Media bias and fact-checking ratings

[Kiyoat Husker]

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/

 

I stumbled accross this site, and wanted to share it with the community. It appears to be a community-reviewed or public-reviewed site that provides ratings for media sources. It looks pretty legitimate, but anything open to internet polling can be manipulated. What do you all think of the accuracy of it? Here is a quick breakdown of some of the more major news outlets (there are numerous outlets in their ratings. I'm just listing those I consider major because I have heard of them)

 

Red = Mixed Record on factual reporting

Black = High rating on factual reporting

Green = Very High rating on factual reporting

 

Left Bias

CNN*

Daily Beast

Huffington Post

MSNBC*

New Yorker

 

Left-Center

ABC News

Al Jazeera

AOL

The Atlantic

BBC

Bloomberg

CBS News

CNBC

NBC News

Newsweek

NPR

New York Times

Politico

The Guardian

The Hill*

Time Mag

US News World Report

Washington Post

Yahoo News*

 

Least Biased

Associated Press

C-Span

Gallup

Pew Research

Politifact

Reuters

The Economist

USA Today

Wikipedia

 

Right-Center

Des Moines Register

Forbes*

New York Post*

Omaha World Herald

Wall Street Journal

 

Right Bias

Breitbart*

Daily Mail*

Drudge Report*

Fox News*

[zoogs]

At first glance this list bunches sources together that don't fit to be equated. Forbes and Breitbart both are just "mixed record"? We lose a lot of ability to see Breitbart for what it is if that's the level of reduction here.

[Kiyoat Husker]

Personally, I have always liked to listen to NPR, but I am starting to realize that they are not necessarily the gold-standard of non-bias. Lately I have tried to get my online news from BBC and Reuters (both are British) because I like the "outsiders" perspective on what is happening in America.

 

In order to get a more conservative perspective that won't make me have to take a shower after reading, I might start looking into the WSJ. The AP seems like a pretty neutral and accurate source, too (except for football).

[Kiyoat Husker]

At first glance this list bunches sources together that don't fit to be equated. Forbes and Breitbart both are just "mixed record"? We lose a lot of ability to see Breitbart for what it is if that's the level of reduction here.

"Mixed Record" is their lowest rating.

 

Edit: I am wrong. They do have lower ratings. This site also rates a large number of pseudo-science, propaganda, and fake news sites.

[zoogs]

Yes -- and Breitbart shares the stage with Forbes and CNN? Something is amiss with that.

 

I have some minor quibbles but also, the distinctions seem very generic and sources of vastly different quality are grouped together. Ultimately this appears to be an independent but highly unprofessional amalgamations of one guy's opinions. There are a million competing lists and graphics hawking themselves off as a definitive guide to source quality and evaluation. Unlike some, this doesn't appear to be outright dishonest in intention. It also doesn't appear to be much more than that.

[Kiyoat Husker]

Here's a link to this site's methodology:

 

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/methodology/

 

It looks somewhat rigorous?

 

I'm interested in other similar sites, if someone wants to post a link.

[Kiyoat Husker]

Here's another one i just found:

 

https://www.allsides.com/bias/bias-ratings

 

I haven't had time to go through, it, but this one includes a site-based rating and a "community feedback" rating (biased). When I have time, I'll compare this with the media bias site.

[zoogs]

It looks that way, but it's not. Ultimately this is one guy who came up with a system and made a website for it. I have reservations about someone willing to look that scientific, throwing up numbers and references and graphs, and ending with the admission that this is just his own non-scientific methodology. It has to be inadequate if CNN and Drudge Report are just two sides of the same coin.

 

Their methodology page seems like more of a marketing speech than anything else. For something that's so comprehensive-looking, it clearly is not ("For each source a minimum of 10 headlines are reviewed and a minimum of 5 news stories reviewed"). There's no accountability here very few outlets have bothered to cover him (Dave Van Zandt, who is...who, exactly?) The ones who have that I've found fall into two categories: 1) mainstream sources carelessly listing "Here's some factcheck websites, go check them out" and 2) fringe websites loudly complaining about their review (while potentially making a fair point). By any reasonable metric I think this source itself would be categorized as unreliable.

 

For other stuff in the same category:

 

Here's one chart (source: patent attorney Vanessa Otero)

 

 

Here's another one, from some guy on Twitter who evidently sees Vox and Breitbart as mirror images, and RT as basically The Hill:

 

Here's one on science reporting from some official-sounding sources that I haven't vetted at all (just take it as a blogger writing for that site making a graphic):

 

 

Just for fun, here's one from Infowars because anybody can play this game:

 

 

I think all of these are quite flawed in their own way. I think I found the patent attorney one more fair than most; it seems mostly fair about analytical depth and puts the crazy where it belongs. But more than anything I think it's important to avoid taking any of these chart-makers as gospel.

