For Those Of You Who Post "The Hill" Articles

[gab13by13]

I throw shade at "The Hill" all of the time here. The right wing rag that John Solomon used to work for.

Well, on my home page I saw an article from yesterday from The Hill that suggested that President Biden may be in jail before Donald Trump because of his shady dealings with Hunter. I just skimmed the article, and I never click on "The Hill"" links when they are cited here.

Just my opinion, I could be wrong.

I am not as familiar with Business Insider, but it seems to push Magat talking points also.

[Walleye]

1. Shady dealings with Hunter? Not sure what crime that is

It’s funny they keep beating on this Hunter story because they got nothing else. And they haven’t even got that

[mopinko]

2. against tos.

[gab13by13]

3. I'm just anti-"The Hill."

that is my point. It gets cited here a lot.

[brooklynite]

4. I find people point to the "anti-Democratic" articles, and conveniently ignore the "anti-Republican"

It's a blog about politics (especially Congressional) for political professional and politics fans. Ordinary voters don't know it exists so I've never been clear what the purpose of the presumed bias is.

[ratchiweenie]

11. Same here. I find just as many anti-right articles as anti-left and their writers are quite good.

[allegorical oracle]

5. I post (or not) using those sources with your POV in mind because I agree with you. I read

the article, then I research the points made to verify them. And there's that old bromide about a "stopped watch being right twice a day."

Every so often even right-wing rags make a valid point...or at least make a point that we can all enjoy batting back and forth for discussion's sake.

[quaint]

6. Don't read their opinions.

Although there is one supporting Hunter.

[Ocelot II]

7. Media bias rating calls it center, leaning a bit left.

"...participants who rated themselves as Lean Right and Right thought The Hill's content is Lean Left, but not by much. Those who self-identified as being in the Center perceived The Hill's content as being on the border line of Center and Lean Left. Those who describe themselves as Left see The Hill's content as Center; those who describe themselves as Lean Left see the content as between Lean Left and Center.

The overall average response of all groups indicates The Hill's content is on the border line between Lean Left and Center. After assessing the results of this survey, AllSides determined Center remains the best bias rating for The Hill.

AllSides found The Hill published editorials that have a strong left bias or a right bias, therefore making for a balanced editorial page."

https://www.allsides.com/news-source/hill-media-bias

Maybe you should read it more often. I've never noticed a strong consistent bias one way or the other.

[intheflow]

12. This website from the leaders in media bias after the 2016 election has a gallery

of screenshots of media biases shifting around since then. In their first chart, The Hill was center, skewing right. It’s moved steadily left since 2016, to where it is now.

Link to the gallery: https://adfontesmedia.com/gallery/
Link to Ad Fontes Media’s Founder & CEO Vanessa Otero bio: https://adfontesmedia.com/team/

I was in library school when this chart first emerged in late 2016. Of course, media bias is one of THE issues for librarians so it’s become my go-to to check sources. Not that Trumpers believe any of the “leftist propaganda” (i.e. reality) I present them, but it’s great to show the sane patrons sincerely looking for information.

[librechik]

8. The Hill used to be a good source. It is totally whack nowadays

They just seem like a propaganda outlet. And BTW they are one of the very few media outlets that talk about UFOs. That very much annoys me.

[yardwork]

9. They have a lot of nerve yapping about Hunter while ignoring Jarvanka.

[Snooper9]

10. Their YouTube channel is even worse

nt