Media Bias Chart 8.0
- Thread starter CoffeeIsForClosers
- Start date
Haha. That's some good stuff there. Thank you for sharing. That person doesn't know their ass from first base.
Doth mine eyes deceive me? Where oh where is the gatweway pundit?
I take it your were offended to see that your news sources were found to be biased and not quite reliable?
Last edited:
The owner of ad Fontes Media - Vanesa Ortero is a patent attorney with literally no background on LinkedIn to legit be a foremost expert in the field of evaluating media outlets.
I would say this is trash.
I’ve read that criticism (as well as the others). I’ve also read through the process utilized to come up with the chart. It’s also the only one out there….so I’m not sure who the foremost expert would be?
I also don’t see this as gospel but a guide that I’d argue is pretty accurate IMHO.
Cool take, in the end it is a company rendering an opinion, no more no less.
There is no standard therefore they are creating their own standard, which is fine, there should always be a bar from which to evaluate the future. I couldn’t say without knowing more demographics of the people working at the media company how much bias would go into their evaluation. She is a UCLA graduate with a JD from U of Denver which is very liberal, visited many times when I was at the AF Academy and prior to transferring to Clemson. In fact, I was accepted to Denver and had a good friend from HS enrolled there.
Point being... how are we to know the motivations of a chart like this without knowing much more about the people putting it out there for consumption? Or what factual criteria they use to evaluate each network or show? And why are main stream news outlets being evaluated next to the Dan Bongino Show?
Too many questions not enough answers.
Lol at the butthurt ITT over a chart identifying the skew of media outlets.
I just can't.
I just can't.
You don’t ever anyway, glad you came to flap your yapper.
You are a cheater and proponent of election fraud. Your sec of state in Colorado is a criminal. Mail in ballots was the worst thing to ever happen to this country. And you’re likely a cum guzzling sped fvcker. In some circles people may like you, my guess is that you’re a tool though. At least you play one on message boards.
They actually answer a lot of those questions on the website. Check it out. May not be the detail you are looking for, but goodness, we don’t even come close to expecting the same from the referenced media companies….and they are the ones who legitimately form public opinion/educate the electorate.
I think you hit the nail on the head here. If we were doing an honest evaluation of the media, I mean the behind the scenes media, think we would find that whole chart shift one more box to the left for most.
I am actually ok with the ones out on either side it’s the ones screaming moderation that are the most full of crap, cause there are no moderates left on the air.
Lolololol.
Yikes bro.
Please tell us more about why you think our SOS is a "criminal"?
"Cum guzzling sped ****er" is a good one. Aren't you like 50+ years old? Yikes man.
Everything on that graphic is garbage. I get none of my “news” from any of that trash
And where is it that you get your news that wasn’t included in this chart? @TigerGrowls ?
It's an interesting take.......I would always start with CNN and FOX in the same quadrants on each respective side and then work off of that. The challenge here is that each major outlet has media personalities that skew further left and further right. Reuters has always been a pretty neutral party in my opinion.
AP is at minimum skews left. NYT is hyper partisan and they belong on the third level for accuracy. CNN...the very bottom left box at minimum. Same with all the other mainstream media. If you're going to hammer Fox for all their opinion programming then you have to do the same for the other networks that have the same stuff.
I think the evaluation should be done at the show level since some are shows and some are cable news channels. Evaluate each TV/radio/author personality is a more easy evaluation metric.
to compare cable news and personalities in the same study seems to potentially skew the data.
I also feel that if an author/personality must publish or issue a retraction should be made to wear that badge under their name. If we want truth to be told then when reporters/authors/media personalities report on less than the truth, then make them own it.
If we want to review and make people accountable for their lies/deception/collusion I think that is what should be debated.
IMO the media should be held to the absolute highest standards of integrity. The news/writers of non-fiction should be unwavering in their quest for the truth. Can we get a service to evaluate this? To publish successful lawsuits even ones that settle out of court? To publish retractions?
