ChatterBank1 min ago
How Do You Perceive Political Bias In The Media
27 Answers
I tend to check any news source against some or all of the following sites to get an estimate of their bias:
https:/
https:/
and specific news stories on sites like
https:/
https:/
When I see comments on here, they often link to sites which those evaluation sites regard as highly untrustworthy.
Those sites regard the Daily Mail, for example, as biassed right ( https:/
and right-wing and questionable authenticity ( https:/
People can do their own searches for Breitbart, Guido Fawkes, Infowars and so on, all of which are regularly quoted on this site.
They all come out as right-wing (some extreme) and many as questionable.
Is this because people are far-right, or because they don't know how to check facts, or is it that they will believe anything, if it reinforces their prejudices? Or is it that I sit in a bubble of some kind that means I do not see things as these websites protray them
What do you think?
https:/
https:/
and specific news stories on sites like
https:/
https:/
When I see comments on here, they often link to sites which those evaluation sites regard as highly untrustworthy.
Those sites regard the Daily Mail, for example, as biassed right ( https:/
and right-wing and questionable authenticity ( https:/
People can do their own searches for Breitbart, Guido Fawkes, Infowars and so on, all of which are regularly quoted on this site.
They all come out as right-wing (some extreme) and many as questionable.
Is this because people are far-right, or because they don't know how to check facts, or is it that they will believe anything, if it reinforces their prejudices? Or is it that I sit in a bubble of some kind that means I do not see things as these websites protray them
What do you think?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Rationalist. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Everyone has their own opinions that they have established over many years.
They think their view is correct. And everyone else is wrong.
So if you are an extreme rightist Brexiteer, anyone who disagrees with you is a communist.
Likewise, if you are a Socialist worker type, then anyone who challenges you are Nazis.
Personally, I consider myself left of centre (though I am conservative in some issues).
People tend to like News sources that confirm their views.
I usually fact check things myself.
I will be more likely to agree with a BBC link because by their charter they are supposed to be neutral, unbiased. I tend not to accept any newspapers as unbiased, not even the Guardian.
They think their view is correct. And everyone else is wrong.
So if you are an extreme rightist Brexiteer, anyone who disagrees with you is a communist.
Likewise, if you are a Socialist worker type, then anyone who challenges you are Nazis.
Personally, I consider myself left of centre (though I am conservative in some issues).
People tend to like News sources that confirm their views.
I usually fact check things myself.
I will be more likely to agree with a BBC link because by their charter they are supposed to be neutral, unbiased. I tend not to accept any newspapers as unbiased, not even the Guardian.
Lots of people are too simplistic in their views and intolerant of any other way of looking at a situation or event.
One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter is a true statement.
Jeremy Corbyn also gets called a terrorist due to his willingness to sit down with the enemy to find a solution to the problems of the world.
It goes on and on ...
One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter is a true statement.
Jeremy Corbyn also gets called a terrorist due to his willingness to sit down with the enemy to find a solution to the problems of the world.
It goes on and on ...
Thanks for those responses. You won't be surprised to learn that I tend to agree.
I tend to think that a lot of it depends on which news eco-system people inhabit.
If one inhabits a world informed by Breitbart, right-wing Facebook groups and Guido Fawkes, then you will perceive that viewpoint as the norm.
Other sites (such as the BBC), that do not conform to that set of views will be seen as hard-left, because a centrist site (as measured by every media bias platform I can find) like the BBC presents such a strong contrast against the hard-right newsfeeds that normally inform that person's viewpoints.
This article suggests that those who do not trust the mainstream media are much more likely to be heavily biassed in their world view.
https:/
I tried to find academic research on this, and there is a great deal of research that confirms my own suspicions:
https:/
I tend to think that a lot of it depends on which news eco-system people inhabit.
If one inhabits a world informed by Breitbart, right-wing Facebook groups and Guido Fawkes, then you will perceive that viewpoint as the norm.
Other sites (such as the BBC), that do not conform to that set of views will be seen as hard-left, because a centrist site (as measured by every media bias platform I can find) like the BBC presents such a strong contrast against the hard-right newsfeeds that normally inform that person's viewpoints.
This article suggests that those who do not trust the mainstream media are much more likely to be heavily biassed in their world view.
https:/
I tried to find academic research on this, and there is a great deal of research that confirms my own suspicions:
https:/
Most sites are biased and as has been said we tend to believe more the sites that confirm or charge nform to our thinking.
I don’t necessarily trust fact checker sites because a fare few have been known to be completely biased while pretending to be undiased.
I don’t think there is really anywhere that is a truly neutral reporter.
What I think is important is that if you read, or hear, news that you broadly agree with don’t look to other places that broadly agree with you. Go to the polar opposite. The truth usually lies somewhere in between.
I don’t necessarily trust fact checker sites because a fare few have been known to be completely biased while pretending to be undiased.
I don’t think there is really anywhere that is a truly neutral reporter.
What I think is important is that if you read, or hear, news that you broadly agree with don’t look to other places that broadly agree with you. Go to the polar opposite. The truth usually lies somewhere in between.
Cassa333
//I don’t necessarily trust fact checker sites because a fair few have been known to be completely biased while pretending to be unbiased. //
Yes, I agree that not all fact-checker websites are unbiassed. It's part of the whole misinformation/disinformation agenda of those who want to damage trust in established institutions and drive people toward the heavily polarised information ecosystems.
Nevertheless, if you look at enough fact-checkers, you can come to some kind of assessment of the validity of this story or that news source.
I had expected some of the people on here who have publicly stated their mistrust of mainstream media to present that same argument.
It's an obvious question - who checks the bias-checkers?
The answer, nowever, is far from obvious:
https:/
//I don’t necessarily trust fact checker sites because a fair few have been known to be completely biased while pretending to be unbiased. //
Yes, I agree that not all fact-checker websites are unbiassed. It's part of the whole misinformation/disinformation agenda of those who want to damage trust in established institutions and drive people toward the heavily polarised information ecosystems.
Nevertheless, if you look at enough fact-checkers, you can come to some kind of assessment of the validity of this story or that news source.
I had expected some of the people on here who have publicly stated their mistrust of mainstream media to present that same argument.
It's an obvious question - who checks the bias-checkers?
The answer, nowever, is far from obvious:
https:/
// What I think is important is that if you read, or hear, news that you broadly agree with don’t look to other places that broadly agree with you. Go to the polar opposite. //
Quite agree, although I don't think it's always as helpful as it could be. I do occasionally hop on to the Express, Mail, Fox News, etc., websites all the same.
Quite agree, although I don't think it's always as helpful as it could be. I do occasionally hop on to the Express, Mail, Fox News, etc., websites all the same.
I think ToraToraTora just demonstrated the truth of my post at 18.19.
TTT's other posts on here show an noticeble far-right bias, which suggests that he exists in a news ecosystem of one polarised viewpoint.
He has become so immersed in that persoective, that he sees anything else as far-left.
Clear illustration of the principle I was trying to explain. Thankyou, TTT, for the support.
TTT's other posts on here show an noticeble far-right bias, which suggests that he exists in a news ecosystem of one polarised viewpoint.
He has become so immersed in that persoective, that he sees anything else as far-left.
Clear illustration of the principle I was trying to explain. Thankyou, TTT, for the support.
//I have read a few times that fact checkers check their facts with other fact checkers.//
The best (such as the ones I linked to) include links to original source; as evidence to support their guidance.
I've never seen one fact-check site use another fact-check site as a reference.
I also don't think it is an echo-chamber. The point about an echochamber is that it echoes the same views from similar sources.
The point of fact checker sites is they refer to original source where possible and actively look for evidence one way or the other from unrelated sites.
At least, that's true of the ones I use.
The best (such as the ones I linked to) include links to original source; as evidence to support their guidance.
I've never seen one fact-check site use another fact-check site as a reference.
I also don't think it is an echo-chamber. The point about an echochamber is that it echoes the same views from similar sources.
The point of fact checker sites is they refer to original source where possible and actively look for evidence one way or the other from unrelated sites.
At least, that's true of the ones I use.
Hi Mozz - fair point.
But I'll be straight. I think the Mail is heavily biassed. Maybe not as much as Breitbart or Infowars.
This chart
https:/
puts the Mail in the category of "some reliability issues and/or extremism"
You saw what the other media bias sites said of the Mail above.
If yu want neutral reporting, all of thse media bias sites suggest Reuters, Associated Press, BBC, Bloomberg.
There are others, but these are consistently rated as unbiassed.
But I'll be straight. I think the Mail is heavily biassed. Maybe not as much as Breitbart or Infowars.
This chart
https:/
puts the Mail in the category of "some reliability issues and/or extremism"
You saw what the other media bias sites said of the Mail above.
If yu want neutral reporting, all of thse media bias sites suggest Reuters, Associated Press, BBC, Bloomberg.
There are others, but these are consistently rated as unbiassed.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.