Ignoring some of the right wing cultural points this is like 2/3 an economic liberal piece. I hear more economic liberalism from the right than from the "progressive" left. That is a problem.
They tend to be far more religious than I would care for, but they often do make a lot of sense, and tend to be quite highly rated for accuracy; more so than pretty much any "progressive" media.
I will need to look up the bookmark at home; it was posted here maybe a month ago? Basically, rated reporting outfits like Reuters high on credibility and low on partisanship, while Breitbart or Daily Kos rate low on credibility and high on partisanship. American Conservative (to my surprise, really) rated quite highly on credibility.
You wrote "tend to be quite highly rated for accuracy; more so than pretty much any "progressive" media."
If I read it correctly, that shows that "American Conservative" is at the same level as MSNBC in terms of 'overall quality', and over half of the liberal media is ranked as having higher quality.
That doesn't seem to be in accord with what you wrote.
It is one of the more accurate of the conservative side, but the liberal press skews upward, and I've never heard of the 6 liberal publications in the red box, while I've heard of 5+ of the conservative press in the red box, and some of them have quite large readership/viewership.
My main progressive news source, Democracy Now, is ranked as having the highest quality of the hyper-partisan groups. That affirms my decision to be a monthly contributor.
I would not really consider MSNBC and alike to be particularly progressive or left-wing myself, that would be something that Sarah Palin would believe, with her screams about "lamestream media". Among the clearly partisan publications though (AmCon has it right in the name, after all) they are quite good.
The red box contains rags that are only good for making you scratch your head and go "umm, cam people really be that dumb?". I would not consider those to be news sources at all. But the orange box has some quite popular left (and right)-wing sources like HuffPo that are involved in "unfair interpretation of the news" -- I'd think being there is already quite damning. At the same time, I have heard of HuffPo and DailyKos; Haven't heard of Democracy Now! will need to check it out.
I think you also need to make a distinction between primarily news and primarily opinion publications. I would expect both AmCon and, say, Mother Jones to apply their own interpretation to the news, but I would expect both to be honest about news and in their reasoning (well, most of the time anyway). I would not expect either to make up news to match their agenda, which is something that pubs in red and orange boxes often do.
I concur with your assessment of MSNBC, etc. I still think your original statement wasn't quite right, but not enough to warrant argument.
I stopped even following HuffPo links many years ago. It felt like too many opinions pieces dressed up as news, and with a business model based on getting people to write for free. (Could have changed in the last 5 years.)
Democracy Now is viewer/listener funded. They use the phrase "corporate media" instead of "{main,lame}stream media", and (in that respect) are aligned with Zinn and Chomsky.
I am not sure if being viewer-funded by itself guarantees accuracy and relative lack of bias -- people will support what they want to see, not necessarily what is accurate, and the selection of news on DN front page certainly skews in the left direction. Writing for newspieces that are there however seems to be unbiased.
It was in reference to your reference to Palin's "lamestream media". That is, while some do argue that News-Corp/Fox provides news to challenge the "{main,lame}stream media" of Disney/ABC, Time Warner/CNN, CBS, and Comcast/NBC they collectively are all owned by large companies, so have a built-in bias towards issues that favor large companies.
That there can be a corporate media bias certainly doesn't mean that those who write for non-corporate media don't also have their own biases.
Yeah, exactly. Pretty much anything will have some bias.
Not to say that I would take this, or any other, chart as the gospel (if anything, I certainly wold not have put NYT as high), but it is interesting to see that WSJ, as corporate a paper as they get, is rated in the upper rectangle. Equally News-Corpsy Fox is way down.
Ironically, the comments in this thread will likely be as the writer of the article posted and I quote:
"UPDATE.2: You know what would be a nice change of pace? If commenters would refrain from saying, in effect, THIS IS WHY THE PEOPLE WHO ARE NOT LIKE ME ARE BAD AND CRAZY! I’ve tried to make it clear in this post that this problem belongs to all of us, and few if any of us have the right answers. If all you have to offer is the usual griping about the Other Side, don’t post here."
How about more questions and solutions rather than finger-pointing, this isn't caused by one side or the other as there have been both Liberal and Conservative administrations and policies and people etc.
12 comments
[ 4.5 ms ] story [ 38.9 ms ] threadYou wrote "tend to be quite highly rated for accuracy; more so than pretty much any "progressive" media."
If I read it correctly, that shows that "American Conservative" is at the same level as MSNBC in terms of 'overall quality', and over half of the liberal media is ranked as having higher quality.
That doesn't seem to be in accord with what you wrote.
It is one of the more accurate of the conservative side, but the liberal press skews upward, and I've never heard of the 6 liberal publications in the red box, while I've heard of 5+ of the conservative press in the red box, and some of them have quite large readership/viewership.
My main progressive news source, Democracy Now, is ranked as having the highest quality of the hyper-partisan groups. That affirms my decision to be a monthly contributor.
I would not really consider MSNBC and alike to be particularly progressive or left-wing myself, that would be something that Sarah Palin would believe, with her screams about "lamestream media". Among the clearly partisan publications though (AmCon has it right in the name, after all) they are quite good.
The red box contains rags that are only good for making you scratch your head and go "umm, cam people really be that dumb?". I would not consider those to be news sources at all. But the orange box has some quite popular left (and right)-wing sources like HuffPo that are involved in "unfair interpretation of the news" -- I'd think being there is already quite damning. At the same time, I have heard of HuffPo and DailyKos; Haven't heard of Democracy Now! will need to check it out.
I think you also need to make a distinction between primarily news and primarily opinion publications. I would expect both AmCon and, say, Mother Jones to apply their own interpretation to the news, but I would expect both to be honest about news and in their reasoning (well, most of the time anyway). I would not expect either to make up news to match their agenda, which is something that pubs in red and orange boxes often do.
I stopped even following HuffPo links many years ago. It felt like too many opinions pieces dressed up as news, and with a business model based on getting people to write for free. (Could have changed in the last 5 years.)
Democracy Now is viewer/listener funded. They use the phrase "corporate media" instead of "{main,lame}stream media", and (in that respect) are aligned with Zinn and Chomsky.
I am not sure if being viewer-funded by itself guarantees accuracy and relative lack of bias -- people will support what they want to see, not necessarily what is accurate, and the selection of news on DN front page certainly skews in the left direction. Writing for newspieces that are there however seems to be unbiased.
That there can be a corporate media bias certainly doesn't mean that those who write for non-corporate media don't also have their own biases.
Not to say that I would take this, or any other, chart as the gospel (if anything, I certainly wold not have put NYT as high), but it is interesting to see that WSJ, as corporate a paper as they get, is rated in the upper rectangle. Equally News-Corpsy Fox is way down.
"UPDATE.2: You know what would be a nice change of pace? If commenters would refrain from saying, in effect, THIS IS WHY THE PEOPLE WHO ARE NOT LIKE ME ARE BAD AND CRAZY! I’ve tried to make it clear in this post that this problem belongs to all of us, and few if any of us have the right answers. If all you have to offer is the usual griping about the Other Side, don’t post here."
How about more questions and solutions rather than finger-pointing, this isn't caused by one side or the other as there have been both Liberal and Conservative administrations and policies and people etc.