How accurate is this?

How accurate is this?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=34dJ7nheBaw
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

As a britfag, BBC and guardian look a bit too right for me

i would say the bbc is a little less biased then everyone thinks, i mean they let farage on various things even when everyone was making a big stink about him

>the way way far left
>buzzfeed, tyt
are you fucking stupid?

Pretty accurate but I would argue that some of them are much more left than in the Picture.

Including Fox. I watch fox along with CNN and Honestly I dont see the bias. If anything I see more bias against Trump on Fox

BBC farther to the left, The Guardian should be lower, Al Jazeera higher

The BBC is not 'state-run'

Yeah this, BBC is only slightly left biased

Also like fuck is wiki-leaks completely impartial.

I'm not sure whether wikileaks is perfectly nuetral, probably a bit more right, but more complex analytical

VICE perhaps a little more to the left?
ALJazeera more to the left.
CNN a little more to the right.

BBC is right wing since Tories threatened it with budget cuts, you're delluded if you think other wise. Question Time is proof alone at how far right it has went.

>BBC is only slightly left biased
Wrong, its a propaganda machine.

i think RT needs to be a lot further to the right, it's almost embarrassing how blatant the propaganda is on that. as somebody who used to watch it some years ago it's kinda sad to see them go from making cool documentaries about aspects of russia foreigners wouldn't know about to almost tinfoil hat levels of conspiracy theories

Telegraph is centre-right, not liberal

Economist belongs a bit further right

Torygraph is right wing, only Express and Mail worse

Why CNN to the right? I would say Al Jazeera belongs slightly more to the right if anything.

Then why are they showing Farage all the time?

Historically it is centre-right but yes I'd agree that now it's right. I would also say it's worse than the Express and the Mail as it is a lot more subversive.

Aljazeera seems to cater to the left-wing a lot of times, those poor refugees and nothing wrong with islam. CNN (at least CNN international, don't know about the local stations) is for European standards not really all that liberal put pretty reputable, always reporting on-time and pretty interesting stuff that you don't always see on local tv here.

Because it means nothing and it makes you cunts think the wrong things.

Ah, what I see of CNN in America is 100% liberal agenda, while Al Jazeera seems to cover quite a bit more. CNN in the states has done no reporting in the last few months aside from slandering conservatives. Strange how opposite it is across the pond

Flawless fact-based argument right there

BBC is way to high on the 'professionalism axis'. It shouldn't be higher than NPR.

Agreed with this, especially what I see of the BBC in the US, can't speak for the UK

>US CNN left wing
That meme died months ago. Maybe even years.
The most left wing CNN has been in recent times is their fucking 24/7 coverage of that missing plane.

but they are way far left clickbait bullshit. I don't see your point

BBC regular TV is pretty low brow, but the actual news reporting is much higher than the rest of what it shows.

Fucking this, "muh CNN libtards" was only partly based in fact.

Disagree. I read them all the time.

they are British and we have to keep in mind the Brits and americans have a different perspective of what constitutes a conservative or liberal.

By US standards they trend left/globalist.

Are you saying that buzzfeed is anything BUT far-left diarrhea?

CNN has become a race baiting left wing sob story. that fucking Don Lemon alone means they should be way over on the left for all their stupid identity politics bullshit.

Holy shit, what is the economist doing in the middle?

The rest is somehwat nicely set up

You have got to be kidding. How do you place Don Lemon, Van Jones, and their revolving talking head race bait evening news parade as anything but far left?

They totally incite BLM worship and are biased as shit for Hillary.

I think NPR should be a bit farther both up and to the right. They're certainly a little more left-leaning, but they're more centrist than most and they go an extra mile for their reporting.

BBC have traditionally tried to stay at the same level on the political spectrum as the general public of the UK. They're supposed to stay in the middle and be neutral or agree with the popular opinion if needed. If you're British and think the BBC is too left wing, then you're probably towards the right of the British centre and vice versa. However, with regard to the US, the UK is practically a socialist nation and so compared to the 'Murican media and the average 'Murican, it's pretty accurate.

The economist facebook page is soooo click bait anti-russian and anti-putin drive,. Its insane.... sometime they repost (sometimes re re post) articles that have proven click friendly

vice is more middle (i know you crazy ass conservatives will disagree) and wikileaks is basically russias bitch now so i dont read it much anymore since you cant even verify where the news on there comes from

honestly the chart is fucked because mindless fools think everything is fake news that isnt russian disinformation

Not really much analysis given in Wikileaks. They find something out, they leak it. They might leak more partisan stuff occasionally, but it leaks what it's given. There is no bias or opinion in what comes out of it as far as I'm aware.

