Are we even aware of our biases anymore?

If you look at this chart and are convinced your “extreme” source belongs in the middle, you just might be part of the problem plaguing America today.

“In the past, national evening news programs, local evening news programs, and the front pages of print newspapers were dominated by fact-reporting stories,” says the chart’s creator, patent attorney Vanessa Otero. “Now, however, many sources people consider to be ‘news sources’ are actually dominated by analysis and opinion pieces.”

She released the first version of the chart back in 2016, and she’s updated it several times since. Over the past year, it’s gone viral, with thousands of educators at both the high school and college levels using the compelling visual. She says she’s “shocked” by all the attention it’s received and still gets requests every day.

Otero also talked about why such bias is so troubling.

“I think the extremes are very toxic and damaging to the country,” she explained to MarketWatch. “These extreme sources play on people’s worst instincts, like fear and tribalism, and take advantage of people’s confirmation biases.”

And with that, let the backlash over the latest version begin.

Obviously, to many conservatives, Fox News, home to the guy Carter Page describes as this generation’s “Edward R. Murrow,” has no business on the fringe. And the fact that CNN’s bordering the neutral zone is sure to rankle Trump fans.

Then there’s Infowars, which Otero deems “nonsense damaging to public discourse.” Infowars, after the chart first surfaced, responded with one of its own:

Infowars, run by Alex Jones, wrote that the chart is an example of the “dying dinosaur media’s extreme liberal bias” and that it unfairly “demonizes” independent media. Here’s just one example of how Infowars shows off its independence:

“If you have just a couple sources that you think are in the middle but none exist either to the right or left of them, or up or down from them, you may be on the wrong track,” Otero said, adding that MarketWatch will make the next update.

But where?

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/how-biased-is-your-news-source-you-probably-wont-agree-with-this-chart-2018-02-28

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3912323&forum_id=2#35554904)

Do you know words have actual meanings?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3912323&forum_id=2#35555054)

While CNN is listed as perfectly safe, and only slightly left of center.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3912323&forum_id=2#35554998)

My point stands. The leftist websites listed are FAR left.

Fox News isn’t remotely close to the FAR right, yet it’s pegged just a shade before there. Complete garbage chart.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3912323&forum_id=2#35556040)

But, okay, maybe putting it on the border of the fringe block MIGHT just MIGHT be a little unfair. But they do pull a lot of bullshit, I have to say. More bullshit than CNN by far.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3912323&forum_id=2#35556041)

most recently gained attention on xo for an intellectually dishonest hatchet job on jordan peterson

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3912323&forum_id=2#35555484)

Frequently, the (((mass media))) distorts events or blows them out of proportion to make Trump look bad. Such as by obsessively focusing on some offhand remark Trump makes while ignoring 99% of what else he said.

And when he’s responsible for good things, either directly or indirectly (such as crippling ISIS), they give it absolutely no coverage.

They could be 100% accurate when “reporting” in this manner, but still misleading their audience due to their extremely anti-Trump bias.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3912323&forum_id=2#35555313)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3912323&forum_id=2#35556333)

new york post can also go into that corner, maybe just slightly above it.

reason goes into a chart of its own for autistic libertarian "my body, my choice" theology

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3912323&forum_id=2#35555782)

Part of this is determining what the chart means by the "center" and the difficulty in boiling biases down to "conservative" and "liberal." The Economist and the Daily Mail do not have the same biases.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3912323&forum_id=2#35555898)

Even when they do tranny bullshit, they have people actively criticizing the tranny bullshit the tranny is pitching. They have journalistic rules they abide by. and again, most of the funding structure is set up so they come under a LOT of scrutiny, unlike, say FOX News (lol) or Breitbart or Huffington Post or some other bullshit.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3912323&forum_id=2#35555984)

Rach should create an option that prevents certain poasters from poasting in designated threads.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3912323&forum_id=2#35556053)

You’d love it if I ever was in power, while they would be beaten down. I wouldn’t halfass it either.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3912323&forum_id=2#35556081)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3912323&forum_id=2#35556137)

The Jews are right that most people are like sheep, or cattle. Many of these lib footsoldiers, like our dimwitted friend, Spaceporn, are only that way due to years/decades of liberal social conditioning and brainwashing. If they grew up without major institutions under shitlib control, they’d be completely fine.

The evil ones are the lib propagandists, the ones who create the talking points and disseminate the false narratives. Probably less than 1% of libs. Certainly, a solution would be needed for them, but not the others.

If you study how shitlibs infiltrate institutions (what your second point touches on), you can defend against it. Alinsky’s rules for radicals and XO Ted’s explanation of liberal psychology would be required reading for everyone in power. Further, I’d mandate annual testing on these works, so no one ever forgets the lessons they teach. Only people who have a demonstrated ability to understand how shitlibs operate and how their policies are inevitably destructive to their host country would be permitted to make hiring decisions, set institutional policy, etc.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3912323&forum_id=2#35556220)

Also, you should acknowledge that my attempt to deal with the problem, if I ever had power, would be preferable to where we are headed.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3912323&forum_id=2#35556290)

So you won’t understand it, and I don’t care if you click on the link or not.

I’m posting it for others, because it does the best job I’ve seen yet succinctly explaining why the left wins every prolonged battle there is.

https://bloodyshovel.wordpress.com/2017/11/14/biological-leninism/

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3912323&forum_id=2#35556246)

What does this mean in effect.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3912323&forum_id=2#35556260)

First you say there were SO MANY STHTORIES on HRC coming from NPR.

Now you say, nope same number of stories as compared w Trump, but ... uh ... its the BIASTH in those stories.

See any problem with your my or anyone else's reasoning here? Any problem at all? Any self awareness at all rattling around in there at this moment?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3912323&forum_id=2#35556299)

Yes, and NPR is correctly placed at just slightly left of center.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3912323&forum_id=2#35556513)

Right, as I said, you're asking me an impossible question with the expectation that you'll "win" the argument because you know that I can't possibly prove that. I don't want to spend the next several hundred hours of my life breaking down thousands of NPR articles from late 2015 through late 2016 and examining their biases for you. I think a much more efficient way to resolve this discussion, that doesn't involve a conversation-stopping question like "give me a statistical breakdown of thousands of NPR articles," is to just ask your friends and colleagues what their opinion is. If you really think that NPR is biased (or that NPR is just barely left-of-center), then it sounds to me like you haven't actually spoken to anyone about their own opinions of NPR's coverage.

>Otherwise, what are we doing but as I said originally seeking a retard Ohio State University consensus here or what?

I have no idea what this sentence means. Is this some kind of word salad?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3912323&forum_id=2#35556115)

The amazing thing about it is that its still got a pretty hefty portion of the viewing market.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3912323&forum_id=2#35555940)

and lol at CNN's placement in the mainstream chart

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3912323&forum_id=2#35555966)

That's the best you can come up with? Some random thing about how you really feel other than the way in which you have been poasting and which isn't particularly able to be examined one way or the other? You have GOT to be a chick, am I right?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3912323&forum_id=2#35556217)

He’s been a consistent imbecile for years. Too hard to fake.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3912323&forum_id=2#35556396)