• 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!

The Media Bias Chart

Rogue Valley

Rogue Valley

Lead or get out of the way
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 18, 2013
Messages
94,171
Reaction score
82,451
Location
Barsoom
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
The Chart, Version 3.0: What, Exactly, Are We Reading?

Came across a page with chart-modeling of media bias by patent attorney Vanessa Otero (@vlotero). At the link above, she explains her chart methodology.


24232179_10210778459800839_7616662877707377450_n.jpg



Related: The Viral Media Graphic (with special thanks to Vanessa Otero)
 
I don't see anything about blatant and excessive use of unnamed sources.

Dismissed.
 
Great chart proving, once and for all, that MSNBC and Mother Jones are hardly biased at all.
 
A chart made by a liberal for liberals. I'd like to see a chart made by a non-partisan group....if there is such a thing anymore. What's ironic is that she apparently has a blog called "All generalizations are false"...yet her chart is a generalization.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Great chart proving, once and for all, that MSNBC and Mother Jones are hardly biased at all.
Click to expand...

I am curious about the methodology used to determine where to place each outlet.

I don't disagree with much of the placing, except I wished they had created an entirely different netherworld for infowars.
 
In general I think the Icons should be shifted Left a half square.... and I think that would be fairly accurate.
 
Rogue Valley said:
The Chart, Version 3.0: What, Exactly, Are We Reading?

Came across a page with chart-modeling of media bias by patent attorney Vanessa Otero
Click to expand...

You do realize that in the view of most DP "conservatives" (I put that in quotes since they've forgotten what conservatism really is), everything to the left of the National Review is all horribly biased liberal media, right? 'Cause if the news isn't in strict accordance with far-right dogma, it's obviously controlled by Hillary....

Edit: I wrote this before I read comment #6. I rest my case.
 
It seems like a reasonable chart, with significant room for good-faith disagreement.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Great chart proving, once and for all, that MSNBC and Mother Jones are hardly biased at all.
Click to expand...

No. It says they are as biased as the Weekly Standard, the Examiner and American Conservative. Not sure if I would apply the same weightings, but that seems kind of reasonable.

I read that as "definitely biased but not total garbage". YMMV.
 
Winston said:
I am curious about the methodology used to determine where to place each outlet.

I don't disagree with much of the placing, except I wished they had created an entirely different netherworld for infowars.
Click to expand...

I find that that the media bias/fact check site is much more honest and objective in their evaluations. One must remember that most media bias is simply by omission (facts or events intentionally omitted) followed closely by using loaded words such as right-wing or far-left (quite selectively, of course) to refer to persons, places or ideas. There is no such thing as a "fair interpretation" of the news not showing bias - but I would accept a "fair presentation" of the news not showing bias.

One of the most glaring examples of media bias (MSNBC and Fox News are prime offenders) is using live video footage of a "protest" yet not a lick of first person "on the scene" interviews of participants. Instead they bring in carefully selected "guests" to explain what the protestors "really meant to say".
 
i totally agree with bottom left and bottom right sections

both are partisan drivel

when i read the news, i like the national review myself or the wall street journal (both conservative but not over the top)

on occasion i am led to stories from WASHPO or NYT and it really depends on subject matter and the day of the week

they can be middle of the road, or they can be left leaning....

overall i think the chart is close....maybe slightly off, but nothing significant
 
Winston said:
I am curious about the methodology used to determine where to place each outlet.

I don't disagree with much of the placing, except I wished they had created an entirely different netherworld for infowars.
Click to expand...

The black helicopters are circling, we HAVE confirmation, I HAVE THE DOCUMENTS RIGHT HERE!
 
The chart and where the authors place various sources appears to be subjective to their interpretation.

It does highlight something though. Count the number of sources that are on the left side (32), and then count the number of sources that are on the right side (23).

The left side as quite a few more than does the right side. My conclusion is that overall, the industry is stilted left.

I also have a real problem with their definition "Red rectangle nonsense damaging to public discourse" and whom they place in there on the right side.

Someone observed earlier that the entire thing should be shifted left 1 square or section. I think that's probably an accurate and needed adjustment.

Anyway, just my impression. YMMV.
 
Kal'Stang said:
A chart made by a liberal for liberals. I'd like to see a chart made by a non-partisan group....if there is such a thing anymore. What's ironic is that she apparently has a blog called "All generalizations are false"...yet her chart is a generalization.
Click to expand...
I don't know how you come to that conclusion.

If anything, I'd say that most of the right-wing news outlets are much further to the right than the chart indicates. E.g. National Review doesn't exactly strike me as center-right.

