Fake News/Real News Chart

[ALiberalModerate]

Pretty good grid here to take in at a glance.

In all fairness I would put Foxnews more into the skews conservative column rather than the hyper partisan one. I would also move Huffington Post to the left and a little further down on the chart. The rest I think are pretty accurate.

One could also argue that the higher on the chart your typical news sources are, the smarter and more critical thinking you are. Conservative or Liberal, people that tend to read The Economist and The Atlantic a lot, also tend to be pretty smart.

 

[Dragonfly]

The second I saw where the NYT and WaPo were on the graphic I knew it was going to be a huge issue.

So yeah....more Facebook idiocy.

 

[calamity]

Fox News should be much further to the "crazy right" than it is. Plus CNN is 2 stations, CNN and CNN International. The latter is quite (relatively) unbiased and still worth a watch.

As usual, the right however will howl against the liberal media and all, but that only proves that the chart is correct. For the right, the only media that matters is the one that projects the news the right want.. not the truth and facts. This is why Fox News is placed wrongly.

CNN Money on the web is totally unbiased and a great way to catch up on business news for those not overly interested in the finer details of that world. The idea that CNN is biased comes from Right Wing talking points, not reality.

 

[calamity]

In all fairness I would put Foxnews more into the skews conservative column rather than the hyper partisan one. I would also move Huffington Post to the left and a little further down on the chart. The rest I think are pretty accurate.

One could also argue that the higher on the chart your typical news sources are, the smarter and more critical thinking you are. Conservative or Liberal, people that tend to read The Economist and The Atlantic a lot, also tend to be pretty smart.

HuffPo is evolving ever since Arriana left. It's still shill, but the depth they go into in some stories is astounding, when compared to its past.

The article cited in the op on the Democratic Debacle thread is from huffpo. It's a well written piece, clearly.

Fox is tainted partisan because of Hannity and O'Reily. Shepard Smith, OTOH, is much less biased; Megyn Kelley has actually become a serious journalist, and their website is even looked upon favorably. But, the Brand pays the price for the damage done by the TV side: Glen Beck was a joke, it'll take years to wipe that slate clean.

 

[ocean515]

Because Conservatives are much more apt to get their news from utter garbage sites than liberals. Its why fake news that targets a conservative audience gets a lot more traffic than fake news targeting a liberal audience.

Completely, totally false.



Versus garbage sits on the left:

 

[ALiberalModerate]

Completely, totally false.

View attachment 67211213

Versus garbage sits on the left:

View attachment 67211214

View attachment 67211215

View attachment 67211216

Compare it to breitbart.com Breitbart.com Traffic, Demographics and Competitors - Alexa (41st most popular site in the country)

The blaze.com Theblaze.com Traffic, Demographics and Competitors - Alexa

To cherry pick Rush Limbaugh's site is the height of intellectual dishonesty.

 

[ocean515]

Compare it to breitbart.com Breitbart.com Traffic, Demographics and Competitors - Alexa (41st most popular site in the country)

The blaze.com Theblaze.com Traffic, Demographics and Competitors - Alexa

To cherry pick Rush Limbaugh's site is the height of intellectual dishonesty.

LOL

You're on the moon in the "height of dishonesty" measure. I just picked Limbaugh because it's most commonly referred to.

How about the following to add the fake news traffic sites?





You really want to go here, because I can add dozens of alt-left/liberal/socialist progressive propaganda faux news sites with their traffic rankings.

You're completely wrong with your claims about websites. The traffic on propaganda sites that I've listed don't compare to the traffic on the one's you've listed. Do you know what the ranking is for infowars? You know, the one the alt-left loves to accuse others of getting information from?

Facts will set you free, or expose you...

 

[KLATTU]

That graph was probably put together by someone left leaning. e.

Probably?

 

[KLATTU]

Fox News should be much further to the "crazy right" than it is.
y.

and Kansas City is far east to a person In San Francisco...but far West to somebody from NYC. If you get my drift.

As usual, the right however will howl against the liberal media .

and they were sure proved correct this year, weren't they?

For the right, the only media that matters is the one that projects the news the right want.. not the truth and facts. .

And one thing you have to admire, 'the left ' doesn't do that! NEVER! (LOL)

 

[calamity]

In all fairness I would put Foxnews more into the skews conservative column rather than the hyper partisan one. I would also move Huffington Post to the left and a little further down on the chart. The rest I think are pretty accurate.

One could also argue that the higher on the chart your typical news sources are, the smarter and more critical thinking you are. Conservative or Liberal, people that tend to read The Economist and The Atlantic a lot, also tend to be pretty smart.

To follow up on my previous post, here's an interesting piece by Huffpo. Sure, it skews Left, but it is far more in-depth than anything they've done in the Arriana days.

A Path Out Of Trouble

 

[ALiberalModerate]

To follow up on my previous post, here's an interesting piece by Huffpo. Sure, it skews Left, but it is far more in-depth than anything they've done in the Arriana days.

A Path Out Of Trouble

I guess I should check it out again. I haven't looked at huffingtonpost.com in forever because it was always pretty hardcore left.

 

[calamity]

I guess I should check it out again. I haven't looked at huffingtonpost.com in forever because it was always pretty hardcore left.

