media bias

[tytlyf]

Hahaha


BWAHAHAHAHA

What's so funny? Is politifact a radical left wing media outlet now? You're showing symptoms of the propaganda used on you.

 

[Nous]

The greater damage comes from corporations using their massive advertising budgets to stop reporting of the news. Remember all those long glossy and very expensive ads telling us all how BP loves us, and respects nature? Well those ads represented such a huge revenue stream for networks that they stopped reporting on the many oil spills that have occurred, since.

Can you show that the underlined part is true? Which oil spills were the recipients of BP's ads silent about after accepting BP's dollars?

 

[Nous]

I think this is accurate and I'll note the bell shaped curve showing increasing bias on both left and right.

Source: How biased is your news source? You probably won’t agree with this chart

The original source along with discussion of methodology All Generalizations are False - Home of the Media Bias Chart

I find it interesting that The Hill is in the "skews conservative" block. I get the email newsfeed or alerts or whatever from The Hill, and often I click on and read their stories. I have difficulty seeing how it "skews conservative" to any significant degree. I click on their stories because they have good habit of linking to their sources--if the story is about a Court opinion, they provide a link; if it's about an indictment (e.g., by Mueller), they provide the copy of the indictment. That habit seems to go a long way in avoiding partisan bias.

 

[PureX]

Can you show that the underlined part is true? Which oil spills were the recipients of BP's ads silent about after accepting BP's dollars?

8 Worst Pipeline Spills in the Last 10 Years

 

[sun rise]

NPR neutral?! Really? Listen to the Saturday morning game/slash comedy shows (although I do so miss Click and Clack).

Game shows have nothing to do with reporting - they're entertainment.

 

[sun rise]

I find it interesting that The Hill is in the "skews conservative" block. I get the email newsfeed or alerts or whatever from The Hill, and often I click on and read their stories. I have difficulty seeing how it "skews conservative" to any significant degree. I click on their stories because they have good habit of linking to their sources--if the story is about a Court opinion, they provide a link; if it's about an indictment (e.g., by Mueller), they provide the copy of the indictment. That habit seems to go a long way in avoiding partisan bias.

They are way up on the accuracy dimension. How that skew was determined was not obvious to me from reading the source and there was an explicit note about covering that complex question in another page.

I suspect skew is determined partly by which stories an outlet covers and who they might interview and how much space in a piece they might give to one person over another.

I'm not really concerned about skew so much as which outlets are accurate and report the news instead of propaganda.

 

[BSM1]

Game shows have nothing to do with reporting - they're entertainment.

Neither do commentators, for that matter.

 

[Falvlun]

Neither do commentators, for that matter.

It’s a lot harder for most people to distinguish commenters from news reporters than it is to distinguish a comedy game show as such.

 

[Nous]

They are way up on the accuracy dimension. How that skew was determined was not obvious to me from reading the source and there was an explicit note about covering that complex question in another page.

I suspect skew is determined partly by which stories an outlet covers and who they might interview and how much space in a piece they might give to one person over another.

I'm not really concerned about skew so much as which outlets are accurate and report the news instead of propaganda.

This is all I've been able to find on her methodology for determining "skews conservative/liberal":

The difference between “minimally partisan” and “skews partisan” is easily distinguishable by the intent of the organization. If they mean to be objective, that counts as minimally partisan here. If they mean to present a progressive point of view (MSNBC), or mean to present a conservative point of view (FOX News) that’s at least skewing partisan.​

The Chart, Version 1.0: Original Reasoning and Methodology - All Generalizations are False

I don't have a clue as to the intent of The Hill or many, if any, other media outlets. Vanessa says she has a law degree. Claiming that categorization is "easily distinguished by intent of the organization" would seem to be a strange sentiment among people with law degrees.

I agree with you--accuracy would seem to be the more important metric.

 

[Nous]

8 Worst Pipeline Spills in the Last 10 Years

This is merely a list of horrible pipeline accidents during the last 10 years. It doesn't mention anything about recipients of BP advertising dollars refusing to report on oil spills. Moreover, the article doesn't mention that any of the noted "worse" pipeline spills had anything to do with BP. Surely BP approves of news agencies reporting environmental wreckage caused by their competition.

 

[PureX]

This is merely a list of horrible pipeline accidents during the last 10 years. It doesn't mention anything about recipients of BP advertising dollars refusing to report on oil spills. Moreover, the article doesn't mention that any of the noted "worse" pipeline spills had anything to do with BP. Surely BP approves of news agencies reporting environmental wreckage caused by their competition.

Who heard about these disasters? Why wasn't the media all over them? Oil ran through the streets of middle America and few images of this showed up on the network news shows. Why is that, do you think? And why did BP spend hundreds of millions of dollars on advertising that sold nothing be the fantasy about how they love America?

Connect the dots and it all adds up. And no, they do not want anyone talking about oil spills, eve those of their competition. Why would they? It only harms their own agenda.

 

[Nous]

Who heard about these disasters? Why wasn't the media all over them? Oil ran through the streets of middle America and few images of this showed up on the network news shows. Why is that, do you think? And why did BP spend hundreds of millions of dollars on advertising that sold nothing be the fantasy about how they love America?

Connect the dots and it all adds up. And no, they do not want anyone talking about oil spills, eve those of their competition. Why would they? It only harms their own agenda.

You haven't presented any facts by which to conclude that any media corporation has refused to report oil spills due to having received BP advertising dollars.