3 ms·

They tend to be far more religious than I would care for, but they often do make a lot of sense, and tend to be quite highly rated for accuracy; more so than pr

by Fins 8y ago

They tend to be far more religious than I would care for, but they often do make a lot of sense, and tend to be quite highly rated for accuracy; more so than pretty much any "progressive" media.

eesmith 8y ago
Who does the rating? Which progressive media were on the list?
- Fins 8y ago
  I will need to look up the bookmark at home; it was posted here maybe a month ago? Basically, rated reporting outfits like Reuters high on credibility and low on partisanship, while Breitbart or Daily Kos rate low on credibility and high on partisanship. American Conservative (to my surprise, really) rated quite highly on credibility.
- Fins 8y ago
  This: http://www.allgeneralizationsarefalse.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/Media-Bias-Chart_Version-3.1_Watermark-min.jpg http://www.allgeneralizationsarefalse.com/wp-content/uploads...
  - eesmith 8y ago
    Thanks! You wrote "tend to be quite highly rated for accuracy; more so than pretty much any "progressive" media." If I read it correctly, that shows that "American Conservative" is at the same level as MSNBC in terms of 'overall quality', and over half of the liberal media is ranked as having higher quality. That doesn't seem to be in accord with what you wrote. It is one of the more accurate of the conservative side, but the liberal press skews upward, and I've never heard of the 6 liberal publications in the red box, while I've heard of 5+ of the conservative press in the red box, and some of them have quite large readership/viewership. My main progressive news source, Democracy Now, is ranked as having the highest quality of the hyper-partisan groups. That affirms my decision to be a monthly contributor.
    - Fins 8y ago
      You're welcome! I would not really consider MSNBC and alike to be particularly progressive or left-wing myself, that would be something that Sarah Palin would believe, with her screams about "lamestream media". Among the clearly partisan publications though (AmCon has it right in the name, after all) they are quite good. The red box contains rags that are only good for making you scratch your head and go "umm, cam people really be that dumb?". I would not consider those to be news sources at all. But the orange box has some quite popular left (and right)-wing sources like HuffPo that are involved in "unfair interpretation of the news" -- I'd think being there is already quite damning. At the same time, I have heard of HuffPo and DailyKos; Haven't heard of Democracy Now! will need to check it out. I think you also need to make a distinction between primarily news and primarily opinion publications. I would expect both AmCon and, say, Mother Jones to apply their own interpretation to the news, but I would expect both to be honest about news and in their reasoning (well, most of the time anyway). I would not expect either to make up news to match their agenda, which is something that pubs in red and orange boxes often do.
      - eesmith 8y ago
        I concur with your assessment of MSNBC, etc. I still think your original statement wasn't quite right, but not enough to warrant argument. I stopped even following HuffPo links many years ago. It felt like too many opinions pieces dressed up as news, and with a business model based on getting people to write for free. (Could have changed in the last 5 years.) Democracy Now is viewer/listener funded. They use the phrase "corporate media" instead of "{main,lame}stream media", and (in that respect) are aligned with Zinn and Chomsky.
        Fins 8y ago
        Maybe I did not word it well enough, too. I am not sure if being viewer-funded by itself guarantees accuracy and relative lack of bias -- people will support what they want to see, not necessarily what is accurate, and the selection of news on DN front page certainly skews in the left direction. Writing for newspieces that are there however seems to be unbiased.

by Fins 8y ago

They tend to be far more religious than I would care for, but they often do make a lot of sense, and tend to be quite highly rated for accuracy; more so than pretty much any "progressive" media.

eesmith 8y ago

Who does the rating? Which progressive media were on the list?

Fins 8y ago
I will need to look up the bookmark at home; it was posted here maybe a month ago? Basically, rated reporting outfits like Reuters high on credibility and low on partisanship, while Breitbart or Daily Kos rate low on credibility and high on partisanship. American Conservative (to my surprise, really) rated quite highly on credibility.
Fins 8y ago
This: http://www.allgeneralizationsarefalse.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/Media-Bias-Chart_Version-3.1_Watermark-min.jpg http://www.allgeneralizationsarefalse.com/wp-content/uploads...
- eesmith 8y ago
  Thanks! You wrote "tend to be quite highly rated for accuracy; more so than pretty much any "progressive" media." If I read it correctly, that shows that "American Conservative" is at the same level as MSNBC in terms of 'overall quality', and over half of the liberal media is ranked as having higher quality. That doesn't seem to be in accord with what you wrote. It is one of the more accurate of the conservative side, but the liberal press skews upward, and I've never heard of the 6 liberal publications in the red box, while I've heard of 5+ of the conservative press in the red box, and some of them have quite large readership/viewership. My main progressive news source, Democracy Now, is ranked as having the highest quality of the hyper-partisan groups. That affirms my decision to be a monthly contributor.
  - Fins 8y ago
    You're welcome! I would not really consider MSNBC and alike to be particularly progressive or left-wing myself, that would be something that Sarah Palin would believe, with her screams about "lamestream media". Among the clearly partisan publications though (AmCon has it right in the name, after all) they are quite good. The red box contains rags that are only good for making you scratch your head and go "umm, cam people really be that dumb?". I would not consider those to be news sources at all. But the orange box has some quite popular left (and right)-wing sources like HuffPo that are involved in "unfair interpretation of the news" -- I'd think being there is already quite damning. At the same time, I have heard of HuffPo and DailyKos; Haven't heard of Democracy Now! will need to check it out. I think you also need to make a distinction between primarily news and primarily opinion publications. I would expect both AmCon and, say, Mother Jones to apply their own interpretation to the news, but I would expect both to be honest about news and in their reasoning (well, most of the time anyway). I would not expect either to make up news to match their agenda, which is something that pubs in red and orange boxes often do.
    - eesmith 8y ago
      I concur with your assessment of MSNBC, etc. I still think your original statement wasn't quite right, but not enough to warrant argument. I stopped even following HuffPo links many years ago. It felt like too many opinions pieces dressed up as news, and with a business model based on getting people to write for free. (Could have changed in the last 5 years.) Democracy Now is viewer/listener funded. They use the phrase "corporate media" instead of "{main,lame}stream media", and (in that respect) are aligned with Zinn and Chomsky.
      - Fins 8y ago
        Maybe I did not word it well enough, too. I am not sure if being viewer-funded by itself guarantees accuracy and relative lack of bias -- people will support what they want to see, not necessarily what is accurate, and the selection of news on DN front page certainly skews in the left direction. Writing for newspieces that are there however seems to be unbiased.