Pretty sure the Shorenstein Center (or any academic institution that study media) does it (statistical analysis and such.) You decide if that’s divine or extra-terrestrial. Besides -
your statement reads as a fact, when it’s rather a subjective opinion.
I googled it. So here’s one example:
Mine is NPR.
What’s hilarious to me is that Wall Street Journal is given good unbiased scores, nearly on par with NPR. Which is fucking precious.
They are very ideologically biased, but their bias isn’t partisan, in the way that Fox is. Not directly at least. They are, I would say, about as ideological as Vox. And this is the perspective of someone who does regularly read their coverage.
Two years ago I would have rated them about the same as National Review in terms of accuracy and bias. Which is to say conservatively biased, but generally worthwhile considering and engaging with their arguments. WSJ maintained the general quality, while NR has gone a bit schizophrenic.
WSJ has generally not been buying the tariff nonsense, for one. Though I haven’t checked their coverage of the latest. But as far as conservative aligned sources go, they have been more willing to criticize the economic policies of Dear Leader than others.
For me NPR and BBC.
Mine is Quarter To Three Political forums reposted Tweets.
That’s somewhat my point this measurement pretty much by definition is subjective. We are more or less a 50/50 nation R & D, liberals and conservatives. Harvard, and the Shorenstein Center isn’t.
While I suppose it is theoretically possible to measure accuracy in the media, I think it is exceeding difficult and nobody does a good job.
For instance take these headlines
Fox news: Terrorist bombing, kills 20, scores injuried, near Paris
CNN: Bomb, kills 10, wounds dozens in France
How would the Shorenstein center or any “accuracy in the media” organization evaluate these stories?
As far as measuring bias, I think that’s completely subjective. The example you gave counting the number of references to think tanks, is a near useless measurement. A fairly typical PBS Newshour starts this way “to discuss further we have a Joe, former diplomat for the country, he is currently a professor at Stanford’s Hoover Institute, Sue a fellow, at the AEI, a conservative think tank, and Bill, from the Brooking Institute.” Now one of my few bias complaints about the Newshour is they routinely label conservative organizations but almost never do the same with liberal institutions. How would that study label Joe, liberal cause he is at Stanford, conservative cause is from Hoover? In fact 9 times out 10, as a former diplomat, Joe will explain the situation in a non-partisan way. (And then criticize, Trump’s latest action there because he is Stanford/Hoover professor and not an idiot. :-) )
TL:DR Experts have their place in many things, but in evaluating media, I’m going to place more faith in polling than academic studies.
The Onion presents everything you need to know to work for a major media outlet:
I especially liked these:
Give your political opponents the benefit of the doubt by letting this play out for 20 years and seeing if it gets any better on its own.
Realize that every pressing social issue is solved through civil discourse if you ignore virtually all of human history.
Omg hang on. We’re just going to blow past the fact that there is a place called “Goochland”?
I deleted my initial reply, mostly because I’m not quite sure how to respond (and, probably, not responding is the correct response.) I guess I just don’t know quite how to parse, “I don’t trust academia studies on media accuracy and fairness because it’s subjective, but I do trust subjective opinion polls.” On the surface, it appears you trust the latter because it squares with your own perceptions. OTOH, ‘wisdom of the crowds’ can be freakily accurate, and I suspect that chart might end up being generally accurate.
But, the issue that struck me is that any source deemed to be bias is also on the inaccurate side of the scale. That’s not just true; the Economist, for example, is biased, but I don’t think anyone would label them inaccurate. Mother Jones is also obviously biased, but because it’s on the left, it’s just assumed they are inaccurate - but they’ve won investigative journalist awards, so I tend to give them the benefit of the doubt (Think Progress, unfortunately, often exaggerates scientific findings, making them a poor choice to cite at least so far as climate change is concerned; but I trust Dave Roberts at Vox and his reporting on climate change- he offers opinions and frames his pieces based on his own bias, but that bias is always supported with ample evidence.)
At any rate, it’s fairly trivial these days to cross reference stories to find corroborating pieces. Nor does that require aliens or a divinity.
It’s past time to boycott CNN until they stop allowing fuckwits like this on the air.
Yeah, I mean… why would you even put him on at this point?
Tom Arnold overslept.
controversy = good ratings?
no such thing as bad press?
To illustrate how terrible he is?
Maybe they could draw little cartoon devil horns and goatee over his face during the interview, then?
I mean, I’m not really sure he could have come off looking much worse.
Lol you’re sharing the link and wondering why they put him on. CNN doesn’t care whether you’re sharing because you agree or because you’re outraged.
They are not liberal allies. They’re a business.
This. Outrage is the new sex. Outrage sells.
Alexandra Petri, inspired by her paper’s editorial board, gives helpful etiquette pointers for the Trump era.
