Early Retirement Extreme Forums

http://imgur.com/gallery/iPLkz

Let the cage fight begin ... Your personal opinion about biased probably says more about you than it does about the news source.

Now, I read practically every single outlet on the graph (I derive my input from google news which aside from this forum and the local weather is my other homepage) except the lower left and right corners which I only bother with extremely rarely. I didn't even recognize a few of the names I also find myself rarely reading CNN for some reason (but I think they deserve to be further up) and do I read a significant amount from USA Today. My favs are Bloomberg and Vox with WaPo and USA Today as a runner ups.

If I had to make this graphics from scratch, I'd place everything similarly. I'd move Slate and the Guardian half a field to the left. I also note that AP and Reuters aren't well-placed but that's mainly because they aren't in the business of doing analysis but rather in being "fast and neutral" and charge a pretty buck for speed. In that sense, they're fairly placed except it's kinda misapplied/misleading to put them in with the rest. I'd put Bloomberg around where FT is.

http://fair.org/home/washington-post-ra ... -16-hours/

http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/05/18/ ... rse-media/

http://reverbpress.com/features/bernie- ... -confirms/

I personally find the central "mainstream = unbiased" message in the chart to be a poor assumption.

Here's another way to look at it. This chart rates the major news outlets by the the political leanings of their average audience member. According to that method, mainstream media is demonstrably left of center and NPR is is the same ballpark as Al Jazeera America.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the ... audiences/

http://observer.com/2016/11/mainstream- ... -campaign/

https://theintercept.com/2016/10/09/exc ... ationship/

https://thinkprogress.org/calling-the-d ... .oko12vwig

I'm sure I'll be back with more later.

I wonder if this reputable meme was authored by someone on the payroll of one of the six corporate conglomerates that own 90% of the legacy media. If they'd called the ones in the middle "centrist" rather than "minimal partisan bias", I might not even argue with it. But there is a yuge and critical difference. Centrist is not an unbiased position.

All my reading comes from the center/middle to center top. and I recognize a strong progressive slant to most of it. (My favorite is NPR's All Things Considered. Pick a topic, interview a progressive who spends 5 minutes making his case, followed by 20 seconds of a southern conservative, quoted out of context, and sounding like a moron- fair and balanced coverage.) I like the economist for the debates. I haven't read it in years, but I found Al Jazeera to be fairly balanced, with a bit of anti American establishment slant, but far less than we deserve.

Google news has become my default source, since igoogle went away. Overall, my news consumption has dropped a lot in the last few years. There just isn't enough substance to hold my attention.

In the UK politicians are constantly complaining about the BBC's bias, it doesn't matter which party is in power, the BBC is always biased towards to opposite side. This tells me they are probably doing something right.

I don't mind some bias as long as they are up front about it, The Economist will usually tell you when they are stating their opinion rather than fact. Like Riggerjack I don't follow the news so much now, after a while you realise it's the same stuff year after year and mostly irrelevant to my day to day life.

NYT is way more left than on that graph in the OP. brute was pretty disappointed with them this election season and basically gave it up.

I usually check Zero Hedge before I check google news. I basically use those two sources. One Right wing, one Centre/Left.

As far as the news sites listed above one should ask themselves how they performed during the election to get a sense of whether they are relevant or not. Most performed very poorly.

I disagree. This last election had very inaccurate polling. Thus accurate news would be wrong, not because of bias, but because of Trump Shame.

As came up in the clown genius thread, I think an accurate indicator would be the Rick Perry as energy secretary subject.

Did your news source say:

Rick Perry for energy secretary! OMG

Rick Perry for energy secretary! OMG! Birther! TX!

Rick Perry for energy secretary! OMG! Not even a physicist!


Rick Perry for energy secretary! Replacing a Nobel laureate!

I would love to see a source that had: Rick Perry for energy secretary. Joining a group that includes a Nobel laureate, former CEOs, former governors, and political hacks. Here is a list of controversial calls he will be called on to make:

Unfortunately, I haven't found anything even close to such a source.

@Riggerjack - AP and Reuters would be the droids you're looking for.

Reuters is primary for me.

Is The Week on that chart? I didn't see it. I like The Economist but only when somebody else pays for my subscription. No convenient library for me right now.

Since the chart didn't have The Onion it's pretty worthless.

blah

Bias, propaganda, fake? It's all untrue. And not new.

The only defense we have is life experiences and education. Especially in regards to learning history. If a generation skips the experience of predecessors, then we can expect society to regress a century.

Semi-cross-posted from the post-fact thread--a simple challenge that I thus far haven't been able to meet.

Can anyone find any articles from any of the mainstream/legacy media channels (like the ones represented as reliable, analytical, and unbiased in this meme) covering the censorship clause in H.R. 6393 (see Sec. 501) that I believe has currently passed the House and is awaiting Senate vote?

Here's some alternative news site, no doubt Russian in origin*, with all those interesting thoughts and questions the legacy media is deliberately not asking: http://theduran.com/warning-us-house-pa ... ws-begins/

*If that's not Russian enough for you, here's Ron Paul Liberty Institute on the subject, which was also identified by PropOrNot and subsequently WaPo as a "Russian propaganda source". That's right. Libertarian U.S. Senator Ron Paul. He is included on the "PropOrNot" list that WaPo originally published as a definitive list of fake news. (Here's Dr. Paul's take on that.) A few days later, WaPo added the editor's note that now appears on their article, basically admitting that the PropOrNot list comes from anonymous sources (as usual) and that WaPo doesn't "vouch for its validity" (despite publishing it as news), blah blah blah. Basically admitting they posted fake news about fake news. Fake news-inception.

Spartan_Warrior wrote:Can anyone find any articles from any of the mainstream/legacy media channels (like the ones represented as reliable, analytical, and unbiased in this meme) covering the censorship clause in H.R. 6393 (see Sec. 501) that I believe has currently passed the House and is awaiting Senate vote?

We had a similar problem in the UK with the Investigatory Powers Act 2016, it barely got a mention in the mainstream media. I don't think this would have been the same in the past and I suspect it is down to falling revenues in the media. Quality journalism costs and not many people seem willing to pay for it.

However this is somewhat different to the problem we had with Brexit where there was very little unbiased media, the majority of the newspapers had taken a stance on one side or the other, mostly on the side of Brexit.

I would bet most news outlets rarely report on any legislation.

I used to like Harper's.

Spartan_Warrior wrote:Basically admitting they posted fake news about fake news. Fake news-inception.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DUMq6imrMmI

in all fairness, while Ron Paul might not be Russian, he's most definitely a socialist.

lol @ Brute

George the original one wrote:I would bet most news outlets rarely report on any legislation.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/bill ... e-44275619

Hmm, well, the national legacy media is all over this state-wide New Jersey bill. Then again, it fits the legacy media narrative, AND they get to play the victim.

So can no one meet my challenge? I looked again today, strangely I still can't find any legacy media reporting on the censorship clause. I'm sure that's just because no Americans are interested, or it's just not that important, right? "If it were a real issue they'd be reporting on it", right? What about the other blatant, factually sourced examples of bias I've posted? Am I just too many Wheaton levels below everyone to understand?