07-10-2018, 10:32 PM
A website offers an analysis of news sources, some prominent and some obscure, for bias and reliability of news. This is far more than I could offer as analysis, in part because I could never analyze every daily newspaper from every city of 50K or so. Sure, I might be able to analyze the Elkhart (Indiana) Truth, but unless you have lived within 100 miles of Elkhart, Indiana (which includes Chicago and Indianapolis), you have probably never heard of it. Elkhart is the city about half-way between Chicago and the Ohio state line on the Indiana Toll Road. Then there are papers which have limited audiences within urban areas such as papers associated with LGBT communities. If you have much familiarity with Indianapolis, you know which one it is. If you don't spend much time in Indianapolis, then you probably don't. Then there are academic journals , easy-to-find mass-market publications ranging from the good (National Geographic) to those that one reads, if at all, in secrecy (like the National Enquirer) Then there are foreign sources, including those with a heavy presence as foreign media on cable or in magazines (like Der Spiegel) that one might find in a good bookstore. There are official communications of organizations, from the benign to outright hate sites. Add to this there are solid advocacy groups and crank sites.
I doubted that anyone could do this, but Media Bias/Fact Check has done this.. One man's mainstream, to be sure, is another's extremism, as with the Southern Poverty Law Center or Concerned Women of America.
Bias is fairly easy to identify through story selection and choice of words in headlines -- and of course editorial positions.
Bias can be easy to identify when blatant. From the source:
Left Bias:
It's hardly surprising that Black Lives Matter, Crooks and Liars, Daily Kos, Democratic Underground, Mother Jones, World Socialist Web Site, and The Militant are here. So is, not surprisingly, the Huffington Post. CNN qualifies. But so do GQ, Esquire, Cosmopolitan, People, and New Yorker.
Left-Center Bias:
The BBC is here -- barely (just short of being in the group with "least bias". So are France24 (which sounds like a French version of CNN), Deutsche Welle, the formerly (Jewish Daily) Forward, Thompson-Reuters, Bloomberg, CBC, CTV, ABC News, CBS News, NBC News, NPR, PBS' News Hour... and seemingly the vast majority of high-profile big-city daily newspapers in America. This includes USA Today as well as 'the usual suspects'. The concentration of American broadcast media and daily newspapers may give the suggestion that the news media are mostly biased.
Official communications of the NAACP, the ACLU, and the Southern Poverty Law Center are here. Bias here may in part reflect constituencies (such as homosexuals and organized labor) -- and it can also reflect the concentration of talented writing.
Worth noting is CCTV -- Chinese Central Television, the official news medium that the People's Republic of China offers to English speakers outside China. Because of the nature of the government of the PRC I would not fully trust its reporting on events in China... but on everything else it is highly factual.
Least Biased
Among them are the AP wire service (news at its rawest, and probably least subject to manipulation -- my absolute favorite source for news, by the way, for that reason), the United Press International, C-SPAN, Wikipedia (practically self-correcting), Financial Times, Harvard Business Review, Harvard Gazette, Harvard Political Review, Humanist Magazine, NHK World (Japan), Stars and Stripes (fortunately so -- as it is the newspaper for the American armed forces), Amnesty International, and ZDF (a German television network).
Right-Center Bias:
There are some big-city dailies here (Dallas Morning News, Arizona Republic, Detroit News, San Diego Union-Tribune, Toledo Blade) -- but comparatively few. Forbes, The Wall Street Journal, and Investors Business Daily are here. So are communications of the Mises Institute, the Mackinac Institute, the Hoover Institution, Real Clear Politics, and Rasmussen Reports.
I am tempted to believe that the center-right has been gutted in American life as the hard Right has pulled much of it... or that people who might be in the center-right in any other society due to their economic position (Asian-Americans, educated gays and lesbians, and the Black Bourgeoisie) are unwelcome in the Right due to its antii-intellectualism and bigotry. Conservative economics and cultural values might not be enough to make one a conservative in America anymore.
Right Bias:
The best-known is FoX News, much of the power behind the election of Donald Trump:
Note that FoX News gets mixed results for accuracy in reporting. Such is usual for propaganad outlets.
This is the power in mass-media access for the Right. There are of course Breitbart, NewsMax, the Drudge Report, One America News Group, and World Net Daily. The National Review is still here, but it now has Townhall as company. Sinclair (or as I am tempted to call it "Stinking Liar") Broadcasting is here for its infusion of right-wing propaganda into local news. Communications of such special-interest groups as the National Rifle Association and Energy Citizens (a front for the American Petroleum Institute). Such coordinators of right-wing politics in American state and federal legislation as FreedomWorks, Citizens United, Americans for Prosperity, the Heritage Foundation, and American Enterprise Institute. OK, so I am clearly on the Left and I find offenses by right-wing groups particularly unwelcome.
