6 ms·

Sure, but you didn't answer GP's question. 95% of these sites are conservative-leaning. That's the story here, and as GP says, implying that this is a problem

Sure, but you didn't answer GP's question. 95% of these sites are conservative-leaning. That's the story here, and as GP says, implying that this is a problem across a wide ideological spectrum is wrong.

jsonne 6y ago
This is assuming all reach is equal. Number of outlets seems like an incomplete picture to me where the number of people reached seems more important. Is a more concentrated effort by one group somehow less insidious? I think not.
- ciarannolan 6y ago
  That's a good point, though I think it's unlikely that 5% of the sites and 95% of the sites both make up ~50% of impressions each. But to your point, we don't know unless we know, and my assumption could be totally wrong.
  - godelski 6y ago
    Well there's two things we have to consider: 1) Pareto: where there's a power law based distribution. So it is possible that 5% of sites have more than 50% of impact. This just means it isn't out of the bounds of possibilities. But we'd have to dig deeper into which sites garner the majority of eyes (though we'd expect a power law in this). 2) Left learning areas tend to be more population dense. Of course with these two considerations we haven't really made any conclusions. I just want to point out that a small number of sites can reasonably hold the majority of viewership. Which sites those are and which bias they entail, that requires a real analysis. We've just stated that the conjecture isn't impossible.
luckylion 6y ago
> 95% of these sites are conservative-leaning. That's the story here No. The story there is that hyperpartisan sites are masquerading as local news. That they're mostly from a few conservative companies should be prominently said, but to claim that they're only conservative is obviously incorrect and misleading. I believe the GP just hadn't read the complete article but merely skimmed, saw five conservative companies and understood "it's all conservative sites".
- ciarannolan 6y ago
  Well, yes, that's a huge part of this story. I don't see anyone in this thread (or the article) claiming that they're "only conservative", do you? FTA: >As the map indicates, there are considerably more conservative-leaning sites than liberal-leaning sites. Only 24 of the 445 sites we’ve identified so far are liberal-leaning. It's 95% conservative sites. Do you dispute that? I think GP was dead-on in their assessment, skimming or not.
  - luckylion 6y ago
    > I don't see anyone in this thread (or the article) claiming that they're "only conservative", do you? In the comment I replied to: > Why not just say "Hundreds of hyper-conservative sites masquerading as local news?" As a suggested headline, that would certainly imply they're only conservative. A headline should accurately describe the content. Mentioning that the super majority are conservative would be an improvement, implying that they all are would not be. > It's 95% conservative sites. Do you dispute that? I literally quoted the relevant part there, what kind of question is this? Must this site really turn into Twitter? Did you really need a "Ha! Gotcha! Screencapped and Retweeted!!!!!" moment?
    - ciarannolan 6y ago
      I disagree that "Hundreds of hyper-conservative sites masquerading as local news" as a title would imply that this phenomena is only a conservative one. I think you're adding the "only" part on your own, in your own reading of it. Not really sure what the last part of your comment even means.
      - luckylion 6y ago
        > Not really sure what the last part of your comment even means. I said "A" you said "But it's A. Do you dispute that?" as if I hadn't just literally said A. That's very low, and really not something I'd like to see more of on this site.

jsonne 6y ago

This is assuming all reach is equal. Number of outlets seems like an incomplete picture to me where the number of people reached seems more important. Is a more concentrated effort by one group somehow less insidious? I think not.

ciarannolan 6y ago
That's a good point, though I think it's unlikely that 5% of the sites and 95% of the sites both make up ~50% of impressions each. But to your point, we don't know unless we know, and my assumption could be totally wrong.
- godelski 6y ago
  Well there's two things we have to consider: 1) Pareto: where there's a power law based distribution. So it is possible that 5% of sites have more than 50% of impact. This just means it isn't out of the bounds of possibilities. But we'd have to dig deeper into which sites garner the majority of eyes (though we'd expect a power law in this). 2) Left learning areas tend to be more population dense. Of course with these two considerations we haven't really made any conclusions. I just want to point out that a small number of sites can reasonably hold the majority of viewership. Which sites those are and which bias they entail, that requires a real analysis. We've just stated that the conjecture isn't impossible.

luckylion 6y ago

> 95% of these sites are conservative-leaning. That's the story here No. The story there is that hyperpartisan sites are masquerading as local news. That they're mostly from a few conservative companies should be prominently said, but to claim that they're only conservative is obviously incorrect and misleading. I believe the GP just hadn't read the complete article but merely skimmed, saw five conservative companies and understood "it's all conservative sites".

ciarannolan 6y ago
Well, yes, that's a huge part of this story. I don't see anyone in this thread (or the article) claiming that they're "only conservative", do you? FTA: >As the map indicates, there are considerably more conservative-leaning sites than liberal-leaning sites. Only 24 of the 445 sites we’ve identified so far are liberal-leaning. It's 95% conservative sites. Do you dispute that? I think GP was dead-on in their assessment, skimming or not.
- luckylion 6y ago
  > I don't see anyone in this thread (or the article) claiming that they're "only conservative", do you? In the comment I replied to: > Why not just say "Hundreds of hyper-conservative sites masquerading as local news?" As a suggested headline, that would certainly imply they're only conservative. A headline should accurately describe the content. Mentioning that the super majority are conservative would be an improvement, implying that they all are would not be. > It's 95% conservative sites. Do you dispute that? I literally quoted the relevant part there, what kind of question is this? Must this site really turn into Twitter? Did you really need a "Ha! Gotcha! Screencapped and Retweeted!!!!!" moment?
  - ciarannolan 6y ago
    I disagree that "Hundreds of hyper-conservative sites masquerading as local news" as a title would imply that this phenomena is only a conservative one. I think you're adding the "only" part on your own, in your own reading of it. Not really sure what the last part of your comment even means.
    - luckylion 6y ago
      > Not really sure what the last part of your comment even means. I said "A" you said "But it's A. Do you dispute that?" as if I hadn't just literally said A. That's very low, and really not something I'd like to see more of on this site.