Quo Vadis GOP?

[Berkut]

The first time that chart was posted here I wondered how come news agencies like Reuters and AP, who report things without opinion and matter-of-factly, could be placed to the left of the middle. Maybe the whole graph could do with a bit of realigning its axis.

Its a function of their methodology and the way that conservatives now define "biased" as being anything that isn't FOR them.

So if Reters reports "Trump claimed COVID would be over by Easter. Scientists doubt that" then some conservative "evaluators" will rate that as "biased", and they will get a very slight "liberal" push to their rating.

[Barrister]

The first time that chart was posted here I wondered how come news agencies like Reuters and AP, who report things without opinion and matter-of-factly, could be placed to the left of the middle. Maybe the whole graph could do with a bit of realigning its axis.

Because bias extends beyond the opinion pages.  Bias can factor into which stories are covered or not, or which sources are interviewed.

No idea if that's what Berkut's source is measuring or not, but that's the argument that can be made.

[Berkut]

The first time that chart was posted here I wondered how come news agencies like Reuters and AP, who report things without opinion and matter-of-factly, could be placed to the left of the middle. Maybe the whole graph could do with a bit of realigning its axis.

Because bias extends beyond the opinion pages.  Bias can factor into which stories are covered or not, or which sources are interviewed.

No idea if that's what Berkut's source is measuring or not, but that's the argument that can be made.

You have no idea if that is what "Berkut's source is measuring" yet you are willing to take it on as YOUR source without even checking their methodology?

[Syt]

The question for me is not why mainstream media skews left, but rather why there's so comparatively few "conservative" outlets reporting factfully.

[Barrister]

But there are lots of arguments that are true that can then be linked or correlated to things that aren't true.

Covid vaccines have rare side effects.  Those rare side effects are frequently cited by anti-vaxxers.  But mentioning those rare side effects does not make one an anti-vaxxer.

If we are having a discussion about whether people should get vaccinated, and you know that the exaggeration of incredibly rare side effects is the core myth of those who are pushing an anti-vax agenda, and you go into the debate and drop comments like "COVID vaccines have deadly side effects!" without context or nuance or the added explanation of how rare they are, or how immaterial those side effects are compared to the dangers of COVID, then you are an anti-vax asshole probably, and at least a very useful idiot to the anti-vax assholes.

That's really something coming from you Berkut, because you're the one who keeps bringing up media bias (or lack thereof)!

I posted in this thread to make fun of QAnon idiots who thought JFK was alive and going to make a public appearance at Dealey Plaza yesterday.

[Barrister]

The question for me is not why mainstream media skews left, but rather why there's so comparatively few "conservative" outlets reporting factfully.

And that's fair.

I get more out of reading Vox, which definitely skews hard left but tries to mostly be accurate, than I would from reading, I dunno, Fox News or National Review. 

[Berkut]

But there are lots of arguments that are true that can then be linked or correlated to things that aren't true.

Covid vaccines have rare side effects.  Those rare side effects are frequently cited by anti-vaxxers.  But mentioning those rare side effects does not make one an anti-vaxxer.

If we are having a discussion about whether people should get vaccinated, and you know that the exaggeration of incredibly rare side effects is the core myth of those who are pushing an anti-vax agenda, and you go into the debate and drop comments like "COVID vaccines have deadly side effects!" without context or nuance or the added explanation of how rare they are, or how immaterial those side effects are compared to the dangers of COVID, then you are an anti-vax asshole probably, and at least a very useful idiot to the anti-vax assholes.

That's really something coming from you Berkut, because you're the one who keeps bringing up media bias (or lack thereof)!

I posted in this thread to make fun of QAnon idiots who thought JFK was alive and going to make a public appearance at Dealey Plaza yesterday.

And I mentioned the irony of someone who pushes the media cannot be trusted narrative (and that is most certainly how QAnon dumbasses see the "media is biased against conservatives!" narrative) finding it odd that some of the people out there actually believed them.

Back to Yi's analogy. You are the German non-Nazi who is appalled at the existence on concentration camps, but who was very happy talking about how the Jews were the ones who asked for Jesus to be executed - after all, that is just plain true!


What I find fascinating is that you cannot connect the dots between "the media is biased against us poor conservatives!" to "the media cannot be trusted" to "the media is fake news" to "Fox is just as good!" to "OAN is legit!" when it is perfectly clear to me that the people who are at the "You should watch Fox!" end of that are the people who invented the "media is biased against conservatives!" narrative to begin with!

[The Larch]

The first time that chart was posted here I wondered how come news agencies like Reuters and AP, who report things without opinion and matter-of-factly, could be placed to the left of the middle. Maybe the whole graph could do with a bit of realigning its axis.

