The chart, from my understanding, is America-centric, therefore I'm using that particular rubric. I think interchanging metrics from the rest of the world confuses the issue quite a bit.
As far as the "according to whom", well, that's in the eye of the beholder. Bias is a tricky thing to measure, and even the author of the chart affirms that this is an issue. I, being on the right, see the NYT as having a significant leftward lean. I also recognize that my own political bias may affect that view somewhat, so I would slot them closer to center than my own experience tells me, but I wouldn't put them dead in the middle.
I found an interesting chart while poking around for sourcing (that dsheinem graciously provided!), and thought it was pretty interesting. I don't agree with all the placements on it, either, but I think it's worth a look.
Last edited by Sarge on Tue Jan 31, 2017 6:35 pm, edited 1 time in total.
@ ZeroAX - Nice Videos, so true you never know what is behind the appearance of individuals. Watch the huge wrestler Tyrus Political Panelist on the Greg Gutfield show, ignore the far right in the show and just seeing how his quick comments snap out. Hard to believe this same guy also takes down 300 pound opponents in the ring! You never know what is clicking at the inner workings.
The Cat video had a side link of another cat rescued from serious storm. It had slugs sucking on each eye and still survived.
marurun wrote:
CRTGAMER wrote:You already know the answer, There is no honest unbiased news source. Even the old guard AP wire is keyed in by humans who will not be completely impartial. Throw in what each editor of a news source pulls and changes to their agenda. Take it all in, reject the ones you do not agree with. This based on one's experiences and of course their own bias.
This is the single most ignorant and dangerous way to deal with information. Whether you agree with something or not should not be the criterion that determines credibility in an information piece or source. All this accomplishes is to further harden your own views against actual information. What if your view of the world is wrong? How do you ever correct that view if you are rejecting any information that doesn't agree with you already?
CRTGAMER wrote:The key here is to take in the information with debate instead of just completely ignoring it.
Debate can be such an iffy method. Debate is only truly effective if the parties engaged are following the same underlying rules. Otherwise it's just a discussion, which is fine, or a messy argument, which is not fine.
First off study how your edit word reduce of my Quote in your Reply vs my complete Quote above in this Reply changing the meaning. Though you may not have done this intentionally, this is how Mainstream Media edits videos to change a story! Even my edit word reduce of your Quote mixes it up.
If I am understanding your post then I think you might have misinterpreted mine. I'm not saying reject news, but reject the source when you see the same tired Bias which to me covers up part of the story. I do not like Mainstream Media due to the collusion with the Democratic party. I stick to Fox which of course leans far right, but in my eyes tends to be more factual without trying to play my emotions. At times I switch over to CNN to get another take when an important story.
On the other hand, when an exclusive interview such as the ABC first White House interview with President Trump, I'll watch it with a caution. I was impressed with that unbiased interview bringing out the president to speak so candidly. Perhaps a lot of pressure for the important first presidential interview to come out clean? However, the regular ABC evening news the same bias, a shame for David Muir locked into the rut; an outstanding reporter. I have rewatched the ABC interview YouTube clips a couple of times as the new XO directives come out for a reference as to why a given directive put out.
Just look how each network played out the firing of the Attorney General and you can see how far left or right each network goes. Going back and forth thru the channels to get the latest; I also wanted to see how the breaking news were presented to the public. CNN and MSNBC are the worst, blatantly covering up the fact that the Immigration Ban is by law allowed for the President with no mention of the Homeland Security allowance; the commentators accusing the President of breaking the law! CBS at least had dialog about the Constitution and what the president was allowed. Of course Fox went to the right and in my perception; the right story keeping the emotion out and laying out the facts. So which station presented the honest story? Based on the viewer of course we all will continue to have our bias; non-sequitur to even attempt to sway each one of us.
marurun wrote:
Sarge wrote:This explains a good deal why sources like the NYT, WaPo, and the major news networks reside almost dead center, when they likely belong a little more to the left.