This would be something that would not be trash
to compare cable news and personalities in the same study seems to potentially skew the data.
I also feel that if an author/personality must publish or issue a retraction should be made to wear that badge under their name. If we want truth to be told then when reporters/authors/media personalities report on less than the truth, then make them own it.
If we want to review and make people accountable for their lies/deception/collusion I think that is what should be debated.
IMO the media should be held to the absolute highest standards of integrity. The news/writers of non-fiction should be unwavering in their quest for the truth. Can we get a service to evaluate this? To publish successful lawsuits even ones that settle out of court? To publish retractions?
This would be something that would not be trash
Look at the chart brother. AP is slightly left of middle. And not sure how Fox was hammered worse than any other….but I don’t look throgh fox tinted glasses either.
I did. They aren't slightly left. They also aren't honest. They should be on the fart left of skews left and down by the place where it says high variation in reliability.
You can't do a simple bit of math and see that MSNBC and CNN are well above Fox? If you actually check the history of factual reporting, Fox runs circles around them. I don't look at Fox because their website is filled with misleading click bait but the same is true for the others. The sad reality is the best place to get reliable news is from overseas publications. CNN is just about the least reliable news you can get. Also, PBS should be on the 2nd left column and about 3 spaces down. They are not fact reporting at all. But that's OK. It's a chart by a leftist to make himself feel better. Same stuff day after day!
Whatever man. I am not that interested in what kind of lifeform made something so ridiculously misleading. I just do facts. I was a journalism major in college. I understand how we should report the news. No one is doing that now but if you are that blind, I just don't know what to tell you. Good reporters on all sides see it. Things are either a fact or they aren't. There's really not any in between.
It lost me at Rachel Maddow is "slewed left" and not hyper partisan.
I think their idea of "central" needs to be pushed a lot to the right.
And many outlets report facts, but they also omit facts that don't fit their narrative.
I'll agree that too many outlets, regardless of their leanings, tend report opinion vice just report the news.
I think their idea of "central" needs to be pushed a lot to the right.
And many outlets report facts, but they also omit facts that don't fit their narrative.
I'll agree that too many outlets, regardless of their leanings, tend report opinion vice just report the news.
Curious where that journalism degree came from. Genuinely.
You can also choose what facts to report. What stories to report. “All the news that’s fit to print” is in itself bias.
Dude is a classic scenario of him being the problem but blaming everyone else for what he thinks is wrong in society.
Most of them - including Fox News - pretty much suck. I keep up with the WSJ and that's about it. Just released an article detailing all the ways the dems want to fleece the scotchtiger household with their new tax plan.
www.wsj.com
Democrats Release Details of Proposed Tax Increase
House Democrats are calling for raising the corporate tax rate to 26.5% from 21%, a 3-percentage-point surtax on top earners and a capital-gains tax increase.
www.wsj.com
61% for New York's top earners and 26% on corporations......you'll note that communist China is only 25%Most of them - including Fox News - pretty much suck. I keep up with the WSJ and that's about it. Just released an article detailing all the ways the dems want to fleece the scotchtiger household with their new tax plan.
Democrats Release Details of Proposed Tax Increase
House Democrats are calling for raising the corporate tax rate to 26.5% from 21%, a 3-percentage-point surtax on top earners and a capital-gains tax increase.
It's not as bad as it could have been, and hopefully we see some softening as it proceeds through congress. Knowing that we're stuck with some elements, I would hope that they:
- Raise the income for the top tax bracket. $450K for a family is too low.
- Set a very high income limit for the new 25% cap gains rate. Like $5M+. Hopefully this doesn't kick in at the current $496K threshold.
- Drop corporate tax rate from 26.5% to 25%.
- I would love to see the SALT cap shifted from a $10K cap to a percentage cap. For example, you can deduct up to 8% of your income in SALT expenses. But that won't happen.
where was this same skepticism when you were discussing Cyber Ninjas and their election auditing practices?
you know, considering they have no background whatsoever as it pertains to election auditing?
