"Trump Money"

There's a link to the original WSJ article in the Vox link Originally Posted by Dev Null

I think The Federalist sums up VOX nicely:
"Vox will explain the purity of liberal positions to liberal readers"


Apparently, it's important for them to 'self-validate' themselves often and with both hands...

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-federalist/

"Overall, we rate The Federalist a borderline Questionable and far Right Biased based on story selection and editorial positions that always favor the right. We also rate them Mixed for factual reporting due to the promotion pseudoscience and three failed fact checks."

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/vox/

"Overall, we rate Vox Left Biased due to wording and story selection that routinely favors the left. We also rate them Mostly Factual in reporting, rather than High, due to two failed fact checks, with only one offering a correction."

mediabiasfactcheck Originally Posted by Dev Null

Might ought to look up:Media Bias Fact Check: Incompetent or Dishonest?


But then, one might also ponder:Odd, isn't it, that the sites they rate highest are owned mainly by the 6 corporations that own ~90% of the media outlets, while the ones they rate lowest are not.
Pravda much?

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/just-facts-daily/

In summary, this is a factual website from a sourcing standpoint and impressively researched. It does however convey a right leaning bias through story selection that is more favorable toward conservative causes and more negative toward liberal policy.

Just Facts Daily (JFD) is a news, opinion and fact checking website with a right-center bias in reporting. JFD’s tagline is “Be Informed, Not Just Opinionated.” This website is certainly informative, but it also appears to be quite opinionated.

First, lets look at factual reporting. We could not find any evidence of JFD making certified false claims. Each article is also impeccably sourced to credible information to convey their narrative. Therefore, we rate them high for factual reporting. The right-center bias designation comes from multiple factors. First, there is excessive use of loaded emotional words in the headlines. The following loaded words (words that attempt to influence through positive or negative emotion) were found in the first 15 headlines: Incompetent, Dishonest, Catastrophically, Deceitful, Brazen Lie, Smearing, Deadly Falsehoods. Most of these words appeared in headlines when the topic was about liberal politicians or liberal policy. Further, the headlines that described conservative policy did not contain these negative connotations. They were mostly neutral in wording.

http://libraryguides.library.clark.e...dia-bias-chart

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/ho...art-2018-02-28



There are a number of charts like this if you search "media bias ratings". They're pretty similar, unless you count the one that Alex Jones posted on Infowars:



You can choose for yourself, but considering that Alex Jones is in deep shit for publishing the falsehood that Sandy Hook was a hoax, the choice is pretty obvious.

https://apnews.com/f07ede9177eaa45b1792a5559c9c2593

Corporations are not inherently evil, or even suspect. Would you buy a car or fly in an airplane that wasn't made by a big corporation?

Well, maybe you'd want to think twice about Boeing and Volkswagen, but we can thank the corporate news media for breaking those stories. They have the resources to hire the best talent and offer the best benefits, and in a world where the decline of print media has changed the landscape of media ownership and forced many family-owned media sources to be assimilated. I'm not saying that's inherently good or bad, but it's just the way it is these days.

Conservatives rely on corporate news media, too. Fox? Corporation. Your local talk radio? Probably owned by iHeartMedia, formerly Clear Channel Communications, a major conglomerate that has a history of censorship and using paid actors posing as callers:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IHeartMedia#Censorship

They're pretty similar, unless you count the one that Alex Jones posted on Infowars:


Originally Posted by Dev Null

The X axis seems to be perfectly accurate and clear. Ima go with that one.
Besides, who says journalism can't be a contact sport?!?

The X axis seems to be perfectly accurate and clear. Ima go with that one. Originally Posted by Why_Yes_I_Do

The x-axis would be a little more accurate if it weren't mislabeled. Substitute "Fact-based" for "Tyranny" and "Bat Shit Crazy" for "Freedom" and it might be somewhat useful.

Didn't get a recent one, but from 2009, closer to the period when Newt pushed to cut the funding, this was the breakdown.

Don't seem state run to me. Maybe that is what certain politically leaning people think is tyranny.

"Fact-based" for "Tyranny" Originally Posted by Dev Null

I recollect that CNN is paying Mr. Sandman somewhere around $35M for there fact based reporting. To be fair, they were somewhat smart to be the first to settle. I don't recall anyone claiming stories on Zero Hedge or Brietbart are false.

I recollect that CNN is paying Mr. Sandman somewhere around $35M for there fact based reporting. To be fair, they were somewhat smart to be the first to settle. I don't recall anyone claiming stories on Zero Hedge or Brietbart are false. Originally Posted by Why_Yes_I_Do

In that case, you must have been on his legal team, since the terms of the settlement weren't disclosed:

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/cn...on-settlement/

As far as the two sources you mention, Zero Hedge's fact reporting is rated as Mixed for publishing conspiracy theories and pseudoscience:

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/zero-hedge/

The website is registered in Bulgaria under the name Georgi Georgiev, a business partner of Krassimir Ivandjiiski.

Zero Hedge’s content has been classified as “alt-right” and has been criticized for presenting conspiracy theories.

In review, Zero Hedge publishes pro-right wing/Trump articles such as Pat Buchanan: “Trump Calls Off Cold War II.” As well as fake news stories regarding liberals: Anti-Trump Protesters Bused Into Austin, Chicago.

Editorial content is written under the pseudonym Tyler Durden and usually focuses on conspiracies related to economic collapse. Zero Hedge sources to factually mixed think tanks such as the The Mises Institute, which promotes Austrian (Anarcho-Capitalism) economics.

A factual search reveals a terrible track record with IFCN fact checkers. There are too many failed checks to list here.

For its part, Breitbart rates Questionable due to conspiracy theories and numerous failed fact checks:

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/breitbart/

A factual search reveals numerous failed fact checks by IFCN Fact Checkers. Here are just a few of many as an example:

Breitbart Duped by Fake News (Again) (False)
Following Joe Kennedy’s speech, Breitbart says Fall River, Mass. not built by immigrants (False)
Breitbart gets the wrong Loretta Lynch in Whitewater claim (Pants on Fire)
Did Planned Parenthood ‘Team Up’ With Satanists to Promote Abortion Rights in Missouri? (False)
Trump’s ISIS Conspiracy Theory (False)
Breitbart article baselessly claims a study of past climate invalidates human-caused climate change (False)

Overall, we rate Breitbart Questionable based on extreme right wing bias, publication of conspiracy theories and propaganda as well as numerous false claims.

Don't seem state run to me. Originally Posted by Precious_b

Approx 6% directly from the gubmint huh?At what level of government sponsorship to a media outlet to you get uncomfortable? But then, you probably also think airplane seats are comfortable.

Approx 6% directly from the gubmint huh?At what level of government sponsorship to a media outlet to you get uncomfortable? But then, you probably also think airplane seats are comfortable. Originally Posted by Why_Yes_I_Do

Yes I do. First Class and business class seating is over 6% of flight volume.

I guess you gotta thank Fearless Leader for the country supporting PBS and NPR. Goes counter to what you posted if you believe the masses.

Yes I do. . Originally Posted by Precious_b

Originally Posted by Why_Yes_I_Do
Approx 6% directly from the gubmint huh?At what level of government sponsorship to a media outlet to you get uncomfortable?


Notwithstanding the concept that most of the other donations are tax deductible, thus the people, via government, are tossing $$ into PBS coffers, albeit without direct consent:

At what level of government sponsorship to a media outlet do you get uncomfortable?