So I saw Fox referred to as Faux again. Unlike other misnamings (Torygraph for Telegraph, Grauniad for Guardian, for example), faux actually has a real meaning and it got me wondering if any statistics are kept on the veracity of all the news sites?
Please note that I’m not interested in biases - they’re all biased one way or the other - but in statistics of actual factual errors. Anyone got them?
Even restricting to actual factuals (I like that phrase), it’s difficult to measure objectively.
There are various sites that try to monitor factual errors, but I don’t know of any that actually attempt to score every factual statement and give statistical results. As you pointed out, there are many other issues (biases) that give the overall “truthiness” of a news site, it doesn’t seem like it would be worth the enormous effort to give a number that isn’t very useful.
Bump. Anyone got actual info?
How can anyone come up with something like that? All I can say is that in every case where I was personally familiar with the facts in a news article, the article got some things wrong. And that did not depend on the source of the article.
Ed
But what about the recent story where Fox News deliberately distorted the images of two New York Times reporters? Has any other “major” news outlet deliberately “lied” like this?