• We will be taking the server down at approximately 3:30 AM ET on Wednesday, 10/8/25. We have a hard drive that is in the early stages of failure and this is necessary to prevent data loss. We hope to be back up and running quickly, however this process could take some time.
  • 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!

Statistical Analysis of Left vs. Right Partisan Media Consumption

Your entire argument is "they say the NYT is center". Nobody is saying that, the article doesn't say that, I am not saying that. The only one saying that is you. They clearly show the NYT as a bit to the left of those that are left of center. A more comparable left and right dichotomy would be Breitbart and Huffington Post. Fox News is a bit more to the right than NYT is to the left. But the main point here is that the right sways far heavier to the right than the overall left which is mostly left of center or left.

The authors believe the big 3 are at the media center for the purposes of their piece.
The size of the nodes marking traditional professional media like The New York Times, The Washington Post, and CNN, surrounded by the Hill, ABC, and NBC, tell us that these media drew particularly large audiences. Their color tells us that Clinton followers attended to them more than Trump followers, and their proximity on the map to more quintessentially partisan sites—like Huffington Post, MSNBC, or the Daily Beast—suggests that attention to these more partisan outlets on the left was more tightly interwoven with attention to traditional media. The Breitbart-centered wing, by contrast, is farther from the mainstream set and lacks bridging nodes that draw attention and connect it to that mainstream.
NOTE: If Clinton supporters wanted balance they went to the big 3 where their "attention to these more partisan outlets on the left was more tightly interwoven with attention to traditional media."
Pro-Clinton audiences were highly attentive to traditional media outlets, which continued to be the most prominent outlets across the public sphere, alongside more left-oriented online sites.
NOTE: "traditional media outlets" to the authors, not left of center.
Attacks on the integrity and professionalism of opposing media were also a central theme of right-wing media. Rather than “fake news” in the sense of wholly fabricated falsities, many of the most-shared stories can more accurately be understood as disinformation: the purposeful construction of true or partly true bits of information into a message that is, at its core, misleading.
NOTE:right-wing media and disinformation ... left-wing media doesn't do that.
 
The authors believe the big 3 are at the media center for the purposes of their piece.
This is just you saying it.

NOTE: If Clinton supporters wanted balance they went to the big 3 where their
This is just you saying it.

"attention to these more partisan outlets on the left was more tightly interwoven with attention to traditional media."
They're describing the link between "traditional media" and more partisan left-wing sites.

NOTE: "traditional media outlets" to the authors, not left of center.
Do you know what traditional media is? It is generally older media from television and newspapers. The reason this is highlighted is because of its contrast with new media like Breitbart that is all online. It has nothing to do with left or right or center.

NOTE:right-wing media and disinformation ... left-wing media doesn't do that.

The Breitbart stuff (which is the core of the new media empire) is absolutely disinformation. You don't see anything like this in traditional media, hence the contrast.
 
The Breitbart stuff (which is the core of the new media empire) is absolutely disinformation. You don't see anything like this in traditional media, hence the contrast.

Daily Kos and Breitbart are about the same.
 
Daily Kos and Breitbart are about the same.

Yeah... and nobody reads the Daily Kos. Breitbart is the backbone of the right-wing disinformation empire. Even the president repeats the lies.
 
Yeah... and nobody reads the Daily Kos. Breitbart is the backbone of the right-wing disinformation empire. Even the president repeats the lies.

If no one read it they wouldn't stay in business. I doubt Breitbart has much greater reach than Daily Kos. It's just convenient for the Left to rationalize their ineffectiveness.
 
If no one read it they wouldn't stay in business. I doubt Breitbart has much greater reach than Daily Kos. It's just convenient for the Left to rationalize their ineffectiveness.

Breitbart.com Traffic, Demographics and Competitors - Alexa
Dailykos.com Traffic, Demographics and Competitors - Alexa
Foxnews.com Traffic, Demographics and Competitors - Alexa

The data prove otherwise, Daily Kos and Breitbart aren't even in the same dimension popularity wise. It's more popular than Fox News online.
 