At the least I insist upon adherence to journalistic quality, which itself shows good sourcing, fact-checking, and overall reliability. Such usually prevents fake news from reaching us.
Can it get worse? Regrettably so.
Questionable sources:
These need not be right-wing; they can be on the extreme Left, such as Americans Against the Tea Party. probably the least credible government in the world is that of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea -- which is not at all democratic, badly abuses the Korean people, and is for all practical purposes an absolute, hereditary monarchy. The outlet for news from a regime that melds two of the worst traditions in political history -- absolute monarchy and Marxism-Leninism -- is the Korean Central News Agency. It is about as sure to tell the truth as my dog is sure to avoid grabbing a piece of meat within range of its paws or mouth.
Some are fakes that spoof reputable media. Some are simply fecal news sources (such as the National Enquirer). Some simply play fast and loose with the truth, like Concerned Women for America. Add to this -- overt hate sites like V Dare, American Vanguard, the Daily Stormer, Metapedia (a Nazi version of Wikipedia), Jew (sic!) watch... and let us not forget the anti-gay and anti-Islamic groups. MartinLutherKing.org exists not to laud -- but degrade the memory of one of America's greatest political and moral heroes; it is linked with, of all things, the neo-Nazi Stormfront.
I doubted that anyone could do this, but Media Bias/Fact Check has done this.. One man's mainstream, to be sure, is another's extremism, as with the Southern Poverty Law Center or Concerned Women of America.
Bias is fairly easy to identify through story selection and choice of words in headlines -- and of course editorial positions.
Bias can be easy to identify when blatant. From the source:
Left Bias:
Quote:These media sources are moderately to strongly biased toward liberal causes through story selection and/or political affiliation. They may utilize strong loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes), publish misleading reports and omit reporting of information that may damage liberal causes. Some sources in this category may be untrustworthy.
It's hardly surprising that Black Lives Matter, Crooks and Liars, Daily Kos, Democratic Underground, Mother Jones, World Socialist Web Site, and The Militant are here. So is, not surprisingly, the Huffington Post. CNN qualifies. But so do GQ, Esquire, Cosmopolitan, People, and New Yorker.
Left-Center Bias:
Quote:These media sources have a slight to moderate liberal bias. They often publish factual information that utilizes loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes) to favor liberal causes. These sources are generally trustworthy for information, but may require further investigation.
The BBC is here -- barely (just short of being in the group with "least bias". So are France24 (which sounds like a French version of CNN), Deutsche Welle, the formerly (Jewish Daily) Forward, Thompson-Reuters, Bloomberg, CBC, CTV, ABC News, CBS News, NBC News, NPR, PBS' News Hour... and seemingly the vast majority of high-profile big-city daily newspapers in America. This includes USA Today as well as 'the usual suspects'. The concentration of American broadcast media and daily newspapers may give the suggestion that the news media are mostly biased.
Official communications of the NAACP, the ACLU, and the Southern Poverty Law Center are here. Bias here may in part reflect constituencies (such as homosexuals and organized labor) -- and it can also reflect the concentration of talented writing.
Worth noting is CCTV -- Chinese Central Television, the official news medium that the People's Republic of China offers to English speakers outside China. Because of the nature of the government of the PRC I would not fully trust its reporting on events in China... but on everything else it is highly factual.
Least Biased
Quote:These sources have minimal bias and use very few loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes). The reporting is factual and usually sourced. These are the most credible media sources.
Among them are the AP wire service (news at its rawest, and probably least subject to manipulation -- my absolute favorite source for news, by the way, for that reason), the United Press International, C-SPAN, Wikipedia (practically self-correcting), Financial Times, Harvard Business Review, Harvard Gazette, Harvard Political Review, Humanist Magazine, NHK World (Japan), Stars and Stripes (fortunately so -- as it is the newspaper for the American armed forces), Amnesty International, and ZDF (a German television network).
Right-Center Bias:
Quote:These media sources are slightly to moderately conservative in bias. They often publish factual information that utilizes loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes) to favor conservative causes. These sources are generally trustworthy for information, but may require further investigation.
There are some big-city dailies here (Dallas Morning News, Arizona Republic, Detroit News, San Diego Union-Tribune, Toledo Blade) -- but comparatively few. Forbes, The Wall Street Journal, and Investors Business Daily are here. So are communications of the Mises Institute, the Mackinac Institute, the Hoover Institution, Real Clear Politics, and Rasmussen Reports.
