Editorial Opinion

[Edward Campbell]

I have said, too many times perhaps, that I expect the media to be biased ... how can it not be? It is the creation of human beings and we, each of us, has a whole hockey sock full of opinions and prejudices and so on.

I like it best when, as in e.g. The Economist and the Financial Times and, yes, the Toronto Star, the bias is up front and stated ... I understand, for example, the Star's 'Atkinson Principles' and I am not shocked when it tries to live up to them.

I wish TV news had named, publicized editors and publishers like the printed broadsheets, tabloids and news magazines do and I wish we had more proprietors like Conrad Black who were not shy about announcing (and enforcing) their biases.

Good newspapers (and good TV news ~ what's left of it) try to ensure that they present "contrary" views ~ contrary to the proprietor's/publisher's point of view ~ it's the balance thing and they do it because it keeps them on the ball. Poor newspapers and most TV outlets allow, even encourage "shouting matches" between partisans of different views, but they are rarely informative.

I take ALL media with a grain of salt ... I subscribe to one Canadian newspaper, two global ones (one daily, one weekly) and one regional (Hong Kong) one, all of which have biases that I think (I hope) I understand.

 

[Infanteer]

The chart is not authoritative, and disproves its own reliability.

Of course the chart is not authoritative.  I said it was useful, not that it was "The TruthTM".  It puts everything on a fair attempt at a spectrum and gives one a starting point to start asking the two most important questions any reader can ask after reading something - "Who is the person [or what is the organization] that wrote this?" and "Why are they saying what they are saying?"

 

[Journeyman]

….gives one a starting point to start asking the two most important questions any reader can ask after reading something - "Who is the person [or what is the organization] that wrote this?" and "Why are they saying what they are saying?"

Presuming that the reader cares any deeper than, "this reaffirms what I already believe, hence why I need no other news sources."


As for any claim of the media bias chart itself being authoritative, I concur with Infanteer that it cannot be.  I also acknowledge the results of Pew Research's "Polarization in American politics," in that there is an undeniable left- or right-Point of View in how we are predisposed to see events.  This shouldn't negate thinking through the potential biases to get a more complete understanding of issues, or how others may see them.

The creator of the chart provides a very useful explanatory tool in one of the  sidebar articles, "An Exercise for Bias Detection," that gives more clarity into her methodology:

- Select a big political story, so nearly everyone covered it (easier to compare bias when sources are covering the same story).
- The underlying story is fact-dense, meaning that a lot of stories about it are long:
      - As a result, it is easier to tell when an article is omitting facts.
      - It is also easier to compare how even highly factual stories characterize particular facts creating a partisan lean.
- Where both long and short versions exist, comparison shows facts that are omitted in framing the issues one way or another.
[There's more in the article]


So while the bias chart may not be iron-clad, it is  an ongoing work in progress (I'm looking forward to her refining views on al-Jazeera for it's re-inclusion, since it's one of my international news 'go-to' sites), which provides some utility for those willing to consider it.

 

[observor 69]

I occasionally switch over to Fox News to have my interpretation of the news be challenged.
Always an education to see how an event comes out after going through the Fox filter. 

 

[Fishbone Jones]

I occasionally switch over to Fox News to have my interpretation of the news be challenged.
Always an education to see how an event comes out after going through the Fox filter. 

I occasionally switch over to CNN to have my interpretation of the news be challenged.
Always an education to see how an event comes out after going through the CNN filter. 

 

[Underway]

I occasionally switch over to CNN to have my interpretation of the news be challenged.
Always an education to see how an event comes out after going through the CNN filter. 

Yes; it's amazing what news looks like when they use actual facts!  op:

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Yes; it's amazing what news looks like when they use actual facts!  op:

Oh yes. CNN is the epitome of factual news reporting. : and Jim Acosta is their Walter Cronkite. :rofl:

 

[mariomike]

I occasionally switch over to Fox News to have my interpretation of the news be challenged.
Always an education to see how an event comes out after going through the Fox filter. 

He says the others are "Fake News",

"So they caught Fake News CNN cold, but what about NBC, CBS & ABC? What about the failing @nytimes & @washingtonpost? They are all Fake News!"
https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/879682547235651584?lang=en

"The FAKE NEWS media (failing @nytimes, @NBCNews, @ABC, @CBS, @CNN) is not my enemy, it is the enemy of the American People!"
https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/832708293516632065?lang=en

 

[Good2Golf]

I occasionally switch over to CNN to have my interpretation of the news be challenged.
Always an education to see how an event comes out after going through the CNN filter. 

Crazy talk!  Two people amongst billions on the planet having differing views?

 

[daftandbarmy]

Crazy talk!  Two people amongst billions on the planet having differing views?

Here's a good and cheerful quote for military people:

“everything is ridiculous if one thinks of death”

― Thomas Bernhard

 

[Infanteer]

I occasionally switch over to Fox News to have my interpretation of the news be challenged.
Always an education to see how an event comes out after going through the Fox filter. 

I occasionally switch over to CNN to have my interpretation of the news be challenged.
Always an education to see how an event comes out after going through the CNN filter. 

Both are below the "overall quality" line of the chart presented in the link I put up, so neither is really worth the time.  Too much effort to wade through the infotainment to get to the actual news.  One doesn't even need to look at the chart to realize this, as CNN and FOX websites now look like the front page of a National Enquirer that's sitting in the grocery store.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Both are below the "overall quality" line of the chart presented in the link I put up, so neither is really worth the time.  Too much effort to wade through the infotainment to get to the actual news.  One doesn't even need to look at the chart to realize this, as CNN and FOX websites now look like the front page of a National Enquirer that's sitting in the grocery store.