Last edited:
Your entire argument is "they say the NYT is center". Nobody is saying that, the article doesn't say that, I am not saying that. The only one saying that is you. They clearly show the NYT as a bit to the left of those that are left of center. A more comparable left and right dichotomy would be Breitbart and Huffington Post. Fox News is a bit more to the right than NYT is to the left. But the main point here is that the right sways far heavier to the right than the overall left which is mostly left of center or left.

I wouldn't say the NYT has an ideological bias. If they do, it's very mildly Left of center, but I would argue it's ideologically center, where on issues they spread center-left and center-right. They are, however, generally quite partisan. During the Bush years, they did their job for power and sold the hell out of the Iraq War (just like they did the Vietnam War two generations earlier), and now they're doing their part and selling the hell out of this whole Russia story and other anti-Trump news. Combine that with the fact that they nearly always endorse Democrats, and I'd say they have a DNC-establishment bias (which is a partisan bias, not an ideological bias) that can be overridden by their pro-establishment bias to sometimes help Republicans.
 
Last edited:
You mean like Trump and Russia colluded to give him the election? Like aides in the Trump administration were wiretapped? Because both appeared as headlines in the NYT.

Dude, read my ****ing posts. Seriously. If you're going to make snide comments about partisan-bias, at least make sure that I have the partisan bias, first.
 
In general, studies on social , cultural, and political topics should be taken with a huge dose of salt until one looks very deeply into how they were conducted and the methodology. There are so many assumptions and biases, usually left-liberal, reflected in them.

Still, I largely agree with this study, from my own experience. The left-liberal media has its shrill and silly outfits - its Buzzfeeds and Salons. But it does tend to have better journalism. The likes of CNN and the BBC have more, better journalism on average than say, Fox. Still, good journalism is not entirely the same as unbiased journalism. CNN, the BBC, the NYT, etc. are biased, and you do have to untangle this bias from their reporting (especially as they tend to prefer soft bias, which is more subtle and insidious). CNN, for example, has gone off-the-plot since Trump one. They don't even seem concerned to maintain their old soft bias, and are now bordering on MSNBC shrill. But they still do good journalism.

There are good right-wing sources of real journalism. Even Fox has some good journalism, such as that done for Special Report or Fox News Sunday. These are biased, but you get decent journalism and punditry, not the shrill silliness of a Hannity.

PBS Newshour is the best news show I know of for combining good journalism with the least bias possible.

At the very least, the Left has better writers who put together stories that cover more ground. The Rightie sites are written for people with an IQ of 85.
 
Dude, read my ****ing posts. Seriously. If you're going to make snide comments about partisan-bias, at least make sure that I have the partisan bias, first.

You definitely do, you just aren't being very forthright about it. If you seriously believe the NYT has no ideological bias, you are fooling yourself, or you aren't very observant.
 
No, I don't think you're accurate in your assessment of me. Yes, I self identify as a progressive, but that allows me far greater freedom from partisan constraints, not less - I think of progressive in the literal sense, which simply means that I'm more interested in new political ideas than I am in the old ones that aren't working on either side of the political spectrum. I'm Canadian, and up until recently, our right wing party had Progressive in their name (Progressive Conservatives, up until 2003, when they dropped the "Progressive" part, to the disappointment of many conservative Canadians). So, no, I don't think you're being fair or accurate, as a numbers guy I'm far more interested in unbiased information so I can make my own mind up based on the best information available, regardless of where it comes from or who's "side" it validates.

As for the data, it is what it is, and as I've said before, the conclusion can certainly be debated. But there is no "leftist conspiracy" at play with this, no ulterior motive other than to look at the data, which is about the only thing we can do in today's media climate to actually get to the facts.

So you admit the conclusion is debatable. Of course it is. These, "the left is smarter, better, more intelligent, more informed" etc, etc., studies have become a dime a dozen over the last 15 years.

The Progressive Machine has invested $100's of millions to create the foundation for them. Colleges and Universities receive millions in grants to create them.