Do you follow vice on facebook?

CNN should be all the way to the left.
Daily Wire has some exceptions to its partisanship, as some of their informers bash Trump constantly.

>Fox News
>Reputable

pick one.

Eh, I can't see it. I mean BBC news at six as about as good as it gets, and it's definitely weak. Evening news programs in other countries (Germany - ARD, Austria - ORF, Switzerland - SRF) aren't that much better, but they still are.

BBC right now is 'meh' at best, and just filled with opinion pieces, even the bigger reports are full of trivialities.

FOX really isn't all that bad lately. They used to be much worse, but they've actually improved a lot since then and are arguably better than CNN and its ilk.

fuck no i dont even have a FB account


I just have common sense and don't assume some conspiracy plot is being pushed all the time with what I watch. All it takes is watching and doing research. RT for example always has an anti-american vibe going on, yet they helped Trump get elected along with the bullshit infowars pushes. Imagine that huh.

>"Objective news" is made up bullshit.
Everybody has an angle. The problem for most media outlets is that their angle is elitist and left-leaning, two angles that's very unpopular with the common people.

i don't see ap and reuters as having an angle, they just tell you what happened somewhere

left does not mean liberal

Then ask him loaded questions In a patronising manner in an attempt to discredit him.
They were not letting him on for a fair interview and a chnace to get his message across.

BBC should be moved a lot further to the left. Their coverage and bias of Trump/Hilary was laughable.

What do we think about Breitbart? It's clearly right wing, but is it accurate in what it reports?

They will do but usually there's at least two lefties to (attempt to) argue him wrong

they're news sources, used by other outlets. very few uses them as their daily go-to-source for news, especially localized news.

>buzzfeed and the young turks are the equivalent of infowars and TDS on the left
>breitbart and drudge report of al-jazeera and snopes

hahaha. well it is kinda true that the american right is so batshit you have to compare them with much more sane outlets on the left

BLM are far right

yeah ok maybe at first they treated him as joke candidate like literally every news site did
>two lefties
it's almost as if the uk has two major left wing political parties (or used to before the libdems pressed the self destruct button)

Use sn,ap,ch,at,y,co,m before it gets patched fellow Sup Forumsros!
Share pics that you got here

I think the problem is that "Left Wing" and Liberal are treated as the same thing.

Real leftie shit, like workers rights, civil rights, getting into socialism, that doesn't happen even on some of the most left of the sites pictured.

Most of the circled ones are huffing neo-liberal fumes off the burning wreck of Clinton's campaign. But real "power to the workers" shit is not going on there

that's because a huge number of Merkans, even supposedly 'left-wing' ones (the Clinton voting crowd) consider that kind of thing as dirty socialism

Saw this earlier today with brooke baldwin. She had 3 election experts and jeffery lord.
The only question about race was about latinos and given to jeffery lord, it was his first question in like 10 minutes.
CNN is bias but has journalistic integrity the the extent you can, they don't release news without triple confirmation, however they ask leading questions, sensationalize, and race bait. They don't have an agenda with their leanings, except to sell TV.
FOX news is obviously bias.

I seen a leftyanon got ppwned hard after saying a breibart article was false. 100% accurate in my experience.

Everything should be moved to the left

That's bullshit m8. CNN clearly has an agenda. Multiple CNN anchors have been caught colluding with the Clinton campaign FFS. It's much deeper than "we're only in it for the profit".

As for FOX, it used to be a shithole but it has significantly improved lately. They're probably the best out of all the dinosaur media outlets.

Economist more to the left

info wars is biased but accurate tyt is biased and spewing false propaganda.

Yes, but they selectively report things.
When they post articles about the Presidents claim of 3-5 million illegal votes having been cast in November, they don't mention any evidence for it or against it. They're editors are right wing bat shit, but their actual journalists are actually decent. But even selectively reporting things is a bias. Not to mention their audience is the "God-Emperor Trump will save us from the non-whites" crowd

They'll still be shit as long as they have Hannity and O'Reilly Those two get more Alex Jones like every week.

I think the larger issue you're pointing to is that the traditional left and right political spectrum that's existed since the 70-80s is disappearing as a new spectrum is arising.

