• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Fake News/Real News Chart

calamity said:
Actually the breakdown is pretty accurate. I should know since I'm a centrist.
Click to expand...

I suppose that's fair, I've seen you take both right and left positions from time to time.
I won't discount that I may be a little bit right of center.

My conclusion would be that those rankings are in the image of the person who created it, and your mileage may vary in agreeing with it.
 
ocean515 said:
So the following, according to the chart, are mainstream (minimal partisan bias) and meet high standards?

View attachment 67211175

Such a rating is absolutely laughable and completely destroys the credibility of the chart, and whoever assembled it. Washington Post/New York Times = minimal partisan bias?

:lamo
Click to expand...

Yeah that chart is laughable.
 
Slate is significantly farther to the left than that. Worse than HuffPo, imo.

And I fear NYT has been scooting more towards the left as well, but at least it's not random people bitching (Slate for the most part). CNN is almost more left, at least to the limited extent I've had the misfortune of seeing it.

Fox News can keep its NW corner, but that SE corner needs to end at the very edge of the map. They let some utterly insane anti-left ranting go on with guest callers, etc, and it's only called out some of the time. Then, there's also the bleed-over between Fox News and Fox in general stuff including people like Hannity and O'Reilly.

Bear in mind the frequency you see threads at DP alleging that an entire paper supports a point, but when you follow the link, it's an opinion contributor....



A relatively easy way to get decent news is to read articles on the same subject by NYT and WSJ, basically. Add more if you like, but don't assume that random lightning rod with wild allegations is telling some sort of truth that "teh media" is trying to suppress
 
Last edited:
Helix said:
edit to add : AP and Reuters are pretty close to the middle, IMO.
Click to expand...

Definitely.

Unless I've been missing something massive, they tend to put out brief statements about whatever happened factually. They're not big on analysis, let alone opinion-mongering.
 
eohrnberger said:
I suppose that's fair, I've seen you take both right and left positions from time to time.
I won't discount that I may be a little bit right of center.

My conclusion would be that those rankings are in the image of the person who created it, and your mileage may vary in agreeing with it.
Click to expand...

I find that when I read pieces in those sources shown in the middle of the pack, they can go either way. A David Brooks piece in the Times is pretty much no different than one in the WSJ editorial page, but not nearly as much of a mouth-breathing rant as commentary by Bill O'Reily on Fox. Same for some of the NYT Lefty stuff--sure it's slanted Left, but it doesn't skew nearly to the level of a piece in Huffpo.
 
Chart doesn't seem to consider editorial bias (deciding what to cover). Also, the idea that WaPo and NYT is a "great place to get news" is nutter bias.
 
Many of the comments in this thread confirm that reality has a liberal bias. ;)
 
Phys251 said:
Many of the comments in this thread confirm that reality has a liberal bias. ;)
Click to expand...

An often repeated assertion from those on the left side of the spectrum. One that only they seem to believe. ;)
 
Phys251 said:
Like I said.
Click to expand...

From a logical and philosophical perspective, reality is what it is.
It's the perceiver of that reality, interpreting that reality which makes them believe that it has a liberal bias. Think Kant's rose colored spectacles & frame of reference.
 
Last edited:
calamity said:
Pretty good grid here to take in at a glance.

15420908_10154239596206733_78735819909664064_n.jpg
Click to expand...

The two problems I have with this chart are:
1. VOX is probably more hyper-partisan than MSNBC and definitely NOT a great source for news. LOLZ
2. I don't consider The Hill to have any lean whatsoever, conservative or otherwise.

Otherwise great stuff!
 
The problem with this chart is that it assumes that mainstream and accuracy are mutually-exclusive.

-cough cough FOX cough-.........
 
Helix said:
i'd probably move the Washington Post and the NYT left. i doubt that there's any source other than CSPAN that belongs on the middle line.

i will say that the article comments on the post's site are often hilarious, though. most of those posters would point out here in about a week, lol. :lol:

edit to add : AP and Reuters are pretty close to the middle, IMO.
Click to expand...

I agree with this, Id say do your moves and then move MSNBC a little further left and Fox a little furth right and its a pretty good list.
 
Perhaps the issue isn't the chart. Perhaps the issue is that right wingers tend to be further right than left wingers tend to be towards the left. If that is the case, then right wingers and left wingers will perceive the lean of each of those sources very differently.
 
calamity said:
Pretty good grid here to take in at a glance.

15420908_10154239596206733_78735819909664064_n.jpg
Click to expand...

Slate is "slightly bias but still reputable"? The NYT and WaPo not biased? :roll:
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
Perhaps the issue isn't the chart. Perhaps the issue is that right wingers tend to be further right than left wingers tend to be towards the left. If that is the case, then right wingers and left wingers will perceive the lean of each of those sources very differently.
Click to expand...

I would argue that the opposite is actually true.

As a demonstration, here is study result of the ideological position of various news sources, many also appear in the above chart:

pew.png


To arrive at the chart above the creators would have to have a fairly significant left lean to have the NYT fall in the middle, or they graded on a curve and selected the middle to be where most of the new agencies sat.
 
Last edited:
jmotivator said:
I would argue that the opposite is actually true.

As a demonstration, here is study result of the ideological position of various news sources, many also appear in the above chart:

pew.png


To arrive at the chart above the creators would have to have a fairly significant left lean to have the NYT fall in the middle, or they graded on a curve and selected the middle to be where most of the new agencies sat.
Click to expand...

That chart is more realistic and accurate IMO.
 
Ockham said:
That chart is more realistic and accurate IMO.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I think it makes more sense to judge the ideology of a source by the ideology of its viewers. Most people mistakenly assume that they are moderate, and sit in the ideological middle, so when they judge their sources they assume those sources are mostly unbiased. I assume whoever created that Venn diagram did just that.
 
jmotivator said:
To arrive at the chart above the creators would have to have a fairly significant left lean to have the NYT fall in the middle, or they graded on a curve and selected the middle to be where most of the new agencies sat.
Click to expand...

I agree with the layout of the of that chart for the X axis, though I think Brietbart has moved itself a bit beyond that batch that it's in and I'd move NPR a bit closer to where the WaPo is located. I'd put Vox over around the location of slate. And I wouldn't really put things like the Daily Show, Colbert Report, Rush, or Hannity on there; those are not "news" outlets, those are entertainment outlets that talk about the news.

On the flip side, I do like the one in the OP as it relates to the indepth nature of reporting. Because quality of the reporting matters almost more than the lean. I agree with next to nothing that Vox writes, but I'm at least apt to read that and consider it because it'll at least be a well presented and thought out piece. I feel similar, in terms of the well presented thing, with much that comes out of NRO. Where as when you get to the clickbait type sites, I don't care what lean you are, there's nothing of real value there.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom