Is this accurate?

Is this accurate?

Other urls found in this thread:

journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1260/0958-305x.21.8.969
youtube.com/watch?v=0Rnq1NpHdmw
theguardian.com/money/shortcuts/2015/aug/04/new-cold-war-why-women-chilly-at-work-air-conditioning
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

No.

>Slate
>Vox
>Great in-depth sources

Not even liberals can say this with a straight face. Cmon man.

>breitbart the same tier as infowars

Clearly a libtard made this.

>BBC
>minimal partisan bias

top fucking kek

also the frothing at the mouth anti white man-hating huffpo should be so far left on that chart that its not visible

Really? Show me where Vox gets it wrong.

InfoWars is too far right and down. Top center would be a better place for it.

>Minimal partisan bias
>Washington Post
>New York Times
>BBC
MSNBC
Yeah, no. Except for Infowars, shift everything there two tiers to the left.

The Guardian is the most bias partisan paper or website I have read in my entire life, barring things like stormfront.

why is RT not in the middle column?

also Breitbart and Vox should both be one further left

>economist
>skews conservative

>>/trash/

>Slate
>articles against GamerGate
yeah no

Are you saying that The Blaze is mainstream with minimal bias and Fox news has a slight left leaning slant?

Infowars is really good for some things, but they have so much crazy conspiracy shit on there it ruins the legitimacy of everything else.

#NoComments

The right used to stand for freedom of trade and markets

now you fucking nigger trumpkikes have made us a protectionist shitshow so yeah I guess the Economist is on the left

Deep web is only real info.

...not having comments makes them not reliable? Should research papers have public comment sections too?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Yes, they're called letters to the editor

Looks like someone kneeling down getting ready to have their starfish hammered

>(minimal partisan bias)
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

>protectionism is bad
fuck off globalist

No
It's lacking euronews
The least biased news source in the world

>Slate
>Vox
>Complex and reputable

>The Hill
>right leaning

I'm liberal and even that rustled my jimmies

links?

Are you implying that you can't write to Vox?

Just because your American brain can't filter russkie propaganda, doesn't mean that the rest of us can't. RT isn't even news, it's horse dung in written form.

No comments = fake news article.

Vox posts incredible amounts of partisan clickbait.

You made this stupid chart didn't you?

>the guardian
>great in-depth source of news

Literally a middle class socialist self-indulgent rag which constantly shits on the white working class and has an insatiable appetite for the empowerment of minorities to the point that it won't be happy until whites are literal slaves to them.

Where the fuck do I even begin?

link

Yes goyim, the major media outlets owned by 6 (((people))) all of whom are close friends are the only neutral unbiased news source.

...

...

>VOX
>Washington post
>BBC
>The Hill
>CNN
>no bais

All news sites have their own bias. The best thing is to look around and not get sucked into a single narrative.

dude wall lmao

based trump gonna save lil worky man with his ebin tariffs

fucking stupid flyover hicks, we should have let you all starve in your rusting factories

Not at all wtf

I can agree with the conspiracy theory BS but this was made my a literal low t cuck or a gurl "politickz i wanna b prez desu"

God save humanity.

...

Don't believe this man. Finns are Russophobic sissies.

If i did they probably wouldn't show it.

...

...

Oh god, so triggered. What a successful troll.

Guys we should stop fucking with those mental giants over at spreddit because I cannot see how much this we can stand.

...

>David Wolfe and Natural News on the far left
Does that make pro-GMO a right-wing position? Because I know a lot of conservative (generally religious) folks who are fiercely anti-GMO.

>That shit in dead center
>CNN was caught making fake news on-air
>NYT said pedophilia isnt a crime
If anything, the guardian is more center than Washington Post, NYT, and CNN... This could have been accurate maybe.. 10+ years ago?

sounds about right, Megyn Kelly is on Fox and she's a leftist

>some people say

The "if you ask me" rewrite of journalists.

>Vox doesn't provide a platform for me to express my views, therefore it's biased
This is what conservatives actually believe.

You're allowed to compare and contrast research papers with other data within the forum the research paper is being presented.

The same with news, everyone should have the ability to comment contrasting information, and hopefully, present evidence.

To bar comments is to simply restrict information. If they want to show they're telling the truth, they would carefully cite and use evidence to back up their articles. Truth does not need to fear lies when it can cite evidence.