According to who? What is the standard for what is left and what is right, especially when you get close to center? Do you include opinion content or just analyze news coverage? How important really is bias? Is bias based on public opinion? Is it based on some factual reality?
Some folks say that American public opinion and politics leans center-right. Of what? The rest of the world? Does that mean that the world at large is left of American politics? In which case, if there is a left-of-center bias to news reporting in traditional news outlets, that could be considered appropriate, because US news outlets, while US-focused, still regularly report world news and events.
Public opinion is all over the map and change depending on events ingrained over time. Look at the comparisons of public opinion for President Security Immigration Bans of the past and the current ban. Even the Mexico Wall; key vocal Democrats that were for it just a couple years ago are now screaming against it. This is where the media coverage is so dangerous, so true and a shame that the power of the press sway many including people in power.
How does one analyze the media bias? A huge collection of data on a continual basis will have to be done. However, even after a million studies, charts and spreadsheets on bias compiled will serve no purpose, the various studies are also biased. A chart put together by one person definitely will have huge bias.
I keep the 5 minute Truth video linked in my signature as a reminder and my represented answer which is yet another bias take.
Another Bias News Study Chart Sets
In the quote below, a study news coverage of the two Women's Marches and both equally important; the coverage depending on who decides in the media. Ignore the abortion issue for the moment and look at the bias coverage itself. The Mainstream News far left coverage of the Women's March representing Democrats compared to lesser coverage of the March for Life Republican. An appearance of bias in the coverage of Women's March vs March For Life or was the most coverage due to the Women's March against the President? I suspect a Fox News Chart would be the exact far right opposite.
Networks Give Pro-Abortion “Women’s March” Three Times Move Coverage Than March for Life
While the networks barely batted an eye at the 2016 March for Life, 2017 was different: ABC, CBS and NBC spent more than 20 minutes on the march. The difference? President Trump, according to the networks themselves. When Muir asked him about the women’s march in a recent interview, Trump turned the conversation to the March for Life. “The crowds were large, but you will have a large crowd on Friday, too, which is mostly pro-life people,” he said. “Some people said it will be larger. Pro-life people and they say the press doesn’t cover them.”
During their morning and evening news shows, the three broadcast networks dedicated 21 minutes, 52 seconds of coverage to Friday’s 44th annual March for Life. That’s not as much as they could or should have spared, especially after they spent 1 hour, 15 minutes, 18 seconds (3.4 times more) fawning over the recent Women’s March on Washington.
To put that in perspective, the networks spent almost 23 minutes on the pro-abortion women’s march – before it even happened. But their nearly 22-minute coverage of the 2017 March for Life was still an improvement.
Of the networks, ABC was the only one to report on the 2016 March for Life, and then in a casual reference to “high schoolers trying to get back to Kentucky” after the blizzard that hit the Washington, D.C. march. For that same show, the morning of Jan. 22, co-anchor George Stephanopoulos commented on the expected “tens of thousands” to “protest abortion.” Those two mentions amounted to 35 seconds.
In other words, ABC, CBS and NBC combined covered the 2017 March for Life 37 times more than the 2016 March for Life. And the theme that united every news report was President Donald Trump, whether in regards to his impending Supreme Court justice pick and his pro-life policies or the new administration (including his vice president).
I am sorry that your yearly March for life did not have as much press coverage as a worldwide protest of Donald Trump and his sexism, racism and rampant xenophobia. I am sorry that more people care about their lives and futures as a gender than care about unborn babies and giving control of women's bodies to men.
Ack wrote:I don't know, chief, the haunting feeling of lust I feel whenever I look at your avatar makes me think it's real.
-I am the idiot that likes to have fun and be happy.
No, CRT, my quote did not change the meaning of what you wrote. If I misinterpreted what you wrote it's because your use of the English language is tortured, not because I selectively edited. Regardless of why you said you reject that which doesn't agree with your views, you did write that you reject that which disagrees with your views. No way to misinterpret that sentence.
And based on what you post it appears to me to be true. If the truth sounds bad, maybe it is bad.