I'd also say that more conservatives read more conspiracy-theory news than the right. E.g. on Alexa's rankings, Breitbart is #52 in the US, and Palmer Report is #3166. Patribotics (which I've never heard of) gets so little traffic, Alexa doesn't even chart it.
 
Rogue Valley said:
The Chart, Version 3.0: What, Exactly, Are We Reading?

Came across a page with chart-modeling of media bias by patent attorney Vanessa Otero (@vlotero). At the link above, she explains her chart methodology.


24232179_10210778459800839_7616662877707377450_n.jpg



Related: The Viral Media Graphic (with special thanks to Vanessa Otero)
Click to expand...

I took one glance, noticed that Vanessa Otero put "Natural News" on the far Left and realized the entire chart was nothing more than a silly famale's air-headed wet dream.

https://www.naturalnews.com/

Honestly, did you even bother to look at that chart before you posted it?
 
Kal'Stang said:
A chart made by a liberal for liberals. I'd like to see a chart made by a non-partisan group....if there is such a thing anymore. What's ironic is that she apparently has a blog called "All generalizations are false"...yet her chart is a generalization.
Click to expand...

Yeppers!! Just another example of the sad state of affairs among too many liberals these days. Even the most cursory examination of this chart fo lies would show the gross bias it contains.
 
I made this chart myself a year ago:

bias_chart.jpg
 
Glen Contrarian said:
You do realize that in the view of most DP "conservatives" (I put that in quotes since they've forgotten what conservatism really is), everything to the left of the National Review is all horribly biased liberal media, right? 'Cause if the news isn't in strict accordance with far-right dogma, it's obviously controlled by Hillary....

Edit: I wrote this before I read comment #6. I rest my case.
Click to expand...

Daily KOS, MSNBC, Mother Jones, Daily Beast are all considered to be "Fair interpretations of the news" and your BS monitor doesn't go into massive alert overdrive...????
 
faithful_servant said:
Daily KOS, MSNBC, Mother Jones, Daily Beast are all considered to be "Fair interpretations of the news" and your BS monitor doesn't go into massive alert overdrive...????
Click to expand...

The problem, sir, is that as soon as you see one of those names, you assume it must all be false. Guy, if Breitbart says something, I don't automatically assume it's false. I look to see if it's true, then I go from there.

In other words, please learn to judge WHAT is said on its own merits instead of assuming that it's true or false because of who said it.
 
HowardBThiname said:
Honestly, did you even bother to look at that chart before you posted it?
Click to expand...

Certainly. If you had bothered to read comments, from both right and left posters, many agree that the placements are close.

If you can do better Howey, by all means create such a chart and post it for us.
 
Rogue Valley said:
Certainly. If you had bothered to read comments, from both right and left posters, many agree that the placements are close.
Click to expand...

A lot of people agree that the Bible is factual as well...

So?

If you can do better Howey, by all means create such a chart and post it for us.
Click to expand...

For gawdsake, Natural News is a right-wing conservative site. That air-head has it on the Left. Now you can pretend not to notice all you want, but a mistake of that size negates whatever potential credibility the chart may have had.

Are you honestly going to stand by its accuracy in the face of that glaring error?
 
HowardBThiname said:
A lot of people agree that the Bible is factual as well...

So?



For gawdsake, Natural News is a right-wing conservative site. That air-head has it on the Left. Now you can pretend not to notice all you want, but a mistake of that size negates whatever potential credibility the chart may have had.

Are you honestly going to stand by its accuracy in the face of that glaring error?
Click to expand...

Dollars to donuts you didn't even bother to read the methodology links. You just assume because something doesn't fit into your preconceived niches.
 
Glen Contrarian said:
The problem, sir, is that as soon as you see one of those names, you assume it must all be false. Guy, if Breitbart says something, I don't automatically assume it's false. I look to see if it's true, then I go from there.

In other words, please learn to judge WHAT is said on its own merits instead of assuming that it's true or false because of who said it.
Click to expand...

Just the fact that MSNBC fell into the "Fair interpretations of the news" category should throw up a red flag for anyone with even an ounce objectivity. MSNBC has been shown over and over again to be horrifically biased.
 
Rogue Valley said:
Dollars to donuts you didn't even bother to read the methodology links. You just assume because something doesn't fit into your preconceived niches.
Click to expand...

It's not a "preconceived niche." Natural News is pretty far right. It's anti-vaccine, anti-science, pro-conspiracy. Of course I didn't read the methodology links -- why would I? The woman is a flipping moron.
 
I do agree about Natural News tough. A combo rightist-CT site. Don't know how that got placed where it is.

But one misplaced item doesn't nullify every placement (the association fallacy). I think overall, it's pretty fair and mostly spot-on.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom