3 ms·
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 w
by 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.
- eesmith 8y agoIt was in reference to your reference to Palin's "lamestream media". That is, while some do argue that News-Corp/Fox provides news to challenge the "{main,lame}stream media" of Disney/ABC, Time Warner/CNN, CBS, and Comcast/NBC they collectively are all owned by large companies, so have a built-in bias towards issues that favor large companies. That there can be a corporate media bias certainly doesn't mean that those who write for non-corporate media don't also have their own biases.
- Fins 8y agoYeah, exactly. Pretty much anything will have some bias. Not to say that I would take this, or any other, chart as the gospel (if anything, I certainly wold not have put NYT as high), but it is interesting to see that WSJ, as corporate a paper as they get, is rated in the upper rectangle. Equally News-Corpsy Fox is way down.