|
Post by Christine on Jun 26, 2018 11:55:20 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Jun 26, 2018 16:55:14 GMT -5
Not bad.
On the left, I don't see Salon or Media Matters, though. They should be in the left side of the red box, I think, while The Nation should be in the orange box. And Alternet should be in there with the first two. And I don't know that I'd agree with the Intercept being "hyper partisan," while Democracy Now! is beyond "hyper partisan" imo.
On the right, I think the Washington Times should swap spots with the New York Post. The Federalist is no worse than New Republic, imo. Neither are necessarily unfair; they just operate from different and distinct frameworks (both are consistent).And Infowars needs to be another ten steps lower than everyone else.
|
|
|
Post by celawson on Jun 26, 2018 23:35:43 GMT -5
I think CNN should be at least as far to the left as Fox is to the right. If not further. I also think FP should be further left.
|
|
|
Post by Don on Jun 27, 2018 8:55:35 GMT -5
I find it absolutely hysterical that they've placed the most pro-choice publication, a publication that's been fighting against the Drug War and mandatory sentencing, for LGBT rights, and against incessant foreign entanglements since 1971, on the line between Conservative and Hyper-Conservative. WTF? Gee. Media bias in a chart about media bias. Whoda thunkit? "Free Minds and Free Markets" don't fit anywhere on that scale. That the creators put them on the right tells me exactly where the bias lies.
|
|
|
Post by Christine on Jun 27, 2018 9:48:56 GMT -5
It seems like both you and c.e. are paying more attention to left/right than top/bottom. Conservative isn't a "bad" thing in and of itself.
I'm happy to read info from both liberal and conservative sources. What i want is to stay in the green and yellow rectangles. Orange and red are the problem, imo, no matter what side they fall on.
So using the rectangles, Reason is good, FoxNews is crap. CNN (my typical station) is borderline and I can do better.
|
|
|
Post by celawson on Jun 27, 2018 9:59:10 GMT -5
You’re right, Christine - I’m on my phone and when I enlarged it I didn’t even see the side categories. I will look again when I’m on my laptop. At pool now 😃
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Jun 27, 2018 11:00:41 GMT -5
I think CNN should be at least as far to the left as Fox is to the right. If not further. I also think FP should be further left. Of course you do. That's why the URL itself says "You probably won't agree with this chart." It's basically a Rorchach test, since everyone is going to think "their" publications should be closer to the center/factual side and "the other's" publications should be farther to the extreme.
|
|
|
Post by celawson on Jun 27, 2018 11:03:36 GMT -5
But I didn’t say Fox should be closer to the center, Amadan.
|
|
|
Post by Optimus on Jun 27, 2018 13:34:47 GMT -5
I definitely think Vox and Mic should be farther left and down in the red box of "selective/unfair" with HuffPo.
BuzzFeed News should probably be moved up, out of the red box. The regular BuzzFeed site is hyperpartisan, vacuous pop garbage, but BuzzFeed News is a separate division, and they've done some pretty good investigative stuff. They're left, for sure, but a lot of their stuff that I've read lately has been fair.
I noticed they left out Media Matters and Salon. I'd stick MM in the same place as Alternet and Kos. Salon is pretty much the left's version of Breitbart/InfoWars.
|
|
|
Post by Don on Jun 27, 2018 15:15:42 GMT -5
It seems like both you and c.e. are paying more attention to left/right than top/bottom. Conservative isn't a "bad" thing in and of itself. I'm happy to read info from both liberal and conservative sources. What i want is to stay in the green and yellow rectangles. Orange and red are the problem, imo, no matter what side they fall on. So using the rectangles, Reason is good, FoxNews is crap. CNN (my typical station) is borderline and I can do better. Yeah, I got that. I'm just afraid that some Conservatives and Hyper-Conservatives looking for a fair interpretation of the news on their "side" will log onto the Reason site and their heads will explode. OTOH, it might possibly prove educational for them. When the divide is between left-authoritarianism and right-authoritarianism, there's really no place for Reason.
|
|
|
Post by Optimus on Jun 27, 2018 15:58:36 GMT -5
When the divide is between left-authoritarianism and right-authoritarianism, there's really no place for Reason. Truer words have never been spoken...er...posted on a message board.
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Jun 27, 2018 20:34:48 GMT -5
But I didn’t say Fox should be closer to the center, Amadan.
No, but you think CNN is as extreme as Fox, which is a partisan response in itself. Everyone knows Fox caters to a right-wing audience and constructs their broadcast around satisfying conservatives. Fox doesn't even deny it. CNN, whatever you think of the quality of the network, claims to be non-partisan and at least attempts to appear non-partisan.The chart put them at "skews liberal" (accurate) but like most Trumpists, you think they're "hyper-partisan liberal."
So CNN is either not only as extreme as Fox but also blatantly lying about it, or you're wrong. Obviously, I know which one you think to be the case, because as I said, the chart is practically guaranteed to generate disagreement based on how closely it reflects one's own biased view of the world.
(Personally, I'd put National Review and Mother Jones both a little lower on the chart.)
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Jun 27, 2018 20:36:52 GMT -5
I noticed they left out Media Matters and Salon. I'd stick MM in the same place as Alternet and Kos. Salon is pretty much the left's version of Breitbart/InfoWars. Breitbart, maybe. I don't think Salon is full-on InfoWars-level crazy.
It's a shame, because I remember when Salon was actually a decent rag. Of course that was in the early days of web media.
|
|
|
Post by Christine on Jun 27, 2018 21:53:32 GMT -5
But I didn’t say Fox should be closer to the center, Amadan. I would also like to ask, does it trouble you even a little bit that Fox is in the red box entitled "Nonsense damaging to political discourse"? I mean, that's pretty heavy. And obviously there is media charged with the same on the left, so it's not like Fox is all by itself being pooh-poohed by liberals. This is an across the board analysis. Does this at least.... give you pause? A close family member told me a while back that they'd actually stopped watching FoxNews, except for Hannity. Hannity was the only show that was being "fair" to Trump. I'm concerned that bad things happen to the brains of people who watch Fox. Of course, I had to check out of that conversation for my own sanity, my prime directive at which point being to locate a bottle of liquor.
|
|
|
Post by celawson on Jun 29, 2018 11:56:27 GMT -5
But I didn’t say Fox should be closer to the center, Amadan. I would also like to ask, does it trouble you even a little bit that Fox is in the red box entitled "Nonsense damaging to political discourse"? I mean, that's pretty heavy. And obviously there is media charged with the same on the left, so it's not like Fox is all by itself being pooh-poohed by liberals. This is an across the board analysis. Does this at least.... give you pause? A close family member told me a while back that they'd actually stopped watching FoxNews, except for Hannity. Hannity was the only show that was being "fair" to Trump. I'm concerned that bad things happen to the brains of people who watch Fox. Of course, I had to check out of that conversation for my own sanity, my prime directive at which point being to locate a bottle of liquor. I don't watch Fox News, but I do scan their online headlines every morning and read what looks interesting, as I do with CNN. For stories I'm interested in, I do an online search of the story, and then choose a more reasonable source to read more in-depth. I don't know if it's you all here having an effect on me, or if Fox has gotten worse over the last few years, but I'm comfortable with where it's placed on the chart, though there does remain some good and in-depth reporting there, like with Catherine Herridge or John Roberts.
|
|