It still is. But, at least it's making a better case for it now than in the past.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

LOL

You're on the moon in the "height of dishonesty" measure. I just picked Limbaugh because it's most commonly referred to.

How about the following to add the fake news traffic sites?

View attachment 67211219

View attachment 67211220

You really want to go here, because I can add dozens of alt-left/liberal/socialist progressive propaganda faux news sites with their traffic rankings.

You're completely wrong with your claims about websites. The traffic on propaganda sites that I've listed don't compare to the traffic on the one's you've listed. Do you know what the ranking is for infowars? You know, the one the alt-left loves to accuse others of getting information from?

Facts will set you free, or expose you...

Right, washingtonpost.com is a "fake news site"...... Salon.com and the sites of major newspapers are in no way at all comparable to infowars.com and other nutjob sites. For that you would have to compare a site like inforwars to a site like naturalnews.com.

 

[Mithros]

Pretty good grid here to take in at a glance.

Yep... It doesn't quite cover the places I usually go, but pretty close.

The Atlantic.
*Daily Beast
*New Republic
The Hill
*Politico
The Guardian
The Wall Street Journal
The New York Times
NPR
BBC

But the NYT and Daily Beast are about the most sensationalized news I can take.

 

[calamity]

Yep... It doesn't quite cover the places I usually go, but pretty close.

The Atlantic.
*Daily Beast
*New Republic
The Hill
*Politico
The Guardian
The Wall Street Journal
The New York Times
NPR
BBC

But the NYT and Daily Beast are about the most sensationalized news I can take.

I was surprised Politico was not on the list. I seem to find a good article on there at least once a day. Another popular site not listed is Taki Mag. Far Right, but sometimes they have a very enlightening expose'.

 

[calamity]

Almost 3 million views so far.
A decent breakdown of all things real and fake news. - Imgur

 

[Mithros]

I was surprised Politico was not on the list. I seem to find a good article on there at least once a day. Another popular site not listed is Taki Mag. Far Right, but sometimes they have a very enlightening expose'.

Interesting, I'll have to check it out.

IMO right or left is much less important than the depth of coverage.

 

[ocean515]

Right, washingtonpost.com is a "fake news site"...... Salon.com and the sites of major newspapers are in no way at all comparable to infowars.com and other nutjob sites. For that you would have to compare a site like inforwars to a site like naturalnews.com.

You made this claim:

"Because Conservatives are much more apt to get their news from utter garbage sites than liberals."​

Obviously the site visits show your claim to be false. The site visits of liberal websites known for their propaganda and garbage is considerably higher by multiple factors than the site visits/ranking of sites people claim are conservative "garbage sites".

And yes, WaPo is a fake news site. They've already been exposed for their BS over and over.

One recent example:

The Washington Post admits that its "fake news" story was in fact "fake news"

 

[MrWonka]

Pretty good grid here to take in at a glance.

I disagree heavily with the notion that The Economist is a right leaning news source. It's well above the average reading level of anybody on the right. Real economists heavily favor Democrats to Republicans.

 

[<alt>doxygen]

LOL

You're on the moon in the "height of dishonesty" measure. I just picked Limbaugh because it's most commonly referred to.

How about the following to add the fake news traffic sites?

View attachment 67211219

View attachment 67211220

You really want to go here, because I can add dozens of alt-left/liberal/socialist progressive propaganda faux news sites with their traffic rankings.

You're completely wrong with your claims about websites. The traffic on propaganda sites that I've listed don't compare to the traffic on the one's you've listed. Do you know what the ranking is for infowars? You know, the one the alt-left loves to accuse others of getting information from?

Facts will set you free, or expose you...

limbaugh.com??? Doesn't ElRushie claim to have the most listened to RADIO SHOW in the country??? I think using his website as some metric of his popularity is a little disingenuous.

 

[calamity]

I disagree heavily with the notion that The Economist is a right leaning news source. It's well above the average reading level of anybody on the right. Real economists heavily favor Democrats to Republicans.

lol...I understand what you're saying, but et's not forget that there are a good number of intelligent conservatives. T Economist leans toward a more conservative take on things than say, the Atlantic.

 

[Grim17]

Here's a chart that I believe is far more accurate:​

​

 

[NonoBadDog]

Probably?

I was trying to be nice.

 

[Absentglare]

Pretty good grid here to take in at a glance.

My biggest issue with this image is actually where Fox News is placed. I think they should move it left more, put it about halfway between the "great sources" and the "ineffective conservative sources" bubbles.

 

[mpg]

You made this claim:

"Because Conservatives are much more apt to get their news from utter garbage sites than liberals."​

Obviously the site visits show your claim to be false. The site visits of liberal websites known for their propaganda and garbage is considerably higher by multiple factors than the site visits/ranking of sites people claim are conservative "garbage sites".

And yes, WaPo is a fake news site. They've already been exposed for their BS over and over.

One recent example:

The Washington Post admits that its "fake news" story was in fact "fake news"

I disagree heavily with the notion that The Economist is a right leaning news source. It's well above the average reading level of anybody on the right. Real economists heavily favor Democrats to Republicans.

Do you have any evidence to backup your last sentence?