• 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

While I happen to agree with most of the pleadings, without a demonstrable methodology it is just opinion.
 
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.

Then so are a bunch of the posters on this thread who basically agree with the chart. Right and left posters.

Don't agree with Howie ... you're a moron. Yup. Folks have you pegged correctly.
 
E.g. National Review doesn't exactly strike me as center-right.

Which raises the questions of what you think "center-right" is, and what you think NR does to not be part of it.

Who knows, maybe you have a credible case. But most who pick on NR tend not to have any idea what they actually say, and think they're far more to the right than they are.
 
There is little doubt the National Review is conservative (founded by William F. Buckley).

The chart has it situated as Right/Conservative/Skews Conservative (but still reputable)/Hyper-Partisan (expressly promotes views)

I agree. The last two descriptors depend on author and content which is probably why the NR placement straddles Skews Conservative (but still reputable) / Hyper-Partisan (expressly promotes views).
 
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.

It might not nullify "every placement" but it nullifies the overall integrity of the chart. Then again, the chart maker is a patent attorney, not an academic in the field. It's like of like the farmer who creates a chart showing global warming to be a hoax. The real question is why anyone with a lick of sense is giving that chart anything more than a bemused glance.
 
Then so are a bunch of the posters on this thread who basically agree with the chart. Right and left posters.

Don't agree with Howie ... you're a moron. Yup. Folks have you pegged correctly.

I just pointed out a fatal flaw in the chart -- nothing more. I don't mind if folks peg me as someone who points out fatal flaws in arguments. That's fine.
 
Everything except Fox is left of center. Lol. Christonacracker.

That is correct.

Of course there are newspapers like the Washington Times that have a conservative bias, along with tons of websites on the internet... I chose to include only what I consider to be the "biggies" when it comes to news.


.
 
It might not nullify "every placement" but it nullifies the overall integrity of the chart. Then again, the chart maker is a patent attorney, not an academic in the field.

You're lazy and admitted you didn't read the chart methodology ... even though two OP links were supplied to explain it....

Of course I didn't read the methodology links -- why would I?

Stupid is as stupid does.
 
Seems fairly accurate, but isn't most of this just opinion? Unless a news source clearly states their bias, most of this is just opinion.
 
There is little doubt the National Review is conservative (founded by William F. Buckley).

The chart has it situated as Right/Conservative/Skews Conservative (but still reputable)/Hyper-Partisan (expressly promotes views)

I agree. The last two descriptors depend on author and content which is probably why the NR placement straddles Skews Conservative (but still reputable) / Hyper-Partisan (expressly promotes views).

National Review is a conservative opinion mag. But that wasn't the question.
 
You're lazy and admitted you didn't read the chart methodology ... even though two OP links were supplied to explain it....

You're hanging your hat on demonstrably flawed methodology? And, you think I should have read the flawed methodology?

Fascinating.


Stupid is as stupid does.


So you say, but I'm not the one hanging my hat on flawed methodology.

:mrgreen:
 
I don't see anything about blatant and excessive use of unnamed sources.

Dismissed.

If journalists always revealed their sources, they wouldn't have any sources. Why is that hard to understand?
 
If journalists always revealed their sources, they wouldn't have any sources. Why is that hard to understand?

Tough.

Without sources, nobody believes you.

Heck, how many people here at DP post something...without a source..."I heard on TV...", only to get shot down by their fellow forum members. WE don't believe each other when we do this. Why would anyone believe the Mainstream Media when THEY do it?
 
That is correct.

Of course there are newspapers like the Washington Times that have a conservative bias, along with tons of websites on the internet... I chose to include only what I consider to be the "biggies" when it comes to news.


.

And omitted the Wall Street Journal? Would that adjust your tilt?
 
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.

On what basis do you conclude that it is a "chart made by a liberal for liberals"? The fact that you don't like what it's showing?

How about this Harvard study?

https://cyber.harvard.edu/publications/2017/08/mediacloud
 
Tough.

Without sources, nobody believes you.

Heck, how many people here at DP post something...without a source..."I heard on TV...", only to get shot down by their fellow forum members. WE don't believe each other when we do this. Why would anyone believe the Mainstream Media when THEY do it?

If you believe in the integrity of your news source, your believe their stories have been carefully corroborated. Huge media sources do not survive publishing random stories that are not truthful. If they need to protect their sources I see that as justifiable.
Personally I believe in the integrity of the NYT over the random DP poster. That does not mean I do not listen to what the poster might have to say. Also DP posters do not have editorial boards, legal teams, and other journalistic safeguards before they hit the post reply button.
 
And omitted the Wall Street Journal? Would that adjust your tilt?

Good point... I can't believe I didn't think of them.

Here, is this better:

bias_chart1.jpg
 
While I happen to agree with most of the pleadings, without a demonstrable methodology it is just opinion.

The author did write out their methodology, but i found the way it factored in public opinion to be flawed.
 
If you believe in the integrity of your news source,

I don't. I've seen too many blatantly biased stories from the Mainstream Media. They've lost their integrity.

your believe their stories have been carefully corroborated.

I don't. I've seen too many of their stories that are nothing more that rumor-mongering.

Huge media sources do not survive publishing random stories that are not truthful. If they need to protect their sources I see that as justifiable.
Personally I believe in the integrity of the NYT over the random DP poster. That does not mean I do not listen to what the poster might have to say. Also DP posters do not have editorial boards, legal teams, and other journalistic safeguards before they hit the post reply button.

I don't believe anyone who can't/won't back their words up with credible, verifiable sources...be it a poster here on DP, a blog or any news organization. NONE of them can be trusted nowadays.
 
If journalists always revealed their sources, they wouldn't have any sources. Why is that hard to understand?

So people write articles with no sources?
 
I don't. I've seen too many blatantly biased stories from the Mainstream Media. They've lost their integrity.



I don't. I've seen too many of their stories that are nothing more that rumor-mongering.



I don't believe anyone who can't/won't back their words up with credible, verifiable sources...be it a poster here on DP, a blog or any news organization. NONE of them can be trusted nowadays.

At one time journalists who would not give up their sources even when threatened with jail, were admired. Some journalists went to prison to protect their sources. I think you are beating some dead horse here, imagining that all sources will be revealed to you...and if not..obviously the news is fake. I think Trump might be proud of you.
 
So people write articles with no sources?

Did I say that? I didn't realize it was confusing. If a journalist reveals the source who is giving them otherwise unknown information, that source might be cut off from said information. Then the journalist wouldn't have a source.....

Don't ya think so?
 
Back
Top Bottom