I meant to include this link to a piece in the Columbia Review of Journalism last year that is somewhat skeptical of attempts to quantify media bias, and includes a graph that is somewhat dismissive of Otero’s scheme.
https://www.cjr.org/innovations/measure-media-bias-partisan.php On Wed, Jan 2, 2019 at 7:36 AM PGage <[email protected]> wrote: > I will let Kevin have the last word on our back and forth, as I think we > have both made our points on this, and not for the first time here, except > to post and comment on the link to Vanessa Otero’s helpful and I think now > famous chart on media bias (she is now up to version 4.0) that is fairly > ubiquitous, at least on my social media feed, periodically: > https://www.adfontesmedia.com/ > > She has two dimensions: Quality (62 to 0) and Bias (-42, Liberal to +42, > Conservative). The AP is tied for #1 place both in terms of quality (62) > and Bias (0). The AP happens to be my go to News App to check in the > morning and throughout the day on my phone - but it earns that sweet Bias > in rating in part, I think, because it is light on analysis and context. I > read most of the other news sources that cluster in her First Tier, “Green” > rectangle, that she classifies as “News”, both those that shade left and > shade right. I think that is a fair working definition of mainstream news > sites that provide reliable information. > > Her second Tier sites are what she called Fair Interpretation of News - > Yellow. This includes MSNBC and CNN (MSNBC is slightly higher in quality, > 34 vs 32, and significantly more biased, -19 vs -6). Fox News is right on > the border between the Yellow and third Tier Red zone, which she describes > as “Nonsense Damaging to Public Discourse” - FN’s numbers are 20 and +27. > > This captures pretty well my own experience with news sources. MSNBC > should not be thought of as a liberal mirror of FN - it is significantly > higher in quality and less ideologically biased. It is about equivalent on > these two dimensions with CNN, though I much prefer MSNBC to CNN for > stylistic reasons not addressed by Otero (less bombastic arguing and more > quiet conversation). > > Neither of the two better cable news outlets should be relied upon as top > tier sources of news. The three commercial networks are all in the top, > green tier, all tied with a quality rating of 57 (NBC had a very light > liberal bias score of -3, CBS a slight conservative bias score of +4, and > ABC a 0 bias score). If you are only going to consume 30 minutes of TV > News, you are better off getting your news from NBC (or CBS or ABC, not > much difference) than from MSNBC (I am not going to count anything on the > Today Show). It would be interesting if she gave scores for specific > programs on that Cable News shows - I suspect Shepherd Smith, Brian > Williams and Anderson Cooper have better ratings on both quality and bias > than the averages for their respective networks. > > As a former college professor I periodically have old students ask me for > advice on where to get their news. For casual news consumers, my response > typically is to read the AP feed and the NYT at least once a day (I > subscribe to the latter; for those who dont want to invest, I would rotate > the WaPost and LAT to rely on free access throughout the month) and then > watch NewsHour or one of the evening newscasts at least every other day > (and whenever they notice a big story in the wind). I advise against > watching any cable news for those who only consumer small to medium doses > of news, because the ratio of news to interpretation is so thin it is easy > to get an incomplete and biased sample of actual news. For those who > consumer more than moderate amounts of news though, and are looking not > just for a third and fourth version of the same information they have > already seen, but want some deeper background and context, I think the two > higher quality (or maybe, better, less lower quality) cable news outlets > are useful, and as I have aid, I prefer MSNBC. > > > > > On Tue, Jan 1, 2019 at 12:41 PM Kevin M. <[email protected]> wrote: > >> You’re correct I’m not a routine watcher anymore, I feel for good reason. >> I can only go by the stuff that goes viral... the stuff that gets >> ratings... the stuff the network itself promotes... the stuff that isn’t >> newsworthy. If there is substance to be found on the network, I have to >> assume it is tangential if not accidental to the format of loud talking >> heads. >> >> I don’t deny there is value in putting reporters on TV, but I maintain >> they aren’t being used for their expertise in the field, rather to comment >> or opine as any other man-on-the-street interview, albeit better informed >> than the average. >> >> I completely gave up on Maddow a year or so ago when she and MSNBC made a >> big deal about obtaining some of Trump’s tax records. Promoted the hell out >> of them, describing them as a bombshell. Turned out no