig further and look at credibility and reliability, you see the difference.

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/washington-post/?amp
 

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/washington-examiner/?amp

Even if you use the same all sides...it gives confidence level high to the post and medium to the examiner.

Its also usually best to not rely on the opinion pages for much...or equate them with news which does happen.

What I find more curious is seeing how often NYT or Washington Post get basically ignored by some...yet the same people post or comment positively about things from far worse sources.  Oddly enough, doing the same as POTUS.

 
matuski said:
Link

I've enjoyed this site for a while now.  

I find I agree more and more with this chart. The frustrating part is that more and more you see the "opinion" pieces on the left and right camouflaged as news.

Anyone take issue with this?

eta - the site will have a link for each story labeled "from the center", "from the right", "from the left"  :thumbup:
Click to expand...
The WSJ is an interesting example, it can have wildly partisan op-eds but it’s reporting is typically solid, even though likely on the right in that chart.

I also don’t mind the RW sites because typically they’ll link to MSM anyway. Honestly post whatever site you like IMO, so long as it’s not outright disinformation, and it’s better than no link, aka just makin’ #### up Yo.

 
Great find and perfectly illustrates what many on the right object.  Even if the source is using facts, the bias shows in the headline and language. The Sandmann story is a perfect example.  

I second the motion that this bias chart becomes the PSF standard. 

 
knowledge dropper said:
Great find and perfectly illustrates what many on the right object.  Even if the source is using facts, the bias shows in the headline and language. The Sandmann story is a perfect example.  

I second the motion that this bias chart becomes the PSF standard. 
Click to expand...
It is really more than just headline selection.  It gets down to:

- Story Selection

- Omission of key mitigating facts 

- Narrative

- Placement of story

- Exaggerations 

A news sourse can be 100 percent trustworthy and still be a crappy sourse.  

 
knowledge dropper said:
Great find and perfectly illustrates what many on the right object.  Even if the source is using facts, the bias shows in the headline and language. The Sandmann story is a perfect example.  

I second the motion that this bias chart becomes the PSF standard. 
Click to expand...
How is it different than the one Joe has floated?

 
When I see a story which seems sensational, I always look for a reasonably reliable counter sourse from the other side.  I am skeptical of virtually everything I read.  I rarely trust the narrative without a bit further investigation.  I am fairly trustworthy of the media with the facts, just not with telling me what to think about those facts. 

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
How is it different than the one Joe has floated?
Click to expand...
I believe Joe's was more centrally-focused on ranking the reliability.  But I think it also ranked for bias.   This chart is purely about bias.  Both are important, but Joe's does a better job at trying to merge both factors.  But IMHO, understanding bias is more important. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
sho nuff said:
Some .  But a site can have bias but still ne credible (see the NYT and Washington Post)

That chart is a bit simplistic that area...it equates those places with a place like the Washington Examiner.

When you dig further and look at credibility and reliability, you see the difference.

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/washington-post/?amp
 

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/washington-examiner/?amp

Even if you use the same all sides...it gives confidence level high to the post and medium to the examiner.

Its also usually best to not rely on the opinion pages for much...or equate them with news which does happen.

What I find more curious is seeing how often NYT or Washington Post get basically ignored by some...yet the same people post or comment positively about things from far worse sources.  Oddly enough, doing the same as POTUS.
Click to expand...
You do the same thing. You dismiss info from a source you don’t like despite the fact what they wrote was true.

 
I like the other chart better -- showing both credibility/accuracy and bias as well as including a lot more outlets.

I don't care about bias at all if you get the facts right.  That's where debate lives.

 
Dinsy Ejotuz said:
I like the other chart better -- showing both credibility/accuracy and bias as well as including a lot more outlets.

I don't care about bias at all if you get the facts right.  That's where debate lives.
Click to expand...
I completely disagree.  You really end up with a bunch of half-truth which are probably more effective than outright lies at manipulating opinions.   Understanding bias is essential to reaching a conclusion on a story. 

 
I believe anyone who only reads CNN, MSNBC, ABC, NBC, Washington Post, NY Times, Fox, and Breitbart are doing themselves a disservice.   They get a one-sided and sometimes misguided view of the world that completely forms their opinion on politics. 

 
jon_mx said:
When I see a story which seems sensational, I always look for a reasonably reliable counter sourse from the other side.  I am skeptical of virtually everything I read.  I rarely trust the narrative without a bit further investigation.  I am fairly trustworthy of the media with the facts, just not with telling me what to think about those facts. 
Click to expand...
That is why I have used this site fairly often lately.

They lay out the counter sources for me.

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
How is it different than the one Joe has floated?
Click to expand...
Here is the chart that Joe has talked about. It's far more comprehensive and less simplistic than the one posted by matuski, although I'm sure both charts are worthwhile.

The important thing about the adfontes chart, IMO, is that it rates sites on reliability as well as partisan lean. When looking at matuski's chart, you might get the impression that ABC News is the left equivalent to the Washington Times. But when comparing those two outlets on the adfontes chart, ABC is only slightly on the the left side of the spectrum (yet rated "most reliable"), while the Washington Times skews quite a bit to the right (and is judged to have "reliability issues and/or extremism").

 
Bozeman Bruiser said:
The bottom line is that 95% of what you see online and on cable is pure propaganda designed to make you hate everyone who disagrees with you, think that America is on the verge of becoming Nazi Germany, and that the Earth will cease to exist in 12 years (always 12 years for some reason) because of evil white Christian males who drive gas burning pickup trucks and eat hamburgers.
Click to expand...
Where do you get your news?

 
knowledge dropper said:
Great find and perfectly illustrates what many on the right object.  Even if the source is using facts, the bias shows in the headline and language. The Sandmann story is a perfect example.  

