It's meaningless if it doesn't take into account the level of seriousness. OAN is a propaganda outlet... they're literally InfoWars. The Federalist went from anti-Trump in 2016 to complete Trump flaks. They don't do real analysis anymore. National Review has been around for decades and presents a serious conservative perspective.

The Dispatch is included in lean-right with a bunch of outlets who perform Trump fan-service all the time. And then we go to the far-left and see reasonable outlets conflated with the most radical.

It's just a bad list. Newcomers to politics would be harmed if they took it seriously.



In what way? The rankings top to bottom make no sense.

Is the NYT not further left than the Atlantic? Isn't the New York Post / Federalist further right than the BBC and RCP?

The list isn't trying to measure writing quality or prestige, it's a reflection of where on the political spectrum each institution is coming from.

Guys, just use mediabiasfactcheck.com that I linked last page, it's much better. They give a left-right rating for each newspaper and channel on a continuous scale, and also include a five-tiered rating on the seriousness/reliability of the corresponding outlet.

>”WAAAAAHHHHH quarantine or people will die”
>”NOOOOOO” not in the White House

If you don't want to introduce another axis into it, there should be far-right and far-left. Any universe where National Review gets lumped in with OAN is crazy. And there's a substantial difference between outlets who simply act as propaganda outlets for those in charge and ones who have core beliefs they express.

There's outlets on the far ends of both these spectrums I read. I'd recommend them to others. And there's many I would recommend nobody ever read.

Instead of creating several layers of right and left they compressed that. Not sure why you're throwing a temper tantrum. Doesn't matter which tool you use, the conclusions the same. CNN is biased and honestly not really different from Fox. Accept facts for once.

I should've known that introducing nuance into a discussion would confuse you. Carry on. CNN bad.

Wouldn't really call what you're doing nuance, more like splitting hairs and having a wooden understanding of something that's really difficult to measure.

Qualitative comparisons are exceedingly difficult. Qualitative comparisons when you create tons of layers of complexity make it impossible to measure. You're basically using the eye test from a small sample size of whatever publication that you've been exposed to and think your subjective eye test measurement is right instead of taking the word of professionals that have built some sort of actual model and have thousands of reviewers reinforcing their model. Really unscientific and unannounced way to look at things but that's become standard for you.

Once again, check out this site:
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/cnn/
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/fox-news/

It's really good, and rates outlets on a continuous scale. And yes, they find CNN and Fox to have a comparable degree of bias too.

It was a lossy compression