4 ms·

I'm not sure what the methodologies are. There is no objective "left" or "right", the two camps are just defined in relation to a supposed center. Where you pla

by Udik 5y ago

I'm not sure what the methodologies are. There is no objective "left" or "right", the two camps are just defined in relation to a supposed center. Where you place a newspaper depends on your perception of what the center should be- and that's a political, not a factual choice- which depends on the moment, the culture, etc. I've checked the bias analysis of some Guardian articles in one of your sources. They strike me all as pretty far left- if not in the contents, in the choice of subjects. Consider that it's perfectly possibile to compose a newspaper entirely of dry, factual articles about, for example, episodes of worker's abuse or of immigrant criminality. Each article is absolutely unbiased, the newspaper is absolutely biased.

eganist 5y ago
> I'm not sure what the methodologies are. https://www.adfontesmedia.com/how-ad-fontes-ranks-news-sources/ https://www.adfontesmedia.com/how-ad-fontes-ranks-news-sourc... https://www.adfontesmedia.com/white-paper-multi-analyst-ratings-project-august-2019/ https://www.adfontesmedia.com/white-paper-multi-analyst-rati... > They strike me all as— ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ don't know what to tell you. It took me all of "ad fontes methodology" in google to find the links above, and their approach is objectively stronger than your or my gut feeling/opinion. And if you were to ask for my opinion, I'd say that The Guardian leans ever so slightly right, but that's why I rely on objective methods to rank media bias rather than my own gut.
- Udik 5y ago
  Sorry, you're right, I should have googled. Those methodologies don't strike me as particularly insightful- in the end what they try to do is to give some structure to the guts feelings of the (however chosen) reviewers. Anyway, to go back to the original point, Ad Fontes puts the Guardian solidly in the left (22% to the left). Looking at a sample of rated articles, only 2 out of 25 are classified as imperceptibly to the right, while a few get close to the "hyper-partisan left" field. Looking at specific ratings, an article titled "Scandal! Horror! Biden's press-briefing notes prompt rightwing outrage" (featuring a mocking tone and a clear indication of the "enemy" right in the headline) is given a -9 bias, the same rating of the newspaper as a whole. And "skews to the left" feels like an understatement. (Ah, looking at the media bias chart, turns out that the New York Post (whose articles are sometimes censored by Facebook) would be less biased that the Guardian. Interesting.)

by Udik 5y ago

eganist 5y ago

> I'm not sure what the methodologies are. https://www.adfontesmedia.com/how-ad-fontes-ranks-news-sources/ https://www.adfontesmedia.com/how-ad-fontes-ranks-news-sourc... https://www.adfontesmedia.com/white-paper-multi-analyst-ratings-project-august-2019/ https://www.adfontesmedia.com/white-paper-multi-analyst-rati... > They strike me all as— ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ don't know what to tell you. It took me all of "ad fontes methodology" in google to find the links above, and their approach is objectively stronger than your or my gut feeling/opinion. And if you were to ask for my opinion, I'd say that The Guardian leans ever so slightly right, but that's why I rely on objective methods to rank media bias rather than my own gut.

Udik 5y ago
Sorry, you're right, I should have googled. Those methodologies don't strike me as particularly insightful- in the end what they try to do is to give some structure to the guts feelings of the (however chosen) reviewers. Anyway, to go back to the original point, Ad Fontes puts the Guardian solidly in the left (22% to the left). Looking at a sample of rated articles, only 2 out of 25 are classified as imperceptibly to the right, while a few get close to the "hyper-partisan left" field. Looking at specific ratings, an article titled "Scandal! Horror! Biden's press-briefing notes prompt rightwing outrage" (featuring a mocking tone and a clear indication of the "enemy" right in the headline) is given a -9 bias, the same rating of the newspaper as a whole. And "skews to the left" feels like an understatement. (Ah, looking at the media bias chart, turns out that the New York Post (whose articles are sometimes censored by Facebook) would be less biased that the Guardian. Interesting.)