Ground news, this website that everyone uses to „see how biased news sites are” (like you can't just measure the times their reporters say woke and run it through a simple if(woke>= 1) {this.news= Nazi}
Rank the nyt as left leaning?
If this is left, what is right wing in Jesus land?
There is left leaning American newspapers like CommonDreams and DemocracyNow. But with Fox News and Daily Wire openly advocating to murder brown people, NYT doing it passively seems like an improvement.
I don’t use Ground News, and I’m a little annoyed with breadtubers for promoting it. It’s probably not as bad as MB/FC & Poynter, though. Previously.
Ground News does their bias ratings based on representation of viewpoints, which is critically different than doing it based on representation of facts. It's still a somewhat useful way to evaluate news sources, especially if you want to get an idea of how different groups of people think and what sort of news they are being fed, but it's not useful if you want to evaluate how factual or accurate sources are.
Where it really becomes an issue is when news sources confuse the two and report of what people are saying instead of what is reality. IMO, it's a major reason we're in this political landscape today.
For example, say one side says "covid is bad, but wearing a mask and getting vaccinated will greatly reduce your risk" and the other side says "covid is the flu, wearing a mask deprives you of oxygen, vaccines cause autism, and immigrants are eating your pets". If the news did real reporting and presented the two sides against factual information, one is clearly accurate and the other is a clown show. That would create a factually accurate article, however it would heavily favor one point of view and thus be far leaning if you are gauging the article based on representation of view points.
If the article was written to be central of both viewpoints, it would say "yes, vaccines may be good, but also they might be poison". That would create a dangerously misleading and inaccurate article, but it would be centered within the viewpoints.
News today tends to favor equal representation of view points because:
It's easier, they don't have to actually investigate anything, they can just say "____ said ____".
It's faster. News makes more money if they are the first to report something. Evaluating things for accuracy and investigating things where the facts are unknown takes time. Much easier to pump out he said/she said slop.
It lowers their liability. Reporting on facts will often times appear as calling someone a liar. And this will expand into calling one political party or organization a liar more often than others if one happens to lie a lot more than the other. This can lead to lawsuits, which can be really bad if the country is lead by an egotistical dementia patient and SCOTUS is comprised of a bunch of corrupt self-serving shams.
So, we are left with a situation where even though overwhelming evidence may definitively say that the sky is blue, politicians can over and over again come out and say "the sky is plaid" and hundreds of news papers across the country will report "POTUS says sky is plaid", as if it actually means anything, and millions of readers will see that and think it does.
Ground News is an analysis of what view points people consume, so their method of rating makes sense. It should not be confused with an evaluation of accuracy.
But, I totally agree with you and hate that the NYT pulls shit like this. It's essentially producing propaganda in the name of "both sides". I used to love listening to The Daily, but just can't support the NYT anymore after their (and basically all news orgs) handling of the election. "Trump says Kamala isn't really black and that her laugh is weird. Let's explore that for a week and present it as equal importance to rape and child trafficking." And "Trump says the handful of immigrants at the border are a national crisis worthy of a second holocaust. That's a valid opinion, just like how Democrats think you should get healthcare." Makes me sick. Do some real reporting and accurately represent the size and importance of issues people claim to care about.
A bit off topic, but
Ground news, this website that everyone uses to „see how biased news sites are” (like you can't just measure the times their reporters say woke and run it through a simple if(woke>= 1) {this.news= Nazi}
Rank the nyt as left leaning?
If this is left, what is right wing in Jesus land?
There is left leaning American newspapers like CommonDreams and DemocracyNow. But with Fox News and Daily Wire openly advocating to murder brown people, NYT doing it passively seems like an improvement.
I don’t use Ground News, and I’m a little annoyed with breadtubers for promoting it. It’s probably not as bad as MB/FC & Poynter, though. Previously.
Ground News does their bias ratings based on representation of viewpoints, which is critically different than doing it based on representation of facts. It's still a somewhat useful way to evaluate news sources, especially if you want to get an idea of how different groups of people think and what sort of news they are being fed, but it's not useful if you want to evaluate how factual or accurate sources are.
Where it really becomes an issue is when news sources confuse the two and report of what people are saying instead of what is reality. IMO, it's a major reason we're in this political landscape today.
For example, say one side says "covid is bad, but wearing a mask and getting vaccinated will greatly reduce your risk" and the other side says "covid is the flu, wearing a mask deprives you of oxygen, vaccines cause autism, and immigrants are eating your pets". If the news did real reporting and presented the two sides against factual information, one is clearly accurate and the other is a clown show. That would create a factually accurate article, however it would heavily favor one point of view and thus be far leaning if you are gauging the article based on representation of view points.
If the article was written to be central of both viewpoints, it would say "yes, vaccines may be good, but also they might be poison". That would create a dangerously misleading and inaccurate article, but it would be centered within the viewpoints.
News today tends to favor equal representation of view points because:
So, we are left with a situation where even though overwhelming evidence may definitively say that the sky is blue, politicians can over and over again come out and say "the sky is plaid" and hundreds of news papers across the country will report "POTUS says sky is plaid", as if it actually means anything, and millions of readers will see that and think it does.
Ground News is an analysis of what view points people consume, so their method of rating makes sense. It should not be confused with an evaluation of accuracy.
But, I totally agree with you and hate that the NYT pulls shit like this. It's essentially producing propaganda in the name of "both sides". I used to love listening to The Daily, but just can't support the NYT anymore after their (and basically all news orgs) handling of the election. "Trump says Kamala isn't really black and that her laugh is weird. Let's explore that for a week and present it as equal importance to rape and child trafficking." And "Trump says the handful of immigrants at the border are a national crisis worthy of a second holocaust. That's a valid opinion, just like how Democrats think you should get healthcare." Makes me sick. Do some real reporting and accurately represent the size and importance of issues people claim to care about.