Found this on Reddit and it seems somewhat accurate/reasonable to me, although I’d argue that Fox News isn’t as extreme as OANN (which belongs further in Breitbart territory or beyond.) They also omitted Salon from the graph; it belongs on the left side.
That mostly seems fair (for the sources I’m familiar with) although I’m confused about why the Guardian is in the “fair interpretations of the news” rectangle instead of the straight-up “news” one. I’d place it in roughly the same space as the Washington Post, myself, and slide the NYT a little bit to the right of both.
I’m also not quite sure DailyKos is really the liberal equivalent of OANN, although individual diarists can certainly post wacky stuff; there is a community ethos that at least tries to push back against conspiracy theories and misinformation, while OANN is pretty much all-in on them.
Took one look, decided it wasn’t worth the hassle of sorting through the visual clutter.
Of the sources I’m familiar with, they seem to be in mostly accurate positions. I might move CNN one spot up. My biggest takeaway from this graph is that the lower right part of the parabola is filled with names that are well known and who a lot of conservatives get their news from, whereas the lower left side is filled with names I’ve never hear of. Do any of you get your news from, or know anyone who does, the likes of Patribotics, Palmer Report, David Wolfe, or Forward Progressives? There’s also a dark orange bar with a light orange Report on the right side of the bar, and I have no idea what it’s supposed to be. The liberals I know get there news mostly from the names at the top of the parabola, the letter networks, NPR, Washington Post, New York Times, etc. On the other hand, on the lower right side is the list of usual suspects that deal in right wing propaganda and fake news. Breitbart, Infowars, Drudge Report, OAN, and of course Fox News are in this area. The sad part is that these are actually trusted news sources for many conservatives (including Trump), unlike their liberal equivalents on the chart, who I’m guessing most people have never even heard of.
It’s pretty good.
I would move Washington Examiner to where the National Review is and move the National Review, Daily Beast, and Mother Jones down into the orange box. And I would move the New York Times down with New Yorker and The Atlantic.
The Hill is basically just an aggregator for the other fellows in the green box, that deal with politics.
There are a few good articles on Reason.com but some things there are also pretty stupid. Likewise, I’ve seen some rubbish from Vanity Fair and some good stuff.
On the whole, I wouldn’t recommend going below the halfway point on the yellow box and no wider out than the things that have their midpoint on the left-and-right bounds of the green box.
I think the biggest problem is that this chart is a few years old now, and as such, doesn’t reflect how some outlets have changed.
For example, the National Enquirer hasn’t been neutral since Trump decided to run for president. They’re fully in his corner. As well, I think OANN has gotten continuously worse over the last few years, particularly now that Trump is a big fan.
I imagine that Bloomberg would also move in a more anti-Trump direction if we looked at it today, but I’m not as familiar with them.
It’s broadly good, but with some mistakes. OAN, as noted is worse than Fox News. Buzzfeed has some very good news. I think that this chart does much more good in getting people to think about bias in the source than harm in perhaps mislabeling some outlet.s
It’s perhaps orthogonal to what the chart shows, but I think is one of the most important developments of the recent past is repeating a claim that isn’t correct. Often an outlet will write a headline that says “Trump suggests injecting disinfectant, others disagree.” Ok, that headline is factually correct but wildly misleading. In a media environment where chyrons and headlines are so important I think that’s overlooked.
I think its pretty accurate, among the ones I am familiar with. But, I would move CNN a half-step to the left, especially the Prime Time block of programs…
The plot should probably be moved about half a unit to the right. I don’t see any political bias in BBC. Yes the views presented are more likely to align with Democratic talking points than Republican talking points, but that is just because the facts more often align in that direction.
I’m also confused as to the labels at the top end of the graph. The Washington post is on the edge of fact reporting and well below “original” fact reporting, yet they frequently publish significant investigative journalism. Anything that puts USA today as being more fact driven than the New York times, has got a bit of a problem.
I’d also probably switch OAN with Fox news.
I think the plot is also limited by the fact that they need to keep enough room to show all of the names of the news organizations so that may shift some of them outside of where they should be so that they don’t overlap.
That chart gets updated from time to time. Here’s the relevant website with the latest version: https://www.adfontesmedia.com/.
It’s gotten more cluttered and I still don’t see Salon, but it looks like it’s in the right ballpark. IMHO I too would probably switch OAN and FoxNews, the BBC has shifted rightward in recent years, and I’d move HuffPo down a smidge and MSNBC up a smidge, but those are minor tweaks. (And WTF is “Guacamoley!”?)
I think it’s a good representation. Personally I’d move CNN a little further left, and OAN more right. It doesn’t seem like OAN should line up with Fox exactly.
Outside of my comment on the New York Times, it looks like they took my changes.