I second the motion that this bias chart becomes the PSF standard. 
Click to expand...
It's a good chart and pretty darn accurate.  I'd like to see a version that shows this in a bubble chart version (bigger bubble - bigger outlet) so we can see just how dramatic the bias is to the left.  It's overwhelming.

 
matuski said:
Link

I've enjoyed this site for a while now.  

I find I agree more and more with this chart. The frustrating part is that more and more you see the "opinion" pieces on the left and right camouflaged as news.

Anyone take issue with this?

eta - the site will have a link for each story labeled "from the center", "from the right", "from the left"  :thumbup:
Click to expand...
Chuck Todd has increasingly been outwardly partisan in his views. He really doesn't even he attempt to hide his disdain for the President. He is supposed to be more of a straight news, interviewer, but not sure, given the outward positions that he takes and the cross-over between MSNBC/NBC how they aren't one of the same these days.

 
CNN has to be the worst at taking a story and just beating into the ground. By they time they are done with a story, they usually have incorrect reports that muddle the entire story so the story (and their credibility) take a major hit. See the Russia scandal and their reporting of.

 
matuski said:
Link

I've enjoyed this site for a while now.  

I find I agree more and more with this chart. The frustrating part is that more and more you see the "opinion" pieces on the left and right camouflaged as news.

Anyone take issue with this?

eta - the site will have a link for each story labeled "from the center", "from the right", "from the left"  :thumbup:
Click to expand...
Generally, most of the media is left leaning and some pretty far to the left. I think the chart does try to show that with a few misses (USA Today is also gone off to the left as well). Not sure if Bloomberg can be a center news source either.

 
FOX, despite the bias from especially the opinion shows (but seeps into the guest panels on the news shows), has the best 'anchor' in Chris Wallace. There's not a 2nd place, fantastic interviewer, challenges everyone.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
cubd8 said:
Chuck Todd has increasingly been outwardly partisan in his views. He really doesn't even he attempt to hide his disdain for the President. He is supposed to be more of a straight news, interviewer, but not sure, given the outward positions that he takes and the cross-over between MSNBC/NBC how they aren't one of the same these days.
Click to expand...
Lawrence O'Donnell has publicly stated he refuses to have anyone supportive of the current administration on his show.  There's even handed for you.

 
cubd8 said:
Generally, most of the media is left leaning and some pretty far to the left. I think the chart does try to show that with a few misses (USA Today is also gone off to the left as well). Not sure if Bloomberg can be a center news source either.
Click to expand...
Wait - you think USA Today is left?  Why?

 
Alex P Keaton said:
Is this another thread that will turn into finger pointing about “which side” is worse, rather than focusing on the link in the OP?
Click to expand...
What you don’t like biased opinions on what’s biased?  Crazy talk.  

 
Last edited by a moderator:
One thing it appears some are missing is if Trump lies or does something awful, it’s not being biased to avoid giving an equal amount of pro-Trump time.

Also many liberal leaning outlets are having an extremely hard time getting Trump surrogates to answer questions directly and honestly. They are stuck in a no-win situation trying to show some balance.

 
Juxtatarot said:
One thing it appears some are missing is if Trump lies or does something awful, it’s not being biased to avoid giving an equal amount of pro-Trump time.

Also many liberal leaning outlets are having an extremely hard time getting Trump surrogates to answer questions directly and honestly. They are stuck in a no-win situation trying to show some balance.
Click to expand...
If lying or doing something awful is the benchmark, seems weird you would single out one politician.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Dinsy Ejotuz said:
I like the other chart better -- showing both credibility/accuracy and bias as well as including a lot more outlets.

I don't care about bias at all if you get the facts right.  That's where debate lives.
Click to expand...
The two are often inseparable for stories that bias can actually matter. Many stories write themselves. Two dead, 2.7 million stolen, 3 suspects, chevy s-10, etc. Those aren't the stories where people complain of bias.

Bias affects what "facts" are presented. 

 
matuski said:
Meh.  He tweets a lot.

Lying and being awful on twitter is simply playing to your audience.  Par for twitter.
Click to expand...
Sure, but one small thing. He’s the POTUS for Christ’s sake.  He’s (or she if one is ever elected) supposed to be held to the absolute highest standards, the only other people I could possibly put on the same level are SC Justices.   

 
dkp993 said:
Sure, but one small thing. He’s the POTUS for Christ’s sake.  He’s (or she if one is ever elected) supposed to be held to the absolute highest standards, the only other people I could possibly put on the same level are SC Justices.   
Click to expand...
I don't think we can hold him to standards any higher than what the man was before we elected him.  This is EXACTLY what the candidate presented himself as during the campaign.

We knew him to be this and we put him there... where were our standards then?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
matuski said:
I don't think we can hold him to standards any higher than what the man was before we elected him.  This is EXACTLY what the candidate presented himself as during the campaign.

We knew him to be this and we put him there... where were our standards then?
Click to expand...
I didn’t vote for him. Are you saying my standards on how a President behaves needs to be lowered based on other people’s votes?

 
Juxtatarot said:
I didn’t vote for him. Are you saying my standards on how a President behaves needs to be lowered based on other people’s votes?
Click to expand...
Neither did I.

As a country we did, so at this point whining about Trump acting precisely like the guy who won the election has always acted seems weird.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Joe Bryant
  • Poll
Perceived Bias Opinion: New York Times
2 3
Replies
100
Views
2K
The Commish
The Commish
Joe Bryant
  • Poll
For an overall grade, where would you rate the FOX News for Left - Right Bias & Accuracy/Reliability
Replies
34
Views
592
FairWarning
FairWarning
Joe Bryant
  • Poll
For an overall grade, where would you rate the CNN for Left - Right Bias & Accuracy/Reliability
2
Replies
91
Views
1K
identikit
identikit

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Top