I'm a broken record explaining that media is plural for medium. What mediums do you like? http://www.allgeneralizationsarefalse.com/the-chart-version-3-0-what-exactly-are-we-reading/
Arguing that MSNBC is less partisan than Fox is laughable. Arguing that CNN is largely neutral but "skews liberal" is even more ridiculous.
Arguing that NBC (most egregiously) CBS and ABC are all showing minimal partisan bias and are of the highest level of quality is beyond all common sense.
The NYTs hasn’t endorsed a Republican Presidential candidate in over 6 decades but somehow they are mostly balanced and just slightly left of center. That list is a joke.
Read the methodology. If you disagree with the conclusions, point out the flaw. Frankly, I find CNN and MSNBC pretty much unworthy of my time. As when I watch Fox, I see content aimed at my adrenal gland, not my cerebral cortex. I see a conservative bias with the Wall Street Journal, but it is done professionally, as with the Washington Post and the New York times. I find new facts when I read those publication, not just spin on the facts I already know.
I hardly watch any news on TV at all, but I've flipped through channels enough to know that you would have to move everything left of center over about 3 standard deviations for it to be even remotely accurate. CNN is no different than the Goebbels propaganda machine and very good at the use of subtle psychology. Citizens of the countries in Europe were convinced the Nazi's were their friends and only there to help until the next thing you know any citizen that tried to contact others outside of their town were executed. We have a lot of people that are just as naive as the German citizens and Pols, Norwegians, etc. in the late 1930's.
It is 90% subjective which is how it arrives at CNN being in the center. Their bias was exposed in the feeding of HRC questions for the debates. You cannot even turn on the channel for more than 5 minutes and not get a negative hit job on Trump.
When the result is obviously ridiculous, is it really necessary to figure out why her methodology is flawed? As a frequent watcher of Fox News, I will also say that there is a very large band of where the various Fox News shows would show up on this spectrum. To just simplistically place Fox News as Hyper-partisan is just not honest. I will agree that Hannity and Jesse Watters are Trump sycophants. But Fox News Sunday is by far the most balanced news show on television. Any serious political junkie should watch it every week. Bret Baier is also very even handed and probably the most fair news anchor among network and cable news.
This is correct. Many if not most Fox shows at least present the liberal viewpoint and have a person there to espouse it. Are they given equal time, equal chance to be convincing, etc? No. But you do hear both sides and hear the dominant viewpoint (the conservative one) doubted or questioned. None of the MSM even attempts that.
I read the alleged methodology. It sounds like she's following some kind of superficially objective measurement, but in reality it's full of subjectivity and judgment calls. That's how Fox News gets judged as more partisan, more extreme, and less fair than Daily Kos. The biggest thing the chart reveals is where the author's political center lies.
I'll go further and say Fox News Sunday is slightly left of center now. Howard Kurtz weekly media show is also left of center.
LOL!!!! That's the most absurd statement I've read in some time. Crockett. Don't even try on this thing. I don't agree 100% with that thing. That said, it's not horribly inaccurate.
The irony of you - of all people - making that statement in light of what Deez correctly pointed out is overwhelming.
I don't really disagree much with what Deez typed. That is a decent chart that does contain a little "wiggle room" bias. I'd actually push Fox up a little bit. That said, don't tell me that anything on Fox News is left of center. That's pissing down my back and telling me it's raining.
If by "wiggle room" you mean a completely pivoting axis that sets as the basis the person who's creating the chart, and then shifts the entire chart based on whoever's doing the analysis. You're liberal so you look at it and go "that's about right" because it was written and created by a liberal who believes that Vox, Slate, Mother Jones and MSNBC offer "fair interpretations of the news." BTW since you didn't get the irony, I will explain that conservatives on this board look at that graph and say it's too liberally slanted. You, a liberal, look at it and go "No, that's about right" - apparently not getting that you have just proven their point.
The conservatives on this board worship the ground that good old Ronnie Reagan walked on. He'd be a liberal today. While we've polarized, the right has been hijacked by the ideologues.
