Your bias is showing

[someoneyouknow]

It should be obvious to anyone who is not an uneducated, but those who rely on "news" sources such as the comedian Rush Limbaugh, the white supremacist site Breitbart, and the Fox tabloid, rank at the very top of the most bias news consumers.

No, really. People who identified those were their "news" sources were far more biased than any other group. Oddly, those who use PBS, the Wall Street Journal, the Economist and yes, CNN, were the least biased.

When we say biased in this context, it is meant biased rating of a news event dependent upon who was reporting. To conduct the study, Knight-Gallup created a platform that pulled news articles from several diverse sources and invited a random group of 3,081 Americans to rate each piece on its trustworthiness. The catch is that only half were allowed to see the source of the news, while the other half weren’t.

The results showed that the blind sample was far more trusting of the news content. Specifically, Republicans who read media perceived as left-leaning without knowing the source rated it as more trustworthy than the group that knew the publisher.

Rothwell explains that the “the bias consumers bring with them distorts their rating of news content“ and that “those who are most distrustful of the news media tend to be the most biased readers.”

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/fans-of-rush-limbaugh-top-this-list-of-the-most-biased-news-consumers-2018-09-27

 

[magicalmoments]

All well and good but my own personal experiences from many interactions with the media over my working life have taught me to to take any news story, print or tv, with a grain of salt. They will always omit facts when those facts don't fit their own agenda and their agenda is usually around what sells, not what the facts are.

 

[someoneyouknow]

All well and good but my own personal experiences from many interactions with the media over my working life have taught me to to take any news story, print or tv, with a grain of salt. They will always omit facts when those facts don't fit their own agenda and their agenda is usually around what sells, not what the facts are.

You, like so many others, miss the point. You're saying this because when you read something, you know the source. As the article outlined, when Republicans who whine about the "liberal" press read stories without knowing the source, they had no problem with it. It was only when they knew the source that suddenly there was bias.

This could be demonstrated time and again by doing the same study on the street. Take a story from the "failing" New York Times*, present it to people and ask them their opinion of the article as far as how much they trust the story. I would guarantee those who are spoonfed by the Fox tabloid and Rush would hate the article and claim it's biased, yet if those same people weren't told it was from the Times, they would more than likely say the article was good.

* This is the same "failing" Times which the con artist says repeatedly lies and is "fake", yet when the Times put out an article about Rosenstein supposedly contemplating wearing a wire, suddenly it's a credible story which needs to be looked into.

Bias. It's a thing.

 

[oggbashan]

Many years ago, as part of an evening class discussing Popular Culture, the class members were asked to collect and analyse news reports on a specified day.

Between us, we watched all main TV news programmes, listened to Radio News, and bought every newspaper for that day.

Our conclusions:

The TV and Radio News covered the fewest stories and were the most biased in their selection and presentation.

Even the newspapers we had considered in advance to be the most skewed in their coverage reported the basic facts reasonably accurately. What was biased was the editorial or comment on those facts. The difference between the so-called quality papers and the popular 'rabble-rousing' ones was in the commentary, not the facts.

Of course what each paper considered newsworthy had differed. Some had far more on soap characters, famous personalities and scandal-raking, but all had serious news that went beyond the UK. Even the most lurid newspaper had four times as many serious news items than any TV channel.

We had to discount one 'newspaper' which featured many pages of tits and bums but even that one had three more news items than a TV news hour.

I think it's not what you read, but how critically you read it. If you only watch TV news you are more likely to get a selective and biased view compared with almost any newspaper.

 

[Kirkrapine]

All well and good but my own personal experiences from many interactions with the media over my working life have taught me to to take any news story, print or tv, with a grain of salt. They will always omit facts when those facts don't fit their own agenda and their agenda is usually around what sells, not what the facts are.

Reporting things based on what sells is the vice of the mainstream press; this thread is about those other outlets that also base it on political bias -- and their fans.