Because bias extends beyond the opinion pages.  Bias can factor into which stories are covered or not, or which sources are interviewed.

No idea if that's what Berkut's source is measuring or not, but that's the argument that can be made.

Checking the graph maker's methodology that's not how they work, they work with what they publish, they don't assume stuff that is not there:

Q: How does Ad Fontes Media generate the scores for each news source on the Media Bias Chart?

A: We generate overall news source scores based on scores of individual articles (in the case of online news sources) or episodes (in the cases of podcasts, radio, TV, and video-based sources).

Each individual article and episode is rated by at least three human analysts with balanced right, left, and center self-reported political viewpoints. That is, at least one person who has rated the article self-identifies as being right-leaning, one as center, and one as left-leaning. Articles and episodes are rated in three-person live panels conducted in shifts over Zoom. Analysts first read each article and rate them on their own, then immediately compare scores. If there are discrepancies in the scores, they discuss and adjust scores if necessary. The three analysts' ratings are averaged to produce the overall article rating. Sometimes articles are rated by larger panels of analysts for various reasons–for example, if there are outlier scores, the article may be rated by more than three analysts.

Q: Do you differentiate between news and opinion articles?

Yes! We rate all types of articles, including those labeled analysis or opinion by the news source. Not all news sources label their content as opinion, and regardless of how it is labeled by the news source, we make our own methodology determinations on whether to classify articles as analysis or opinion on the appropriate places on the chart.

Q: How do you select the articles for each source?

For each news source, we pick a sample of articles that are most prominently featured on that source's website over several news cycles. We typically have at least 15 articles rated per source, but for our top 100 we have several dozen articles each, and for the largest sources (such as the New York Times and Washington Post) we have over 100 articles each in our sample.

Our content ratings periods for each rated news source are performed over multiple weeks in order to capture sample articles over several news cycles. Sources that have appeared on our Media Bias Chart for longer have articles over much longer periods of time.

Often, our sample sets of articles and shows are pulled from sites on same day, meaning that they were from the same news cycle. Doing so allows analysts to incorporate evaluations of bias by omission and bias by topic selection.

We use a multi-person rating per article system to minimize the impact of any one person's political bias on the published rating. We purposefully assign each analyst a breadth of coverage over as many sources as possible to to enhance each analyst's familiarity with sources across the spectrum.

[grumbler]

I just cited a chart that shows virtually all of the media outlets one would call "mainstream" as being left of the middle.

The middle is clearly the column labelled "middle." It isn't a line.  For all we know, the creators of this may have moved some symbols to the right or left, or up or down, so that they didn't fall on top of one another.  Your belief that the symbol placement on this chart is precise is almost certainly wrong.  By your standards, The Hill is both biased to the right AND biased to the left!

[DGuller]

The first time that chart was posted here I wondered how come news agencies like Reuters and AP, who report things without opinion and matter-of-factly, could be placed to the left of the middle. Maybe the whole graph could do with a bit of realigning its axis.

Technically, you can insert opinion by the choice of what you report on without opinion or matter-of-factly.  If you matter-of-factly cover murders by immigrants, and no one else, you're engaging in right-wing propaganda even if your actual reporting has zero things that can be taken issue with.

[viper37]

By your standards, The Hill is both biased to the right AND biased to the left!

It simply means The Hill generally skews slightly left of center, but some opinion writers may lean further to the right than the rest of the media.  Look at Fox News.  Some of their anchors are clearly aligned with the insane right while some others are more centrists, per Fox News standards.  It doesn't mean FN is fair&balanced because a few employees are.

[grumbler]

It simply means The Hill generally skews slightly left of center, but some opinion writers may lean further to the right than the rest of the media.  Look at Fox News.  Some of their anchors are clearly aligned with the insane right while some others are more centrists, per Fox News standards.  It doesn't mean FN is fair&balanced because a few employees are.

Really?  What is the basis for your assertion about what "it simply means?" 

[Admiral Yi]

What I find fascinating is that you cannot connect the dots between "the media is biased against us poor conservatives!" to "the media cannot be trusted" to "the media is fake news" to "Fox is just as good!" to "OAN is legit!" when it is perfectly clear to me that the people who are at the "You should watch Fox!" end of that are the people who invented the "media is biased against conservatives!" narrative to begin with!

Endlessly repeated straw man #3.

[Berkut]

What I find fascinating is that you cannot connect the dots between "the media is biased against us poor conservatives!" to "the media cannot be trusted" to "the media is fake news" to "Fox is just as good!" to "OAN is legit!" when it is perfectly clear to me that the people who are at the "You should watch Fox!" end of that are the people who invented the "media is biased against conservatives!" narrative to begin with!

Endlessly repeated straw man #3.

Endlessly repeated evasion #1.

[Admiral Yi]

What am i evading?