Thoughts on this image?

Thoughts on this image?

>Salon
>High Quality

if they shifted everything left one column it wouldn't be too far off

>Cato Institute above Mises Institute

>The Economist
>slightly right leaning neutral

Is there an objective way to measure bias. For instance do you think if you programmatically scanned different news articles you would be able to detect a bias?

I agree with the neutral category, that's all that really matters. Also Al-Jezeera should be in the neutral category because they would report things American MSM won't.

>Youngturks and buzzfeed higher rating than infowars

>CNN=Fox in the year 2017

Yea no, this infograph is wrong.

I guess it depends how you define quality. Partisan lean seems roughly right. Reuters can vary in partisan lean.

drudge is the only good thing here

all i see are just liberal order approved false dialectics

>huffpo
>anywhere but the most unreliable

No, because the left-right spectrum is completely fucking meaningless to begin with. What does it measure?

Also, can't use one of the biased medias alone without also judging the truth by its ideologically biased opposite. That's why also it's important to judge the truth based on the neutral Western media with non-Western media like Al-Jezeera and RT for example.

>Reuters
>neutral

>the guardian
>leans left (not horrible)

I think you underestimate the power of CS nerds

Black Lives Matter and Salon being High Quality is hilarious

Vox should be in the red, Buzzfeed should be lower.

Economist should be a bit more to the left I think.

Bbc and guardian 'lean left', yes very funny, your picture is rubbish.

Black Lives Matter is high quality according to this image.

((()))

Mostly shit. The Economist and Financial Times are hands down the best publications second to none; they should be at the top and center.

>info wars
>low quality
DELETE THIS

THIS!!!

Definitely need Al Jazeera

Pretty accurate. Except for the NYT and Post. The fact they supported Clinton doesn't make them left. They sucked every single republican and republican wars and republican policies for years, so no, they don't lean left.

Reuters and the Economist right in the middle? Lmao dkm. Otherwise it's meh.

Jesus christ man, kill yourself

> Economist
> left
Why ? Because they said once, 12 years ago, that we shouldn't rape the earth ?

>buzzfeed
>better quality than Infowars
Kys

Leftist fantasy and usual illusions of superiority

>RT right-wing.
>The Economist unbiased..

bias rests heavily upon external factors that cannot be found within an article, like omitted facts or the truth of the given facts and how far off they are

you could measure subjectivity though, by the use of certain words

there's Sup Forums way to know whether it's biased or not:
If it disagrees with you and your echo chamber, it's fake news

most straightforward way would be analysis of the usage of words and phrases that are highly partisan

Huffpo, salon, BLM, and TYT all need to be moved down a section.
The Blaze and Breitbart need to switch positions.

Reuters is pretty neutral, m8. They don't bash Trump like most news sites

have you read it lately?
its definitely socially left leaning and not too subtle about it

Abc nbc are both fake news according to us pres.

The Atlantic is pretty neutral.
RT shouldn't be on the list at all.
The Guardian should be way more left.
Fox News should be on the line between leans right and partisan.

It also depends what you watch on Fox.

>RT shouldn't be on the list at all
explain?

No, although they would do it in an instant if it benefited their bottom line.

The Economist orients themselves for the upscale liberal. It was formerly just classical liberal, but now inches towards slightly progressive advocacy. Remember - immigration is good goy - there is no better way to suppress wages and supplant culture all the while you get to make more money by jacking up the cost of living.

Their articles, however, are excellent reads and throughly detailed. Worth a pirate any day.

>The Atlantic is pretty neutral.
Wrong. Psychological profile on a right-leaning president, with no history of doing one prior is suspect of political bias. Their articles are pro-interventionist in foreign policy and very pro-traditional media. Nevertheless, their position is well deserved.

>RT shouldn't be on the list at all.
Fuck off, Australia. You're just mad your sad excuse for a broadcast network isn't even mentioned.

>The Guardian should be way more left.
At worst, 1/4th left on the segment. Publishing leaks is a "left" thing to do, but their poltical coverage is relatively apolitical.

>Fox News should be on the line between leans right and partisan.

Nope, if you like conservatives, cool. It's one of the few Cable answers to MSNBC (correctly positioned) and CNN (1/4th to the left).

tl;dr you're fucking wrong, kiddo.