Is it a conspiracy? Well, the numbers speak for themselves.

What has happened is these "affirmations" of ideological superiority have evolved into a Fascist approach to anyone, or any institution that doesn't adopt the left's, or more important, the Progressive Ideological agenda.

This is not progress, this is regression to periods history has already recorded. History that should never be repeated.
 
LOL

Let me know when you're ready to have a rational, objective, discussion.

Well... in practice you demonstrate that a source that is at all left is to be dismissed. So logically where does that leave us? You refuse to even look outside your bubble. You won't even entertain my question because it would cause you to do so.
 
So you admit the conclusion is debatable. Of course it is. These, "the left is smarter, better, more intelligent, more informed" etc, etc., studies have become a dime a dozen over the last 15 years.

The Progressive Machine has invested $100's of millions to create the foundation for them. Colleges and Universities receive millions in grants to create them.

Is it a conspiracy? Well, the numbers speak for themselves.

What has happened is these "affirmations" of ideological superiority have evolved into a Fascist approach to anyone, or any institution that doesn't adopt the left's, or more important, the Progressive Ideological agenda.

This is not progress, this is regression to periods history has already recorded. History that should never be repeated.

Of course I admit the conclusion is debatable, and I got kind of excited there for a sec, because I thought you were going to debate it, but then you just go back to dismissing it without addressing the study's findings. But data is data, regardless to who paid for the collection and plotting of that data, and the data still points to what it points to. Based on the data set, the fact that Left is more likely to consider information from a broader spectrum of political bias is not debatable. If your concern is that the conclusion is "the left is smarter, better, more intelligent, more informed", what is your counter, based on the data? Summarily dismissing it because it was put forward by the Left is directly supporting their conclusion...so, if you think the conclusion should be different, what do you think it should be?
 
Well... in practice you demonstrate that a source that is at all left is to be dismissed. So logically where does that leave us? You refuse to even look outside your bubble. You won't even entertain my question because it would cause you to do so.

Will you accept a piece from Breitbart as credible evidence?
 
Will you accept a piece from Breitbart as credible evidence?

Depends on the content and context. If it's a Breitbart article about immigrant violence I would take it with a grain of salt as they have a poor track record there.
 
Depends on the content and context. If it's a Breitbart article about immigrant violence I would take it with a grain of salt as they have a poor track record there.

IOW, if you like it, yes. If you don't like it, no.
 
IOW, if you like it, yes. If you don't like it, no.

As a rule any hyper partisan news source is going to hold less weight than say a Reuters article.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
As a rule any hyper partisan news source is going to hold less weight than say a Reuters article.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Until Reuters starts pumping out stuff you don't like, then they're all a buncha racists, nazis and liars, too.
 
I found this article to be very interesting, because it basically demonstrates what anyone using debate forums already knows:

"What's at issue here is not just asymmetrical polarization but asymmetrical news consumption. The left and the center avail themselves of real journalism, however flawed it may be, while the right gorges on what is essentially political propaganda — all the while denigrating anything that contradicts their worldview as “fake news.”"

This is a pretty numbers-heavy piece, but any analysis nerds like me out there will appreciate it.

A Major New Study Shows That Political Polarization Is Mainly A Right-Wing Phenomenon

Using Twitter as a datasource is about as dumb as it gets...
 
Until Reuters starts pumping out stuff you don't like, then they're all a buncha racists, nazis and liars, too.

Fat chance reuters would publish racist and xenophobic articles.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
IOW, if you like it, yes. If you don't like it, no.

Overall I'd view Breitbart with the same skepticism as Daily Kos, Salon, Huffington Post.

I divide sources by truth or lies, not whether I like or dislike what I'm reading. I really dislike lies, which is why I really dislike Trump.
 
Overall I'd view Breitbart with the same skepticism as Daily Kos, Salon, Huffington Post.

I divide sources by truth or lies, not whether I like or dislike what I'm reading. I really dislike lies, which is why I really dislike Trump.

But, observations are that anything you don't like is a lie.
 
Back
Top Bottom