Saw some libtard post this on twitter... what do you all think about it? I've never seen this picture before but maybe Sup Forums has i dont know
Trustworthy News
Landon Young
Other urls found in this thread:
Luis Phillips
"I'm a moderate."- HRC
"I'm a progressive." -HRC
sums it up right there.
David Butler
Reuters and AP are good for being unbiased.
WSJ, The Guardian, and The Economist aren't bad either.
Jason Rogers
A lot of "neutral" ones skews left, and a lot of leftist ones need to go further down.
Jackson Torres
This. The right is accurately depicted. I won't touch the up and down scale of this though.
Jacob Watson
Bias in media is a tricky thing. The vast majority of biased reporting cases involve omissions, not commissions.
Chase Thompson
>Washington post
>Good source of news
Into the trash it goes.
Isaiah Evans
yeah i try to stick to reuters and guardian
Ethan Flores
The Guardian is fucking shit. How they can put it in the complex section is beyond me. It's also horrendously left wing as well and cucked to shit by feminism
Gabriel Cox
Where is RT?
Ethan Gutierrez
Unfortunately, even AP and Reuters are biased.
>Russia, Syria, Ukraine
Easton Robinson
Both are owned by the Rothschilds; follow the trail of ownerships. Rothschilds acquired AP in the 19th century.
Carter Wilson
...
Ryder Cooper
HuffPo needs to be in the clickbait section. And MSNBC should be at least as low as Fox. And how is the Economist lean conservative? It's literally owned by the Rothschild family... and CNN has no partisan bias? Topkek
Jaxson Anderson
WSJ can be biased bat times but overall I agree
Aiden Flores
Okay, I'm fucking triggered, swell b8 OP.
Realistic one of these should look like
>central/unbiased zone is literally empty
>AP and Reuters placed to the left of center, with a footnote that cites both as being owned by the Rothschilds
>NYT, CNN, BBC, and Washpo all being in the same category as Slate and Vox; hyper partisan clickb8 tier--NOT 'slightly left' or similar
The contemporary bias map needs to reflect how incredibly partisan sources that were once generally considered to have integrity have become. We need to reflect the reality that the central zone of minimal partisan bias is empty, and that emptiness is expanding in both directions.
Matthew Walker
>cnn
>minimum partisan bias
>the wall street journal 0 bias high quality
get the fuck out of here
Nolan Flores
All news is biased.
discord.gg
discord.gg
discord.gg
discord.gg
Levi Ramirez
...
Zachary Gomez
is getting cloer, see
Also, another thought: we should add a color coding system to layer in another sort of 'data:' showing which sources are considered reputable. Like the WSJ is slightly left of center, sure, but their absolute smear campaign against PewDiePie should clue us in to how serious their agenda is to the detriment of journalistic integrity, for example.
Maybe we can add a red-green color scale in here to differentiate between sources that frequently do deceptive editing and are known to have misrepresented high profile things? The thought here is just that while a source can be considered near to center, it can still lack any and all integrity. That should show in these graphics...
Aiden Foster
you are the only one reproducing it OP. Still will not save it
Alexander Moore
what about drudge
Adrian Anderson
Only way to do it is to mix. I remember about 5-10 years ago when the AP said they needed to go opinion so they could be profitable.
Jackson Adams
NYT should be further left. I appreciate that they put CNN that low though
Jace Anderson
...
Brody Hall
>118813932
based on web responses, no mention about the number of polled
hahahahahahahahahahaahah
Jose Thompson
I fixed it
Parker Lewis
cmon lad... this isnt real