3 ms·

I would really appreciate a "news" site that just cited verifiable facts and maybe showed data trends but didn't try to make any conclusions for me

cgh 5y ago
Here’s a good media bias chart: https://adfontesmedia.com/static-mbc/?utm_source=HomePage_StaticMBC_Image&utm_medium=OnWebSite_Link https://adfontesmedia.com/static-mbc/?utm_source=HomePage_St... Try choosing sources near the top middle, eg the Associated Press, Reuters, etc.
- olah_1 5y ago
  The ones in the middle are the most nefarious in my experience. Precisely because they purport to be “the objective standard” and quite simply are entertainment just like everyone else. Even the reliability of AP has completely evaporated for me. Not just influence from money, but also from intelligence agencies that make journalists feel important.
  - _dain_ 5y ago
    >Even the reliability of AP has completely evaporated for me. Not just influence from money, but also from intelligence agencies that make journalists feel important. +1, it's grotesque how certain outlets have become CIA mouthpieces since 2016.
- PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
  This version of "least bias" appears to translate into a wierd combination of: * pro status quo * more fact-based reporting The first one is deeply suspect (though an entirely legitimate position to take). The second one is valuable, but far from the only kind of valuable journalism.
- stevenicr 5y ago
  this chart is helpful and glad it's been made to keep the conversation going in a better direction. Sadly due to what I consider terrible editorial controls, I feel we need to move to a chart that shows more details, and even goes to actual reporter/writer level and editor level. Also in the age of Trump and Bernie - we likely need to chart 'those for / those against' these two specifically - as there are plenty on the 'right' and 'left' side of the news that are against them. I'd like a browser extension that can highlight a crowd sourced plusses and minusses of each individual writer. In some ways I have found the trust placed in the middle, like chart shows abc/cbs/bbc/npr near middle.. this is when the most damage is done.. like when I watched a nora odonel about 2 years ago - a fair and balanced reporting for about 55 minutes - lots of facts, not much fluff.. then the last 5 minutes one fact and a hard slant to be anti-trump story.. what makes this so bad is that she/they really try to say they are proper reporting, so it makes the propaganda pieces they add in 100x worse imho.. at least if you watch enough of the reidOut or newsmax (going by the chart) - you get a sense that they are totally skewering the stories with no balance at all attempted - and I think it becomes obvious that are working more like the enquirer - it's more tribal circle jerking entertainment than real facts.. When a place stands as an arbiter of truth and fairness and balance and they sprinkle just little bits of slant it's worse I believe.
- allemagne 5y ago
  Honestly that chart looks great to me, but there's just no way to tell or to prove to others whether that's because we're both objective truth-seekers or because our awful obvious heinous biases happen to match up.
Shish2k 5y ago
That seems like a nice idea, but still very exploitable - it’s easy to control people’s conclusions by limiting which verifiable facts you publish.
BurningFrog 5y ago
I went looking for that, and I found that Wall Street Journal does that better than any other US source I found, though of course nothing is perfect. Their regular quoted subscription rate is big, but with some effort you can find much better deals.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
Mezzie 5y ago
I work in political communications, so I'll throw a few US resources here. Unfortunately, because the media IS unreliable, doing this requires going to primary sources and a lot of time as well as a very defined idea of what you care about. There's nowhere that will bundle up the 'most important' things for you, but if you're willing to drink from the firehose: - https://www.govtrack.us/ https://www.govtrack.us/ - Your local and state websites (if they don't suck, this is highly variable). Some allow for things like RSS feeds of bill updates if you'd like to track certain things - https://ballotpedia.org/ https://ballotpedia.org/ is an encyclopedia that, while slow on the news side, had a lot of structural supporting information so you can look up things like how ballot measures work. So good for fact checking basic government facts. - https://www.congress.gov/ https://www.congress.gov/ - The LoC also collects and archives data on Congressional actions - https://www.senate.gov/legislative/HowTo/how_to_votes.htm https://www.senate.gov/legislative/HowTo/how_to_votes.htm and the Congressional Register - Wire services and things like AP + Reuters are good triggers/trip wires to go check on your own. So they tell you about a story, and you don't read their version, you just go look up whatever it is on one of the sources above. That's what I end up doing, and it's time-consuming and janky. I hate it, but I've also been a professional fact-checker and do so occasionally on news articles and I am not pleased with what I find, so.