 

---

 

AllSides looks far more legitimate as an organization, although to be fair, that also doesn't say too much about the quality of their methodology. It is (or was) a startup.

[mrandyk]

Your graphics are completely ignoring an incredibly popular outlet, The Onion.

[zoogs]

Forgot to add: I don't think you can really have a master list, at least not much of an empirical one. What is more relevant to me than 'bias' is reliability. There's so much of journalism that is inherently editorial; to shy away from that would be to avoid analysis almost altogether, I think. So sources that are quite liberal or quite conservative can nonetheless be worth reading if they are high quality. Hence my criticism here that this is barely (if at all) considered. Likewise, high-quality sources can still put out extremely objectionable articles. There's room for fierce disagreement in conversation.

 

Part of my issue with all of these charting efforts is that I think they're all trying to quantify an irrelevant problem. #FAKENEWS is a terrible specter but we kind of already knew where they were coming from. The far right isn't alone, surely, but for example their concerted propaganda front in print/online/radio media is a well-documented phenomenon. And then you have these various "some guy with an agenda" outlets, and the Infowars of the world. Is there even any comparison? I can object -- harshly -- to a number of things the NYT puts out but it's a disservice to all when we start visualizing them in ways that they don't look so different than tabloids or prop mills.

Fake news is a problem, but bias is not quite the same thing.

[Kiyoat Husker]

Nice charts Zoogs! I think at the end of the day, the more sources you have, the easier it is to filter out the B*llsh!t. Same goes for these reviews.

[zoogs]

Yes! I think eclectic reading of high quality sources is a good starting point.

 

I actually think almost all of those charts are quite flawed. The lawyer and the science one I only have some minor quibbles with (at surface glance); the second chart seems outright bad-intentioned to me. Which I think is really an issue here. With any of these "Guide to Media Sources" sources, you have to wonder both about intention and quality. That startup you found looks to be as well-intentioned and high quality an option as I've seen, not that I've seen too many!

[BigRedBuster]

The chart that Infowars put out should tell you one big thing about all of these. You have to check out the source of the chart as much as you do the media listed in the chart.

 

One thing about the original post, I would personally rank them fairly similar to how they are listed. However, I find one in particular interesting. CNN being "Left Bias". Personally, I would put them as "lean left". But, from what I gather with the methodology, people visiting the site can vote on various media outlets as to how they feel their reporting is.

So....you have a very very large group of people who watch Fox and in turn are big fans of the President. Both Fox and the President constantly paint CNN as this horribly left wing nut job outlet.

Well.....guess where all the voting public has them.

[NM11046]

Thanks for this guys - surprised by some of the evaluations (NPR as only sometimes using evidence based reporting surprised me, as did the bucket for state run tyranny area).

 

I've been having a debate for the last few days with a very bright, like waaaaay smarter than me colleague about the hard numbers around this health care bill and the one the Dems pushed through (debate numbers, weeks reviewed, amendments accepted etc). I'm just shocked at his fight - he'll admit that he doesn't want any part of the bill but that 'they're just doing what the gems did". When I present the numbers he sends me back the misguided quote from Pelosi about "you'll see the bill when we show it to you". Granted, it was taken out of context and rallied by Fox News, but it was a poor use of words. Yes she's not the best, and said something dumb, but doesn't take away from the hard facts. It's really shocked me in this liberal area of the country, we work in healthcare and he's still trying to debate the us against them. Did I mention we work in healthcare, he doesn't like the bill and he wants the ACA to stay in place? Weird. He accused me (he says jokingly) of getting the info from Rachel Maddow, John Oliver or Schemer - it was pretty fun to say no, I only do WaPo, CNN, BBC & NPR - and I do all of them.

[zoogs]

Agree, BRB. I think the more relevant thing about CNN is that they put out a lot of low-quality, clickbait type stuff (which comes with being a general audience 24-hour cable news network). They also aren't that left-leaning, but their appeals to 'balance' (hiring Corey Lewandowski? Giving a stage to awful talking heads?...) is as wrongheaded as the NYT handing the proverbial mic to out-and-out climate denier Bret Stephens.

 

The Hill has struck me as more center than it's often been given credit for. The Economist must be somewhat center-right, no?

 

(NPR as only sometimes using evidence based reporting surprised me, as did the bucket for state run tyranny area).

 

Well, to the bold, you're looking at Infowars. As for NPR's evidence-based science reporting record, that's surprising and it kind of has me questioning this source. Or at least their results. Their "purge garbage" collection is pretty good, though. Don't Mercola, guys.

 

 

 

He accused me (he says jokingly) of getting the info from Rachel Maddow, John Oliver or Schemer

 

This strikes me as common. I think we get to a dangerous area when we start viewing sources in a tribal way -- either "on our team, the Good Team" and therefore unimpeachable, or flawed fake news whose readers deserve automatic dismissal.