Skeptical about these Mediaite-reported bias/accuracy ratings for cable news shows

[Silent3]

I want to resist being a knee-jerk supporter for "my team" in matters like this, and accept the possibility that some news sources I like possibly aren't being as accurate or honest as I'd hope.

But this still seems way off to me:

https://www.mediaite.com/news/cable-news-shows-and-networks-ranked-for-bias-and-accuracy/



I don't disagree that a lot of MSNBC content comes from an unabashedly liberal perspective.

But I don't agree at all with this rating of the accuracy of various MSNBC shows along side anything from Fox. Even what you might call "opinion" from someone like Rachel Maddow is solid, thoughtful, fact-based opinion. On the other hand, we have clear court records detailing Fox knowingly lying to their viewers.

Ad Fontes founder Vanessa Otero explained her methodology in a recent op-ed, writing, “all our articles and episodes have been rated by three-person (left-right-center) panels of Ad Fontes-trained analysts. We currently have over 60 analysts on staff who have collectively manually rated over 60,000 pieces of news and informational content.” Otero acknowledged that both she and her analysts have an inherent bias and that they actively work to “mitigate” those by “using repeatable standards and metrics and allowing accountability by having others observe” their process.

I really don't trust, regardless of any supposed training methods applied, you can have a right-wing panel member fairly judge the accuracy and reliability of fact-based news reporting. Retaining one's status these days as a representative of the American right practically requires outright rejection of reality, on issues ranging from climate change to who won the 2020 presidential election.

I frankly don't much trust the ratings dispensed by anyone who calls themselves "independent" these days either. Trying to straddle some imagined middle ground between Democrats, for all of their flaws, and a conspiracy-addled Republican party proudly marching into fascist authoritarianism, doesn't strike me as great credentials for dispensing fair-minded assessments of accuracy either.

[WarGamer]

1. If you've only been a consumer of Left leaning news...

Then to you it's mainstream. The graph you've attached shows a SPECTRUM of news shows, rated as to accuracy and other characteristics. Make NOTE that precious few shows fall in the middle and most are on the edges of the graph.

Just a note. NO show on the Left is as loony as Alex Jones, Thank God.

And FWIW, lots of "Liberal" Newsertainment is full of Liberal catnip to get the audience worked up... just like the RWNJ shows.

Reuters and AlJazeera are prime examples of bias-free news sources.

[Silent3]

2. Bias and accuracy aren't totally the same thing, however.

What I have hard time accepting is that, say, Rachel Maddow is no more or less factual in her coverage of the news than, say, Neil Cavuto (who does have a smidgeon more honesty than your average Fox anchor, but that's not saying a lot).

[WarGamer]

4. Agreed. One can be factual and fully biased.

BIAS is the spin one puts on the news and ACCURACY is black/white, right or wrong.

Easy to fact check facts... harder to point to BIAS.

[genxlib]

3. It has one major flaw

It depends on how you define what the middle is.

The nature of political science is to see all two party systems as balanced with a fulcrum point at some mythical center point.

The nature of physics is moving one side of the scale outward moves the balance point in that direction.

[WarGamer]

6. You'd be right... IF

If the graph didn't have a scale on the LEFT.

The TOP scale could be skewed right or left with the farthest LEFT actually being the center.

But the Left axis, asking a look at accuracy and BIAS confirms the creators findings.

[hlthe2b]

5. I don't have time to go to the link to see if they actually delineate methodology, but

what is excerpted seems incredibly subjective. Having an N=3 panel hardly makes it dramatically less so. I'd certainly be interested to know if they evaluated so-called "error-correction" given all outlets and shows will occasionally put out an erroneous report, but how often and how quickly (and fully) they correct the information ought to be a key piece of the "reliability" assessment.

If there actually is more to it, perhaps I'd reconsider, but I would guess that all blends of reporting and commentary are going to come off as variable in reliability as seemingly shown here. But given how much more highly rated is CNN (in general), I wonder... And Meet the Press with Chuck Todd has certainly not been "liberally biased"-- from what I've seen-- in years. Perhaps on occasion.