They're classical liberals, nothing inconsistent about that at all.

>no zero hedge
Well fuck you too, lad
Also: Alex jones is great

...

BBC should be toeing the line in hyper-partisan left and mixed quality, 2bh

> The Guardian is relatively apolitical.
AHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHA

A bit off topic, is libertarianism even right wing?

I ask because I see Cato up there. I had an old high acquaintance who was red-pilled as anyone on here go intern at Cato over the summer. He came back clamoring for open borders and shit like that. What do they even believe in? Fiscal conservatism? He's still pretty red-pilled on feminism and stuff like that.

>BBC
>High quality
For God sake, they still use interlacing.

What is AP?

Your mixed quality section looks quite jewish.

where's Time?

At the very least, 90% of everything should be shifted down about an inch or two.

...

Counter strike?

You should base your media quality on how big or mainstream they are and the quality of the articles. For example, any news organization that has ever released an article titled "ten reasons why ____" is complete shit made for the masses garbage with content that is inoffensive. It's important for organizations to publish offense articles because news should be offensive when so much shit is going on. The bigger the organization, the broader the appeal has to be and the less extreme articles they will publish.

fixed

Fixed a fundamental error

swap breitbart with RT

sorry but you know its correct.

Memeber when journalism was about conveying information and not taking sides

While it's true that Sup Forums is the highest quality of news, it's absolutely not neutral.

you'd be surprised how many lefties there are on here, and while were at it, national socialism is further to the political left then right.

besides we got like 10 leftie bait threads for every hate thread.

Journalist here.

The Economist should be under 'Leans Left', but anyone who doesn't understand that they're pro-macroeconomics won't know that.

C-Span really is ace neutral journalism. You know how you can tell that it's ace neutral journalism? It's boring as shit. You have to form your own opinions when you watch boring ass C-Span.

Reuters and AP Lean Left. But it's a very subtle bias and that's based on the way their headlines/bylines are written. If you're not a journalist, you won't recognize the bias.

lol @ Texas Trib.
FT... FT is actually slight right. Closer to WSJ territory.

>USA Today in the middle
False.
>The Guardian not next to Salon
GTFO.

Mises should be farther right, CATO and Reason slightly to the left.

Also Mises is a high-quality resource. You can download entire books there. Should be way up, not down.

NRO belongs next to Cato, so does the Standard because they're practically synonymous.

WND is a bunch of quacks.

RT should be with C-Span and AP. They are not a right-leaning pub by any stretch of the imagination.

>Daily Dot ranked as a high quality pub

Jesus fucking Christ.

>ABC and NBC on the same tier as C-Span

Never in a million years.

>Media Matters above Rare

Fuck no.

>Forbes as High Quality

FUCCCCCK No.

>Daily Beast as High Quality

They just reported that Davis Aurini and Matt Forney shot up Quebec City.

>If you're not a journalist, you won't recognize the bias.
I'm not a journalist and I can easily recognise it. I can also recognise your bias towards the idea that being 'Journalist' is meaningful or valuable in any way. You have no special insight, seemingly not even in your own field.

>The economist
>Netural

Toppest of Keks.

OP is a faggot
Infowars is Godly
everything else is trash

Where's The Intercept?

>Breitbart
>Low Quality
kek they have it alongside fucking buzzfeed.
That's retarded.

rekt

>RT being considered as a source of news

RT is quite literally the propaganda arm of the Kremlin.

I've read Economist for a while. They take some right leaning stances (like decreasing overall regulations) sometimes, but mostly follow the mainstream which tends to be pretty lefty.

It's true that infowars' site is absolutely fucking shit, no matter what you think of jones

Welcome to Sup Forums journalist senpai.

If digits trump will put you in a safety camp this year.

This. It's useful when you need to corroborate the story, or read both perspectives.

>Salon
>BLM
>Daily Beast
>Mother Jones

>High Quality

>Also Jezebel and TYT not Poor Quality, buzzfeed not lower than InfoWars

this is so fucking wrong

>jezebel
>Crazy hags' rants: the magazine
>above anything (but buzzfeed maybe, but that's arguable)

TYT should be in poor quality

You're a fucking retard. The pic already takes this into account by placing thing in an upside down U shape.

Jezebel should be the lowest on the list, that shit is literally painful to read.