Based on what? BTW not sure what your point has to do with the observation that this graphic is subjective and happens to fit your worldview.
Every once in a while I listen to people who tell me I should take Fox seriously. Every time I stop as I channel flip, I see nothing but incendiary BS. Last time it was a policy discussion on the Dreamers. They had a "moderate" voice on there trying to explain the goals of permitting Dreamers and three talking heads screaming at him that he would be cool with his daughters being raped or murdered by MS-13 members.
Reagan wasn't exactly liberal, but by today's standards his policies were center right, not far right. His views on gun control were pretty much in line with where the NRA was in the 1980s, not to where it has migrated today. Reagan actually talked to Democrats and compromised, instead of endless blustering for show. (He did bluster for show, most admirably, but that wasn't the only trick in his bag.)
Reagan would have been more compromising than the GOP on fiscal policy and would have engaged in less ****-flinging. The big areas in which he would have clashed with modern Democrats would have been on cultural and social issues. Where the Democratic Party has gone on abortion, sexuality (gay issues and transgender issues), and general religious contempt would have nauseated Reagan. In Democratic politics, it's a serious question as to what is a boy or a girl. Reagan would have had a hard time reconciling that with basic sanity.
For me, it isn't that Fox News should be taken all that seriously. It's that their competitors in the cable news business also shouldn't be taken very seriously. In addition, not every show on any of these channels is the same. Fox News Sunday is not as a absurd as Fox & Friends or as one-sided as Hannity. Presumably that's also true CNN's programming, though I don't have CNN from Germany. One thing I'll add on the MS-13 issue. If you don't like the worst illegal immigrants being brought up int he context of immigration policy, then you understand how conservatives feel when mass murderers are brought up in the context of discussing gun control. It's almost exactly the same tactic.
In light of what Deez said? So I guess once I comment on something, there is no room to take issue or disagree. lol
Watch Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace and let me know what you think. They grill a different Trump official nearly every week. My dad is a life long Democrat, and even he has finally conceded that Chris Wallace is the best in the business right now.
In case anyone wants to look back. I think four things made the difference. First, Obama's victory was expected. No serious political thinker believed McCain had a chance, so Fox News's people were prepared to see Obama win. The mainstream media believed that Trump had no chance, so his victory was truly a shock to them. Second, it's a lot harder to accept victory by somebody for whom you have extreme hatred. Fox News didn't like Obama, but they viewed him as a run-of-the mill Democratic nominee. The mainstream media had a raw hatred for Trump that has been unmatched in recent presidential politics. Even their hatred of Nixon (starting with the Alger Hiss case) paled in comparison. To them, he wasn't just another Republican winning the Presidency. Third, the media had a lot more invested in Trump's defeat than Fox News had in Obama's. Fox News pitched the GOP's narratives, but they pretty much always do that. After the 2008 election, they were basically in the same position as they were before. By contrast, the mainstream media has at least claimed to have a high degree of journalistic integrity and objectivity, and they enjoyed claiming to having the credibility that came with that. They completely abandoned that to hand the election to Hillary Clinton. Gambling your soul only to lose is pretty hard to take. Furthermore, the damage is permanent. A very large number of alleged journalists who were once viewed as honorable people have now been exposed as the phony propagandists that they always were. What happened to Fox News in 2008 is more like what happens to a Chevy salesman when a potential customer leaves and buys a Ford. What happened to the mainstream media in 2016 is more like what happened to Jim Bakker. They didn't just lose. They were exposed as utter frauds, and they know it. Finally, Obama's election wasn't a rejection of Fox News. When the incumbent party has held the White House for 8 years and leaves a big recession and an unpopular war, that party loses. It's the normal political cycle. Trump's election was a thorough rejection of the mainstream media. They spent months calling him a racist monster every chance they got. The fact that tens of millions voted for him anyway and gave him the Presidency anyway shows that they didn't give flip what the media said or thought. In fact, some of them voted for Trump precisely because the media called him a racist monster.
