12/14/16 11:32 AM

the thing is, this is a non-trivial meta-analysis. it requires reading, comprehension, and consideration.

sadly, there's a huge percentage of the electorate that is inclined to dismiss this as another example of more liberal hogwash simply because it's based on truth and facts and requires complex thought just to interpret.

12/14/16 11:49 AM

> this is a non-trivial meta-analysis

Not to trivialize an info-graphic, but who is the source of this analysis and how was their analysis done?

As for when, CNN is off the mark - being very partisan/skewed during the past presidential election.

As for the Economist skewing conservative, "but still reputable" - that is really good to know. As a long time subscriber, I find it laughable. From recent memory they endorsed the two Clintons (Bill & Hillary), Obama, and Kerry for President. They also advocate for free trade, immigration, gay marriage/rights, legalize drugs, and legalize prostitution, and criminal justice reform for decades, if not over a century. And of course this is just a short list among other many mainstream conservative hallmark values they advocate for.

And yeah, they should be to the right of the just right of down the center, NPR ;-)

12/14/16 1:59 PM

...and i dont agree with many of the author's assignments, but the idea of doing a hard look at news sources and acting accordingly is a useful exercise.

i'd like to see something, a fair bit more robust, that shows the top-3 news sources that are most un-biased.

Last edited by walter on 12/14/16 2:26 PM; edited 1 time in total

12/14/16 2:19 PM

The best part of going with the OTA Tivo and cutting the cable is not even having the choice of FOX or MSNBC. Matter and anti-mater than don't matter. ;)

12/14/16 2:31 PM

Measuring bias has got to be an extremely difficult and subjective challenge. It's like debating or proving whether god exists or not.

For instance, you can watch a news program or read an article and conclude it is well researched, informative, well balanced, unbiased, etc. However, if you are well educated in such particular topic, you may question why such content did not cover/mention say: x, y, and z. Resources are limited, e.g. time or word-count, at some point the TV producer needs to decide what gets cut and what makes the reel. That requires discretion and discretion is just another flavor of bias.

12/14/16 2:46 PM

"... Matter and anti-mater (that) don't matter. ;)"

Amen.

It's a mystery how different topics get placed into "one side or the other", as if the public's preferences on a wide range of topcs were, organically, somehow, like a magnet, with but two poles.

And of sports and the sports mentality it creates, dividing the players into two competing groups.
Start kids out with Santa Clause, then on to sports, throw in some teenage hormones and then on to politics. Education at it's finest.

Seems that as soon as there are two sides, a third never materializes, because it would, by default, be a minority, perceived as a weak "side" to be on. One more brick in the wall.

It would be interesting to study how various wildlife might behave similarly, if/when a conflict arises. Flocks of sheep for example.

12/15/16 9:40 AM

quote:

---

[The Economist] also advocate for free trade, immigration, gay marriage/rights, legalize drugs, and legalize prostitution, and criminal justice reform for decades, if not over a century.

---

quote:

---

who is the source of this analysis and how was their analysis done?

---

12/15/16 10:24 AM

No confusion.

conservative/libertarian principles > is not correct - even in in another galaxy, far, far away.

libertarian - socially liberal, like Democrat; fiscally conservative like Republicans.

Legalization of drugs and prostitution is not something that Democrats or moderate liberals champion. However the Economist does and yet to be labeled "skews conservative" is folly.

CNN - I used to work for Time Warner. Here's a little known, ugly secret, CNN is the only division the TW CEO would never talk about ratings or earnings. My coworkers and I would note such NY Post like Page 6 news coverage CNN would cover as serious news (even non-political content).

I listen to NPR regularly. You will be hard pressed to find a time when they interviewed someone with a conservative point of view. Hence, the point in my 2nd post about being unbiased is like believing unicorns exist or definitively proving whether god exists or not.

12/16/16 12:11 PM

quote:

---

I listen to NPR regularly. You will be hard pressed to find a time when they interviewed someone with a conservative point of view.

---

12/16/16 12:57 PM

NPR: After Pollak, No More Live Interviews for Conservatives
19 Nov 2016
National Public Radio ombudsman/public editor Elizabeth Jensen has recommended that the taxpayer-funded radio news service bar future live interviews of conservatives.....

http://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism/2016/11/19/npr-pollak-interview-no-live-interviews-right/

Only later to be clarified as '...that such interviews be pre-taped for “contextualizing”..' contextualizing means: edited, not live & exercising discretion (bias)

Maybe you are thinking of the BBC news broadcasts that they tap into for international news coverage for conservative news coverage like the UK's conservative party. Yes, I do listen to NPR daily. It is quality radio programming. I like it. But to classify it as " mainstream " with " minimal partisan bias " is rather rich.

12/16/16 6:29 PM

...you'll see that the second paragraph states that her recommendation has been rejected.

I also listen to NPR daily and though it does seem to lean a bit left at times, overall it's about as balanced as one is likely to get anywhere. Most of the left-leaning material is actually statements by reporters - who should not be offering their personal opinions - rather than show hosts or moderators. This is more prevalent in the local programming, which tends to skew toward the public bias (extremely liberal in MA and more conservative in NH and ME). I've heard interviews with lots of conservatives and the election coverage was quite balanced in regard to who was interviewed.

Overall, I don't have a problem with NPR and I really enjoy a lot of their non-political programming.

12/17/16 6:16 AM

I did read the 2nd paragraph and the updated link, as evident by my, "Only later..."