Hannity is definitely subpar but I can appreciate him sometimes. OReilly is entertaining but too hostile to appear balanced. Overall, still a whole fuckton better than anybody else, and the ratings show.

I'd say the Wall Street Journal leans more left in its social pieces but more to the right fiscally... It's probably a good average but the feel you get if you're not reading treasury meeting notes isn't that this paper is centrist.

O'Reilly and Hannity aren't news, they're opinionators. They're presented as news and Fox doesn't let their bullshit be called out.

This is a horribly reductionistic view on political outlets.

>fox news
>above the professional line

Yes, no shit, this isn't a peer-reviewed study.

It triggers my autism.

>C-SPAN
Literally just putting politicians in the capital on TV without presenting an opinion either way. I fucking love C-SPAN because being fed other peoples agenda or twist is just dumb

youtube.com/watch?v=34dJ7nheBaw

>Obviously never got the fact-slap from Tucker Carlson

Occupy Democrats should be even farther left and down, it's just plain embarrassing how bad they are. I would definitely put them worse than just about everyone else on the left. They honestly have no business even being on the same chart as buzzfeed.

Politifact should be farther left. Democrats can make blatantly false statements and get a "half true" with some half assed explanation where a Republican would have gotten a "Pants on fire".

Washington Post ought to be a bit more right. At least in the gun control area they play both sides of the field. One week it'll be an article how guns'r'bad, next week it'll be an article on why you should own one.

Infowars needs to be in that lower right corner a bit deeper so they can reach their super male vitality supply and water filters.

Then who the fuck are those ppl going out and interview ppl on the street , the hot blond and the other guy.? those are pretty based. alex jones at some feminist protes at womens day or what ever was pretty good to .

Water filters are not a joke dude.

thanks for posting that and allowing this retard to wallow in the fact that the guy he likes is a fucking moron who got fired from his real job and decided to make himself a living spewing conspiracy theories


and their is enough conspiracy theories to go around with alex jones, i watched his piece on where he talked about visiting aliens in a lab and i fucking lost it laughing

alex jones is a fucking loser, however TYT isn't much better tbqh

Infowars does have some decent people to balance them out a bit. Paul Joseph Watson for example

i honestly dont like either, with alex jones- you knows it crap. with tyt- it feels more like they verge on cringe

They do but then Jones has a his weekly meltdowns. Honestly if he just sat behind the lines and let the other folks be the voice it would probably be a lot more respected. Would also help to get rid of the product placements constantly following "SOMEBODY'S POISONED THE WATER HOLE!"

It's too late, honestly. The Infowars name has already been tarnished by their batshit craziness. Nothing produced by the show will ever be seen as credible because of the Infowars brand.

NPR goes lower.
Seriously, turn on your radio. Shit is fucking aggravating to listen to. They play NO music any more and read clickbait "news" stories all day.

RIP in pieces Echoes you will not be forgotten.

Only stupid fucks think that way.

I don't see The Intercept on there

I also scoff at calling snopes "biased" when its essentially a fact-checking website.

as a libtard, this is entirely accurate. those left most news outlets are so fucking cancer. my only question is, do rightwings admit their far right shit is cancer or no?

Keep living in your delusional world buddy. Make sure your water doesn't have fluoride in it.

lol trumptards will call anything factual fake news then come up with their own alternative facts

common this is 2017

If the rest of the people at infowars jumped ship and made their own new news site with blackjack and hookers (and no Jones) they might be able to pull it off after some time of good reporting and proving they're not Jones's infowars anymore.

>FOX News
>Reputable

Pick one.

Never make the mistake of believing a fact-checking site to be free of bias. Fact checking services like Politico/Snopes/whatever are run by people; they can choose how to present certain facts, what facts to even check, etc.

Ow the insults are here already, you must have ran out of argumentation.

>fox news
>typically reputable
Alternative fact

whats the news site called? very interested to check it out if only for the lol's

I'd say that's pretty accurate.
The fact Buzzfeed is even on that chart annoys me. Piece of shit website full of cancer SJW clickbait.

I usually stick with BBC. The bias is clear to see but they usually cover all sides equally enough to be reliable on most stories.

uhm great point buddy but that doesn't answer my question.

What possible argumentation is there, retard? You're presenting an opinion. I'm presenting an opinion.

Yeah a time in which you can look up statistics and holy book quotes with ease. So what is your excuse for being so fucking ignorant?