Vox is Buzzfeed-tier leftist bullshit. All their reporters are like 22 and speak with insufferable vocal fry, the thing 16yr old teenage girls do.

I remember them making videos about Trump being an authoritarian and how Hillary won the election in the first debate.

>The Guardian is deeply analytical and almost entirely unbiased

No. Anti-GMO is a nonscientific position that happens to be mainly pushed by the far left. Not believing in global warming is anti science pushed by the right, but believing in global warming doesn't make you left wing.

From my personal experience, NPR and Reuters are the best.

HuffPo doesn't come CLOSE to meeting high standards, should be at the bottom left.

Washington Post and NYT should be placed at Basic AF.

Slate, Vox, and the Guardian need to be removed. Same with The Hill.

WSJ is usually okay, The Economist is okay, and the Atlantic is pretty okay.

journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1260/0958-305x.21.8.969

you are anti-science

>guardian

lmao ded

NPR and BBC are not centrist... I can't see anyone on any side agreeing to that claim.

I follow NYT on twitter and all they do is bash whites and post fake refugee/aleppo tear-jerkers. They don't deserve to be centre.

>npr
>bbc
>washington post
>new york times
>nbc
>abc
>ap
>reuters
>cnn
>usa today
>minimal bias
wew lad

The chart would actually make a lot more sense if everything was shifted 1 place to the left, or 1.5 spaces in some areas.

>the gaurdian

Do they? I don't follow them, haven't read an article from them in over 2 years.

If that's the case

if you have to ask you don't belong here

Yeah, this. Vox was developing a reputation for well-researched long-form data-driven think pieces, but they threw it all away to be Hillary cheerleaders.

> The Guardian
> Complex and reputable

Do I need to say more?

Not even close. This infographic is garbage. Clearly a liberal made it.

> AP
> Great sources of news

>mainstream
>minimal partisan bias
No.

youtube.com/watch?v=0Rnq1NpHdmw

""""science"""" should be taken with a grain of salt especially when there's a political agenda behind it

> Washington Post
> Meets high standards
> Almost no partisan bias

You can't be "analytical" without having some sort of bias. OF these sources, I'd say only USA Today is truly neutral, since most of what they do is reporting basic facts.

NYT and Wapo are mid left, and fox is mid right

> The Huffington Post
> Analytical

> The New York Times
> Meets high standards
> Borderline analytical
> No Partisan Bias

he looks heavily diseased
ew ew ewwww kill it

>bbq belongs to da niggers
>lolno its actually spanish, but thats okay because they niggers too

>Slate and Vox in "still reputable" category
wew lad

> Slate
> Analytical and sort of complex
> Great in-depth sources of news

I was thinking that. He doesn't look well at all. Why would anyone willingly let something that looks like that into their country? Mental illness is the only answer.

>goatse.jpg

>CNN
>no partisan bias

fake chart
fake news
fake life
real sage

...

These faggot journalists are obsessed with anything dark. Weird fucking creeps.

>opinion papers

>CNN
>minimal partisan bias

The rest of the graph is basically trash based on this alone

>throw away your culture race nation and history for profits

Yesss. Good goy

>The Atlantic
>Complex

>Slate
>Complex
>Not Utter Garbage.

Slate is hit-or-miss depending on the author. Mostly miss.

>Slate is hit-or-miss depending on the author. Mostly miss.

Is that the bar for "Analytical/Complex" news that "skews liberal?"

If so, there are no bad news sources.

> implying mainstream media doesn't run around throwing conspiracy theories like muh russian hackers or trump raped meh

>guardian
>gread in-depth source of news
>slight liberal skew, still reputable

theguardian.com/money/shortcuts/2015/aug/04/new-cold-war-why-women-chilly-at-work-air-conditioning

Don't forget that article about how cat calling needs to stop, and then that other article written a year later, saying she misses cat calling.

Breitbart has obvious and heavy bias, but at least everything they write is well sourced. I would put them above Vox, the Guardian, Slate, WaPo, HuffPo, or The NYT, because at least Brietbart admits its bias, unlike those other sources, who pretend they are unbiased.

>CNN non biased
>huffington post "analytical" and not clickbait
>Vox not clickbait
>economist right leaning
>abc news not left leaning
>bbc not left leaning
>nbc news not left leaning
>guardian "complex"
>fox news "meets high standards"
>breitbart in the same category as infowars

this chart is fucking terrible

> just to illustrate

Appreciate it.

Based Swiss bro