The accuracy of the chart has been called into question though. So that's no indicator either. I'm not in complete disagreement. All outlets show some bias, that I can live with as we always have, but it's become much more vocal and nasty though. If they attacked both sides equally, maybe. However, many of them have gone completely off one side or the other. I find watching the press briefings for accuracy of reporting a decent indicator. You can tell there's journalists' there that are serious with their questions and polite in their interactions. Then there's the usual suspects that yell questions out of turn, argue with the messenger, won't follow direction hogging someone else's time. and make things especially difficult for the true news outlets to get their story. I find if they are assholes and idiots in there, their outlets are the same boorish idiots that do the same in print or media. I just want accurate statement of facts. I don't care who provides them.

 

[mariomike]

Both are below the "overall quality" line of the chart presented in the link I put up, so neither is really worth the time. 

http://www.adfontesmedia.com/media-bias-chart-3-1-minor-updates-based-constructive-feedback/

Using the "Lesser of two evils principle" - for the effect they may have on viewers of either one, or both - it's interesting to compare the two in the link you put up,

 

[Infanteer]

The accuracy of the chart has been called into question though. So that's no indicator either. I'm not in complete disagreement. All outlets show some bias, that I can live with as we always have, but it's become much more vocal and nasty though.

Don't discard the value of the chart off-hand just because you're not sure of the methodology.  As I said, its a tool - use it and verify it.  In the case of my comments, its quite easy to do.  It's not the news bias that I care about, its the quality.  As Edward indicated, bias is present in everyone and every organization, and its possible for agencies with a bias to present quality news.  I don't care what CNN or FOX's bias is.  However, the quality of their journalism has reached a fever pitch.  I just cruised to FOX to see their front page.  "Brennan 'Did Damage', "Brennan is one of the Biggest Frauds in the History of America: Giuliani" and "Special ops shoot down Brennan and his defenders: 'You put your politics before us.'"  Checked CNN as well.  "The President's Red Scare," "Michael Hayden says he, too, would be honored if Trump revoked his security clearance," and "Rudy Giuliani: Truth isn't truth."

Now, I went to BBCs front page.  "Mueller inquiry: White House lawyer McGahn co-operating with probe," "Kerala floods: Rescue efforts step up as rains begin to ease," and "Cyprus extradites EgyptAir hijacker."  The difference between the infotainment and the news is quite easy to see.  The chart is accurate in where it puts CNN, FOX, and the BBC.

 

[a_majoor]

My personal "go to" is Instapundit, since it chooses to post articles from across the political spectrum, as well as from a multitude of different nations. Reading about the same subject from Haaretz, The Guardian, USA Today and the Washington Post (for example) provides that wide angle view people should cultivate.

Now like everything else, this is not a 100% solution. Being an American blog, it is often difficult to find new about Canada, and of course many news items are simply not covered by all sources. Glenn Reynolds and his band of pirates also have their own biases as well.

A "Canadapundit" all source news blog would be an interesting and useful addition to the blogosphere, and a place people could cultivate the "wide angle" view.

 

[Brad Sallows]

We are fortunate that, in general, Canada does not experience the degree of polarization that the US does.  A guess: it's because we have a parliament and use FPTP to decide elections.  A faction that can command roughly 40% of the popular vote can win a majority and execute its will without the gridlock of the US system (unity between the legislative branch and the executive branch, irrespective of the quirk of who is head of state).  Because most people can experience "their team" running things for a few years, every few years, with anything egregious done by one parliament easily overturned (unless it clearly has broad public support) by a succeeding parliament, electoral defeats and intervals out of power are not perceived as the end of the world.

 

[Remius]

If anybody wants another guide.


https://mediabiasfactcheck.com

 

[Brad Sallows]

Not that one.  It turns out to be just some guy's private project.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Not that one.  It turns out to be just some guy's private project.

All those tools are "just some guy's [or gal's] private project" ... but so, in almost every case, are almost all the media outlets of all types, even the BBC and CBC, including the venerable Spectator (established in 1711) and Fox News and iPolitics, also just "some guy's private projects" ~ the CBC was, largely, the creation "private project" of Graham Spry and The Times was the "private project" of John Walter back in 1785.

The whole thing is just a series of "private projects," some taken public, in the sense of being funded by government, most taken public in the sense of being (or belonging to) publicly traded corporations and a few remaining in private hands.

Sorry ... bit of a rant, but I think we give the media both too much and to little credit (and blame) for what it does and for what it fails to do, too.

 

[Journeyman]

I get a feeling that the behaviour of the news media, and their targeted audiences, is illustrated well in this thread. 

We got almost a whole page of rational discussion -- with no one 'side' being overbearing -- before it devolved (inevitably?) into " 'Network A sucks.'  'Oh ya? Network B sucks')."

Again, merely a hunch, but I feel that those who were actually contributing to the debate would tend to be drawn more to the chart's upper-rated sources,* whereas those whose one-liners contribute very limited value feel quite at home with those sources that habitually draw name-calling from 'the other side.' 

Again,  :2c:


* Using: a)  the chart author's assessment, and b)  considering only the y-axis (overall quality) here;  x-axis (partisan bias) isn't a factor in this observation.