bombs, not even >> empty shells. It was really the last time I sat and attempted to watch the >> network. They betrayed my trust as a viewer, and I don’t see them ever >> making up for that. >> >> Maybe as you suggest they are improving in news coverage, but I cannot >> reward them now for finally getting around to doing what they have failed >> to do since 9/11. News can be retrieved from more reliable sources (AP, >> Reuters, and BBC have their own respective apps) without the personality >> and ego driven fluff. There’s no reason for me to tune back to MSNBC on the >> off chance they take a break from people shouting over each other and >> actually present the facts of the day’s events. >> >> As for MSNBC being to the left what FoxNews is to the right, again I >> can’t state they still are, but I will state they have been throughout most >> of the network’s existence. Each network existed at one point merely as a >> place to villify the words and actions of a political party (I suppose >> MSNBC also had a side business entrapping sexual predators, but they >> probably ought not brag about that). Each network was focused less on the >> facts of the day and more how to spin those facts to tarnish the image of >> politicians and other public people. Their tactics surely differed, but the >> goals and motivations were essentially equal and opposite. >> >> The way you or I might perceive Tucker Carlson or Sean Hannity is exactly >> how conservatives perceive MSNBC (and CNN) hosts. And frankly there are >> valid reasons for those perceptions. The hosts and producers of shows on >> both networks have a history of coddling those whose opinions they agree >> with and going for the jugular when those they disagree with screw up. >> There are exceptions naturally, but they are rare. >> >> The last point I’ll make about the subject is this: FoxNews is not >> responsible for President Trump; MSNBC and CNN are responsible. Those two >> networks more than anybody else made Trump. And if they are changing now, >> it is only due to the massive guilt felt by the people involved. They were >> so caught up in the frenzy they created they ignored the potential >> consequences. Only now, as they see children dying in custody at our >> borders or journalists being attacked in American newsrooms, only now are >> they seeing the aftermath; if they have any humanity at all, that has to >> eat away at them. And I just can’t recommend tuning back in and giving them >> a chance to do it again. >> >> >> On Tue, Jan 1, 2019 at 1:56 PM PGage <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Three things: 1) the print journalists do not proffer their opinions, >>> they explain the details of the day’s events. They are basically beat >>> reporters, and they know the background. Often they correct or nuance the >>> opinion of the host 2) there is always details that have to be cut from the >>> word limit if a story. Often a reporter will say something like “it didn’t >>> make the story, but...” 3) in a more perfect world, TV news departments >>> would have lots of reporters on the beat, working legal, financial, >>> international, organized crime etc aspects of the story. We don’t live in >>> that more perfect world. But using beat reporters from NYT, WaPo, Axios, AP >>> etc allows MSNBC to approximate that. >>> >>> Again, I am not saying it’s perfect - it ain’t. I am saying MSNBC is the >>> best source of for-profit news and context on television, and its recent >>> ratings success is justified. Those who dismiss it as nothing but a liberal >>> version of FN propaganda or bread and circus CNN melodrama have not been >>> paying attention in recent years. >>> >>> On Tue, Jan 1, 2019 at 9:38 AM Kevin M. <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Not to scoff, but what is the merit of print journalists appearing on >>>> TV to discuss the day’s events as part of a panel of pundits? If they have >>>> facts to report that didn’t make their print deadline, there is substance >>>> there, but their opinion of facts isn’t newsworthy (at least no more or >>>> less so than all the other talking heads I try to ignore), and in most >>>> cases it isn’t even interesting. They aren’t the ones who make news, merely >>>> report it (or purport to). Proffering opinions to Rachel Maddow is the last >>>> thing a journalist ought to be doing, especially in 2019. >>>> >>>> On Tue, Jan 1, 2019 at 11:08 AM PGage <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>>> https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2018/12/31/msnbc-is-surging/ >>>>> >>>>> I know many here (e.g., Kevin) will scoff, but in the Age of Trump I >>>>> find that MSNBC has been the platform for some of the best news accessible >>>>> on television (and I get most of my news from papers and magazines). Yes, >>>>> it is still more opinion-heavy and ideologically driven than I would >>>>> prefer, but it is also where, on a daily basis, many of the top newspaper >>>>> and online journalists come to discuss stories published that day (and >>>>> often to be published the next day). Most of the time, both the hosts and >>>>> the guests are impressively knowledagble, and the guests are able and >>>>> willing to push back on any narrative the host might be trying to impose. >>>>> And, as the linked article explains, MSNBC almost never has one of the >>>>> clowns from the WH on to do their circus act, so viewers are spared both >>>>> the butt kissing from Fox, or the ritualized combat of CNN (though MSNBC >>>>> is >>>>> quite willing to show the juicier clips from CNN and Fox when warranted). >>>>> >>>>> Rachel Madow has really distinguished herself over these last two >>>>> years; she is at her best when a story is breaking just as she is coming >>>>> on >>>>> air, and she is able to think through its complexities, live, with the >>>>> viewer. She is not always right, but she is right far more than anyone has >>>>> a right to be, and she has a stable of legal, historical and policy >>>>> experts >>>>> that she brings in after her explanatory segments and invites them to >>>>> correct her. She asks the best questions in all of journalism - not of the >>>>> prosecutorial, Tim Russert, gotcha variety, but of the kind I use to love >>>>> from smart students sitting in the front row, designed to shed light on >>>>> neglected dimensions and further and deepen the conversation. I would also >>>>> highlight Brian Williams show, at 8:00 pm PT (the last three shows are >>>>> repeated out West) which is both a great recap of the days news, and often >>>>> where newspaper reporters come to discuss stories which have just been >>>>> posted online for the next day’s paper. But I also give high marks to day >>>>> time anchors like Nicole Wallace and Katy Tur (though I dont get to see >>>>> them as often). >>>>> >>>>> Part of what has enriched MSNBC during the Trump Occupation has been >>>>> its decision to open its doors to Never-Trumpers and other refugees from >>>>> the Republican Party. Not only does this add credibility, eloquence and >>>>> expertise to the overall critique of Trump (former Republican strategies >>>>> Steve Schmidt will go down as the Poet Laureate of the Trump Resistance), >>>>> but it brings a welcome balance to their overall coverage. Bill Kristol >>>>> and >>>>> Jennifer Rubin are still very conservative, and while they may be coming >>>>> to >>>>> MSNBC to bash Trump, they stay to articulate their new-con, pro-market, >>>>> anti-progressive agenda (which is fair enough). I would not be surprised >>>>> if >>>>> one of the top three phrases in any foreign policy panel on MSNBC over the >>>>> last two years is literally something like “Eight years of Obama leading >>>>> from behind was bad enough, but...”, while discussions of the health care >>>>> debate on MSNBC are often peppered with “ACA is deeply flawed, but what >>>>> Trump is doing is even worse....” I will be interested to see if these >>>>> traditional Republican voices stick around once the long Trump night is >>>>> over. >>>>> >>>>> Yes - weekends at MSNBC are a lot more reminiscent of the pre-Trump >>>>> liberal echo chamber (though it does at least provide a forum for POCs >>>>> (“Pundits of Color”) to get more attention than they otherwise would, some >>>>> of whom have important things to say. And Morning Joe is still a surreal >>>>> shit show that SNL is incapable of exaggerating. But I encourage those who >>>>> have been disdaining MSNBC based on its aroma in the post Bush v Gore era >>>>> to sample it again. It is far from perfect, but I challenge anyone to cite >>>>> a better TV source of news not PBS. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Sent from Gmail Mobile >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>>>> Groups "TVorNotTV" group. >>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send >>>>> an email to [email protected]. >>>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >>>> >>>> >>>>> -- >>>> Kevin M. (RPCV) >>>> >>>> -- >>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>>> Groups "TVorNotTV" group. >>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send >>>> an email to [email protected]. >>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >>>> >>> -- >>> Sent from Gmail Mobile >>> >>> -- >>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>> Groups "TVorNotTV" group. >>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send >>> an email to [email protected]. >>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >>> >> -- >> Kevin M. (RPCV) >> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "TVorNotTV" group. >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >> email to [email protected]. >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >> > -- > Sent from Gmail Mobile > -- Sent from Gmail Mobile -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TVorNotTV" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