I am tempted to believe that the center-right has been gutted in American life as the hard Right has pulled much of it... or that people who might be in the center-right in any other society due to their economic position (Asian-Americans, educated gays and lesbians, and the Black Bourgeoisie) are unwelcome in the Right due to its antii-intellectualism and bigotry. Conservative economics and cultural values might not be enough to make one a conservative in America anymore.
Right Bias:
Quote:These media sources are moderately to strongly biased toward conservative causes through story selection and/or political affiliation. They may utilize strong loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes), publish misleading reports and omit reporting of information that may damage conservative causes. Some sources in this category may be untrustworthy.
The best-known is FoX News, much of the power behind the election of Donald Trump:
Quote:According to a Pew Research Center survey “Fox News was the main source for 40% of Trump voters” during the 2016 election. Further, another Pew Survey indicates “When it comes to choosing a media source for political news, conservatives orient strongly around Fox News. Nearly half of consistent conservatives (47%) name it as their main source for government and political news.”
Fox News typically looks at the issues from a conservative perspective and also has a number of on air personalities that are strong supporters of Trump, such as Sean Hannity, Tucker Carlson, Bret Baier, Laura Ingraham, Eric Bolling, Tomi Lahren, and Shepard Smith (critical of Trump from time to time). Fox News typically skews conservative as there is less criticism of Trump, therefore the majority of stories are pro-Trump.
In review, Fox News publishes stories with emotionally loaded headlines such as “’They Wanted It to Blow Up’: Limbaugh Says Success of Trump-Kim Summit Caught Media Off Guard” and “Tucker: 2016 Russia Collusion ‘Witch Hunt’ Now Extends to Jill Stein.” When it comes to sourcing they typically utilize pro-Trump pundits such as Rush Limbaugh who has a very poor record with fact checkers, as well as credible sources such as the Wall Street Journal. Fox News is also known to publish right wing conspiracy theories, although after being sued they retracted the story. Fox News has also been deemed the least accurate cable news source according to Politifact.
Overall, we rate Fox News strongly Right-Biased due to word and story selection that favors the right and Mixed factually based on poor sourcing and spreading conspiracy theories that later must be retracted. (7/19/2016) Updated (M. Huitsing 6/15/2018)
Note that FoX News gets mixed results for accuracy in reporting. Such is usual for propaganad outlets.
This is the power in mass-media access for the Right. There are of course Breitbart, NewsMax, the Drudge Report, One America News Group, and World Net Daily. The National Review is still here, but it now has Townhall as company. Sinclair (or as I am tempted to call it "Stinking Liar") Broadcasting is here for its infusion of right-wing propaganda into local news. Communications of such special-interest groups as the National Rifle Association and Energy Citizens (a front for the American Petroleum Institute). Such coordinators of right-wing politics in American state and federal legislation as FreedomWorks, Citizens United, Americans for Prosperity, the Heritage Foundation, and American Enterprise Institute. OK, so I am clearly on the Left and I find offenses by right-wing groups particularly unwelcome.
At the least I insist upon adherence to journalistic quality, which itself shows good sourcing, fact-checking, and overall reliability. Such usually prevents fake news from reaching us.
Can it get worse? Regrettably so.
Questionable sources:
Quote:A questionable source exhibits one or more of the following: extreme bias, overt propaganda, poor or no sourcing to credible information and/or is fake news. Fake News is the deliberate attempt to publish hoaxes and/or disinformation for the purpose of profit or influence (Learn More). Sources listed in the Questionable Category may be very untrustworthy and should be fact checked on a per article basis. Please note sources on this list are not considered fake news unless specifically written in the notes section for that source.
These need not be right-wing; they can be on the extreme Left, such as Americans Against the Tea Party. probably the least credible government in the world is that of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea -- which is not at all democratic, badly abuses the Korean people, and is for all practical purposes an absolute, hereditary monarchy. The outlet for news from a regime that melds two of the worst traditions in political history -- absolute monarchy and Marxism-Leninism -- is the Korean Central News Agency. It is about as sure to tell the truth as my dog is sure to avoid grabbing a piece of meat within range of its paws or mouth.
Some are fakes that spoof reputable media. Some are simply fecal news sources (such as the National Enquirer). Some simply play fast and loose with the truth, like Concerned Women for America. Add to this -- overt hate sites like V Dare, American Vanguard, the Daily Stormer, Metapedia (a Nazi version of Wikipedia), Jew (sic!) watch... and let us not forget the anti-gay and anti-Islamic groups. MartinLutherKing.org exists not to laud -- but degrade the memory of one of America's greatest political and moral heroes; it is linked with, of all things, the neo-Nazi Stormfront.
The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated Communist but instead the people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists -- Hannah Arendt.