I think NPR is quality programming, too, but being classified as "mainstream and nonpartisan" is laughable.


I will repeat it again, the conservative interviews and viewpoints are taped, NOT live - as in edited. It does not take much critical reasoning to see how this is "bias". They choose what to broadcast. Much like many liberals or democrats refuse to be interviewed on Fox news programs, the same is true, vice a versa with NPR.

That was true of this past election, before and after. The ir coverage is biased.

You will be hard pressed to find many conservative or rebuplican listeners of NPR. Why do you think that is?

Even thogh NPR recanted her statement, it is rather telling that the top executive of NPR would make such comments publicly. Imagine what is really being said behind the public vale. Wikileaks did shed some light on that recently, even with CNN.

On a more genral and Philosophical note, to beat a dead horse, there is no such thing as being unbiased. NPR has resource limitations - time and money. That is true of any news outlet. What they choose to not bradcast, activley or passively, renders bias just as much as what is chosen to boradcast. If they were unbiased, the. They would present all known information - facts, opinions, hypothesis, etc - but of course that is not possible for anyone to do. Hence bias.

12/17/16 9:22 AM

quote:

---

You will be hard pressed to find many conservative or rebuplican listeners of NPR. Why do you think that is?

---

12/17/16 10:40 AM

quote:

---

NPR has this nasty habit of giving air time to the oppressed. They actually let Hispanics, Muslims, and gays state their views. Nobody wants to hear that.

---

12/17/16 12:00 PM

<sigh> Let's take a step back out of the weeds of discussing specific news outlets. The point of discussion is lost.

The larger point here is a philosophical one - that being unbiased is an impossibility .

To be human , is to be biased. You either engage or you do not. News outlets are comprise of human workers (for now).

Even if they were not, say are controlled by bots**, the fact that resource constraints come into play (as noted earlier), there will still be bias by the news outlets

** who knows a hundred years from now when AI kicks into high gear and humans become the lap dog servants to bots (or maybe not).

Last edited by Jesus Saves on 12/17/16 12:50 PM; edited 1 time in total

12/17/16 12:22 PM

...I consider myself to be very conservative politically, with definite Libertarian leanings. Note that this has nothing to do with religious conservatism, which is arguably anathema to true political conservatism, which would advocate a distinct separation of church and state. I vote Republican because there is no realistic alternative for someone with my beliefs. I listen to NPR pretty much every day (it's on right now). I have no problem discerning the minimal left-biased programming and reporting and providing my own counterpoints.

BTW, I don't watch Fox News (other than an occasional local OTA newscast) or any other right-leaning channel or website. Clicking on the link you provided was the first time I'd been to Breitbart, as far as I can remember.

As for bias, I agree with your point. People are all biased to one degree or another, no matter how hard we try to be neutral and inclusive. Consequently, institutions created by people are biased as well.

12/17/16 12:49 PM

...which leads back to the original question: what is the <nameless> source's methodology for such a subjective infographic?

12/17/16 5:14 PM

Just because editorial decisions are being made doesn't mean there is bias in the end product. Take Breitbart and MSNBC as examples. They both exercised editorial discretion and come out very differently. Their bias is purposeful.

It is just as possible for a media outlet to try to present a balanced endproduct, purposefully. Whether they succeed or not is a measure of their self awareness. NPR makes the effort to play it down the middle of the road. And I think they do a better job of it than any other outlet.

12/18/16 9:29 AM

> And I think they [NPR] do a better job of it than any other outlet

Many would disagree with you or just have a different bias....
Is NPR liberal?
Is NPR biased?
Is NPR conservative?
Is NPR unbiased?

> Just because editorial decisions are being made doesn't mean there is bias
> in the end product.

Surely with all sincere attempts to be neutral on your behalf, sorry, but that is so intellectually dishonest and contradictory. Is that what they teach/taught in law school? I hope not.

Still waiting to read a retort that contain something specific, like an unbiased news report example, or the name/source of the infographic or their methodology.......

12/18/16 1:05 PM

Actually, I started learning logic in elementary school.

12/18/16 2:28 PM

An NPR reporter did a hatchet job on a social program I'm involved with that would have made Breitbart proud. She interviewed me well before the piece came out- she was on a mission and didn't want to be confused by further facts. I obviously have an interest in the subject, but the piece was awful - poorly (or not at all) researched, biased hard right. We gave her numerous solid sources of contrary information and she never bothered to contact them. So whatever bias they may have, it is not unidirectional.

Back to the original post, without knowing the source or the methodology, I'm not clear why we're even talking about this.

Last edited by dan emery on 12/18/16 3:44 PM; edited 1 time in total

12/18/16 3:38 PM

> Back to the original post, without knowing the source or the methodology,
> I'm not clear why we're even talking about this.

Thank you!!!!

12/19/16 10:16 AM

quote:

---

An NPR reporter did a hatchet job on a social program I'm involved with that would have made Breitbart proud. She interviewed me well before the piece came out- she was on a mission and didn't want to be confused by further facts. I obviously have an interest in the subject, but the piece was awful

---

12/19/16 12:18 PM

I take it all back. Make America Great Again. How do I sign up?

12/21/16 9:21 AM

quote:

---

Surely with all sincere attempts to be neutral on your behalf, sorry, but that is so intellectually dishonest and contradictory. Is that what they teach/taught in law school? I hope not.

---