Media Bias

[carpedm9587]

Hey there -

In another thread. MountainMan posted the following assessment of media outlets and their "lean."

• Breitbart: Right
• Mother Jones: Extreme left
• FOX: Neutral
• CNN: Extreme left
• WSJ: Left
• BBC: Left

I am curious to know how others would complete this list. Do you agree with MM's description? If not, which ones would you change?

[Thoughtful Monk]

I would make WSJ as business friendly and socially left.

[Mountain Man]

In the interest of full disclosure (and since carpe apparently isn't inclined to show his own hand), here's how carpe ranks them:

Breitbart (far right) and Mother Jones (far left) I don't waste time on. Fox (right) and CNN (left) I am wary of but read/use. WSJ and BBC are go-to sources. I'm sure you get the idea.

Agree or disagree, it doesn't really matter. He claims that this isn't based on his own opinion to which I replied:

Of course it is. How we rank various media sources on a "left to right" scale reveals nothing more than how we stand in relation to them. Just because you've been able to find other sources that happen to agree with you doesn't prove anything one way or the other because I could easily do the same. So what? Neither of us is being objective here, but only one of us has enough honesty and self-awareness to admit it.

[Esther]

I only get CNN and BBC from that list and agree with MM.

[Ronson]

Hey there -

In another thread. MountainMan posted the following assessment of media outlets and their "lean."

I am curious to know how others would complete this list. Do you agree with MM's description? If not, which ones would you change?

I'd change them this way:

• Breitbart: Right
• Mother Jones: Far Left?
• FOX: Right
• CNN: Left
• WSJ: Center?
• BBC: Globalist Left
• Reuters: Slightly Left
• Associated Press: Slightly Left
• CBS: Left
• ABC: Left
• NBC: Left
• MSNBC: Far Left

I am less concerned about which direction they lean than I am about their honesty and accuracy. I wouldn't trust any of them on the face of their reporting and would double-triple check a story.

Sharyl Attkisson used to work for CBS and said that a change came over that news network (and others as well) somewhere around 2014 where they stopped questioning a lot of information they receive and simply started publishing it. Reporters never question a "scientist" anymore and hold them in godlike reverence for accuracy and truth - even though the scientists will often admit they are fallible (I see a lot of that here as well. "A scientist said this! It must be true! Don't doubt it or you are a denier!"). And certain Washington DC government officials are never questioned on accuracy because of the influence they wield.

Anyway, I think the best process is to read a story from at least 3 sources, if possible.

https://sharylattkisson.com/2020/01/...on-speaks-out/

[Ronson]

I only get CNN and BBC from that list and agree with MM.

Since you are on the Internet, I assume you get most of your news from the printed word. Correct? Television news from any source is never going to compare.

[Mountain Man]

Sharyl Attkisson used to work for CBS and said that a change came over that news network (and others as well) somewhere around 2014 where they stopped questioning a lot of information they receive and simply started publishing it.

CNN's Jeff Zucker recently defended his networks less than stellar track record saying, "We are not investigators. We are journalists, and our role is to report the facts as we know them, which is exactly what we did."

But isn't it supposed to be a journalist's job to investigate and ensure that the "facts as we know them" are actually correct?

[Ronson]

CNN's Jeff Zucker recently defended his networks less than stellar track record saying, "We are not investigators. We are journalists, and our role is to report the facts as we know them, which is exactly what we did."

But isn't it supposed to be a journalist's job to investigate and ensure that the "facts as we know them" are actually correct?

I was a small-town newspaper reporter in the early 2000s. When I first started working there, I got excited about official press releases from local, state and federal government. They were written like newspaper stories and could easily slide right onto print (of course, that's what the anonymous authors wanted). I tried to put a couple into the paper and my editor shot me down. He said if I wanted to publish a story based on a press release, fine. But I was (1) required to investigate it and make sure it was accurate, and (2) find opposing voices and print both sides.

IMO, printing a press release without investigation is lazy. That was my motivation.