cgh 5y ago

Here’s a good media bias chart: https://adfontesmedia.com/static-mbc/?utm_source=HomePage_StaticMBC_Image&utm_medium=OnWebSite_Link https://adfontesmedia.com/static-mbc/?utm_source=HomePage_St... Try choosing sources near the top middle, eg the Associated Press, Reuters, etc.

olah_1 5y ago
The ones in the middle are the most nefarious in my experience. Precisely because they purport to be “the objective standard” and quite simply are entertainment just like everyone else. Even the reliability of AP has completely evaporated for me. Not just influence from money, but also from intelligence agencies that make journalists feel important.
- _dain_ 5y ago
  >Even the reliability of AP has completely evaporated for me. Not just influence from money, but also from intelligence agencies that make journalists feel important. +1, it's grotesque how certain outlets have become CIA mouthpieces since 2016.
PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
This version of "least bias" appears to translate into a wierd combination of: * pro status quo * more fact-based reporting The first one is deeply suspect (though an entirely legitimate position to take). The second one is valuable, but far from the only kind of valuable journalism.
stevenicr 5y ago
this chart is helpful and glad it's been made to keep the conversation going in a better direction. Sadly due to what I consider terrible editorial controls, I feel we need to move to a chart that shows more details, and even goes to actual reporter/writer level and editor level. Also in the age of Trump and Bernie - we likely need to chart 'those for / those against' these two specifically - as there are plenty on the 'right' and 'left' side of the news that are against them. I'd like a browser extension that can highlight a crowd sourced plusses and minusses of each individual writer. In some ways I have found the trust placed in the middle, like chart shows abc/cbs/bbc/npr near middle.. this is when the most damage is done.. like when I watched a nora odonel about 2 years ago - a fair and balanced reporting for about 55 minutes - lots of facts, not much fluff.. then the last 5 minutes one fact and a hard slant to be anti-trump story.. what makes this so bad is that she/they really try to say they are proper reporting, so it makes the propaganda pieces they add in 100x worse imho.. at least if you watch enough of the reidOut or newsmax (going by the chart) - you get a sense that they are totally skewering the stories with no balance at all attempted - and I think it becomes obvious that are working more like the enquirer - it's more tribal circle jerking entertainment than real facts.. When a place stands as an arbiter of truth and fairness and balance and they sprinkle just little bits of slant it's worse I believe.
allemagne 5y ago
Honestly that chart looks great to me, but there's just no way to tell or to prove to others whether that's because we're both objective truth-seekers or because our awful obvious heinous biases happen to match up.

Shish2k 5y ago

That seems like a nice idea, but still very exploitable - it’s easy to control people’s conclusions by limiting which verifiable facts you publish.

BurningFrog 5y ago

I went looking for that, and I found that Wall Street Journal does that better than any other US source I found, though of course nothing is perfect. Their regular quoted subscription rate is big, but with some effort you can find much better deals.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

Mezzie 5y ago

I work in political communications, so I'll throw a few US resources here. Unfortunately, because the media IS unreliable, doing this requires going to primary sources and a lot of time as well as a very defined idea of what you care about. There's nowhere that will bundle up the 'most important' things for you, but if you're willing to drink from the firehose: - https://www.govtrack.us/ https://www.govtrack.us/ - Your local and state websites (if they don't suck, this is highly variable). Some allow for things like RSS feeds of bill updates if you'd like to track certain things - https://ballotpedia.org/ https://ballotpedia.org/ is an encyclopedia that, while slow on the news side, had a lot of structural supporting information so you can look up things like how ballot measures work. So good for fact checking basic government facts. - https://www.congress.gov/ https://www.congress.gov/ - The LoC also collects and archives data on Congressional actions - https://www.senate.gov/legislative/HowTo/how_to_votes.htm https://www.senate.gov/legislative/HowTo/how_to_votes.htm and the Congressional Register - Wire services and things like AP + Reuters are good triggers/trip wires to go check on your own. So they tell you about a story, and you don't read their version, you just go look up whatever it is on one of the sources above. That's what I end up doing, and it's time-consuming and janky. I hate it, but I've also been a professional fact-checker and do so occasionally on news articles and I am not pleased with what I find, so.