If your bizarre English is because it is not your 1st language, or if you are 1st gen American and have not had good access to education, I apologize if my critique of your writing is a bit biting. I do have a lot of trouble parsing your language use and that creates issues.
CRTGAMER wrote:First off study how your edit word reduce of my Quote in your Reply vs my complete Quote above in this Reply changing the meaning. Though you may not have done this intentionally, this is how Mainstream Media edits videos to change a story! Even my edit word reduce of your Quote mixes it up.
Is English your first language? This is an honest question. I think people might not understand you because of the language barrier. For instance, I can't figure out what that quote means. Why do you capitalize "Quote", "Mainstream Media", and "Reply"? "Edit word reduce" is not a verb, or a proper term.
I'm not picking on you, I'm just saying your posts are very hard to understand. I make grammar mistakes often, so I'm certainly not trying to pick you apart. It's just that your verbiage and weird use of capitalization along with your already strange posting style are disorienting.
If English is not your first language, please just say so. Then we can put that issue to rest.
BogusMeatFactory wrote:I am sorry that your yearly March for life did not have as much press coverage as a worldwide protest of Donald Trump and his sexism, racism and rampant xenophobia. I am sorry that more people care about their lives and futures as a gender than care about unborn babies and giving control of women's bodies to men.
BogusMeatFactory wrote:I think we all forget that CRT is a Russian social media plant to drudge up trump love.
CRTGAMER wrote:
How does one analyze the media bias? A huge collection of data on a continual basis will have to be done. However, even after a million studies, charts and spreadsheets on bias compiled will serve no purpose, the various studies are also biased. A chart put together by one person definitely will have huge bias.
What could convince you that a study is worthwhile or that its answers are valid and worth adhering to and thus acting upon?
Charts and spreadsheets on media bias, when rooted in clearly explained criteria (e.g. "Is the factual information presented supported by objective truth and observation?" or "Do the opinions presented come disproportionately from one political party or another?"), ABSOLUTELY serve a purpose and ABSOLUTELY should shift your media consumption habits. If not, you are truly a lost cause and it is hard to take ANYTHING you say as having ANY value. Not to be rude, but this approach makes you sound like you are obstinate, ignorant, or both.
We need a common denominator for discussion and debate to test what is true and good (or not) if we ever hope to arrive at understanding.
Well I attempted tackling the Bias Media question and all I got back was garbage instead of dialog. I do not need to explain pronunciation or caps deviating from the discussion, deal with it or ignore it. Pretty sad thing to say about another Member not having a proper education. Some take this Thread too serious and let their emotions do the typing.
@ dsheinem - Thank you for keeping the discussion focused. I am not saying studies are completely infallible and can still be a reference, it is just that human nature will have bias on anything as evidenced in the other Replies including mine. I threw in the coverage of the AG firing as an example doing a comparison myself of CNN, MSNBC, CBS and FOX; a huge disparity how the announcement and dialog presented. Even without watching, most with an open mind will already know which was left or right and certainly no station were even near to the even keel.
The Spin
Strange how some of the responses of my previous post case studies take personal offense on the abortion coverage in the charts. It was a reference of media coverage that was being analyzed. I even mentioned ignore the abortion stance for the purpose of the case study.
CRTGAMER on Jan 31, 2017 wrote:Another Bias News Study Chart Sets
In the quote below, a study news coverage of the two Women's Marches and both equally important; the coverage depending on who decides in the media. Ignore the abortion issue for the moment and look at the bias coverage itself. The Mainstream News far left coverage of the Women's March representing Democrats compared to lesser coverage of the March for Life Republican. An appearance of bias in the coverage of Women's March vs March For Life or was the most coverage due to the Women's March against the President? I suspect a Fox News Chart would be the exact far right opposite.
Last edited by CRTGAMER on Wed Feb 01, 2017 11:30 am, edited 1 time in total.
Just look how each network played out the firing of the Attorney General and you can see how far left or right each network goes. Going back and forth thru the channels to get the latest; I also wanted to see how the breaking news were presented to the public. CNN and MSNBC are the worst, blatantly covering up the fact that the 