I assume Jeff Zucker is defending laziness - so long as the story coincides with his belief system. If such a story did not, then I'm guessing they would investigate.

The lesson of Dan Rather should be remembered too; that these left-leaning "journalists" will be quickly thrown under the bus if they embarrass their bosses - no matter what the story is.

[KingsGambit]

Clarification: Are we including editorial content or simply hard news reporting?

[carpedm9587]

In the interest of full disclosure (and since carpe apparently isn't inclined to show his own hand), here's how carpe ranks them:

Agree or disagree, it doesn't really matter. He claims that this isn't based on his own opinion to which I replied:

So for those reading this thread, what I actually said was:

Except, MM, my list is not based on my own opinion - specifically because I am concerned about my own bias. It is based on the combination of my reading experience and the assessments of multiple independent sources, including at least one socially driven source.

MM has removed the context of the first part from the clarification of the second. I plead guilty to leaving "only" out of the first part, but presumed the second part would clarify.

And to short circuit what is likely to be the response (because it was in the other thread), I didn't select the independent sources because they "aligned with my bias." I looked for bias assessment sites online, specifically looking to include an aggregator and one that is socially driven, hoping to cast as wide a net as possible. I actually don't agree with some of their assessments, but I accept the "average" of these sources (including my own assessment) as "as close to unbiased as I am likely to get." As I said in a previous post, bias can be mitigated - it can never be completely eliminated.

The quote about the ranking I offered is accurate for the sites listed.

[carpedm9587]

Clarification: Are we including editorial content or simply hard news reporting?

That's an excellent question. I was primarily focused on news reporting. That is why I listed Fox as "right" and not "far right" and CCN as "left" and not "far left."

[Starlight]

The OP list contains both international outlets and US outlets. In most people's view, the US is quite right-wing compared to the international average (e.g. Americans tend to regard Europe as socialist by comparison). So what's 'left'ish in America, might be 'right'ish on an international spectrum. (e.g. Democrats in the US typically take positions slightly to the right of the major right-wing party in New Zealand or the UK)

Another complication is that some outlets choose to tie themselves quite closely to a specific political party. e.g. Fox tends to choose to be cheerleaders of the US Republican party, while CNN tends to be cheerleaders of the establishment/corporatist/conservative wing of the US Democratic party. Bias toward a specific party isn't necessarily bias toward the ideological positions that party happens to currently hold.

[carpedm9587]

The OP list contains both international outlets and US outlets. In most people's view, the US is quite right-wing compared to the international average (e.g. Americans tend to regard Europe as socialist by comparison). So what's 'left'ish in America, might be 'right'ish on an international spectrum. (e.g. Democrats in the US typically take positions slightly to the right of the major right-wing party in New Zealand or the UK)

Another complication is that some outlets choose to tie themselves quite closely to a specific political party. e.g. Fox tends to choose to be cheerleaders of the US Republican party, while CNN tends to be cheerleaders of the establishment/corporatist/conservative wing of the US Democratic party. Bias toward a specific party isn't necessarily bias toward the ideological positions that party happens to currently hold.

I am fascinated by your external perspective. DO I understand you correctly? The Democratic positions are often seen to be to the right of the right-wing party in the UK and New Zealand? Seriously?

[Mountain Man]

I didn't select the independent sources because they "aligned with my bias." I looked for bias assessment sites online, specifically looking to include an aggregator and one that is socially driven, hoping to cast as wide a net as possible.

And how do you decide if those aggregators are "accurate" without comparing them to your own assessments? Sure they might disagree with you about one or two sources, but let's be honest: you would toss out an aggregator if you encountered significantly more disagreements than agreements. So even on this point, your bias is exerting its influence despite the fact that you've fooled yourself into thinking you have it sufficiently tamed.

[EvoUK]

Short answer: depends, but mostly accurate. However the main right-wing party in the UK has shifted further to the right since 2016, and much more so following the last election, so this may no longer be quite as true as it has been traditionally.

Plus I also think Starlight is referring to the corporate side of the democratic party, rather than the AOC part.