This one is interactive. I didn't play with it too much, but it does have the ability to filter and find a specific source without searching through the whole chart. https://www.adfontesmedia.com/inter...oa1qK5F4C1iXEmx4s2_X3eoHTd0XuuF3-mcWdAR3k2wDU
Paging @oldfella1962. Will @oldfella1962 please report to the front desk? @Jenee, you may have to walk him through it. It's way too un-binary for him to follow.
Hahaha... no, really, not funny. It comes from the fact that your cohort claims climate change is "a hoax."
How do they measure what's left and right.. The Economist is neoliberal (low taxes, free trade, less regulations), supports gay marriage/abortion,.. and advocates for gun control. Is that left or right? I am also surprised how left they put The Atlantic. I am a subscriber to Atlantic and I would say it's neither left nor right. The magazine has been very anti-trump but not due to Trump's political leanings but due to Trump's lack of character/control/judgment/moral fiber, his inability to communicate carefully, deliberately and in a non-insulting manner, his unwillingness to listen to anyone other than himself, his lack of understanding on myriads of complex social, political, economic and international issues, his treatment of the office of the presidency as a conduit to enrich himself and his family, his violation of time honored democratic traditions,...., so many other reasons. None of it has to do with political bias.
Combine all these points and we find this organization measures "bias" purely in tribalistic terms, not in policy preferences or ideology. It's shallow and has the effect of moving centrist sources further to the left than they should be, and legitimizing the herp-derp Trumpist/Q-tard right as centrist. They didn't always do it that way. Previous versions of this chart had sources like The Economist, AP, and Reuters dead center.
The very first thing you see when you enter the site is a big button to click that says "Read about how we generate the data for the Interactive Media Bias Chart"
Isn't their latest headline literally THE NUCLEAR FAMILY WAS A MISTAKE? I'm sure there's some interesting content behind that, but wow . . .
David Brooks is an old school Republican from the 70s or 80s. Not the current conspiracy loving drones. It’s an interesting piece. Basically saying the nuclear family of two parents and 2.5 kids works fine if you’re rich and/or the wife stays home but it doesn’t work for the vast majority of society. In some ways he is saying the more collectivist society we had up until WWII was preferable to the individualist one we have now.
yes collectiveness as in an extended family of grandparents, aunts, uncles, cousins, etc. nearby and involved. They still have a lot of that in Italy and it's great. Collectiveness as in let the streets or the government raise your kids? Not so great.
Seeing how the right wing tries to indoctrinate children into Qspiracy racism and religion through family bullying and cult mind control I am good with a requirement for kids to actually be exposed to people outside of their family bubble. As the right wing becomes more and more cultish in their desire to make compounds and safe bubbles where things like liberalism and ethics are cancelled, along with how they have covered for child molesters because they are high up in church power structures, I think we need the community to have some access to evaluate those children and to make sure they are provided with some facts beyond jesus did it. That is not to mention important health things like vaccinations and healthcare which some right wing cults reject entirely.
So what percentage of the right wing indoctrinates their children into "Qspiracy racism/cult mind control" etc? I would venture that the percentage is well under single digits. Prove me wrong if you have any data proving otherwise. How many right wing/conservatives cover for child molesters? 100 percent of the conservatives I know would agree that child molesters should leave the courtroom in a body bag or a wood chipper. Every conservative I know vaccinates their kids because they attend public school which requires vaccinations here in Georgia. Many (not all, maybe not even a majority) conservatives I know don't believe in god and if they do, they do not attend church regularly. I'm not doubting conservatives as you described them exist and are fucking up their kids with their extreme or criminal beliefs, but it's a very small percentage. If you have hard data to back it up that would be helpful, but if you don't it's just another opinion.
In rural GA? I think we just had an election that showed how many people believe in that. Considering the reality that the blue areas were concentrated around the high desnsity population of the cities. I can assure you that the population that believes in all that bullshit is much higher than just double digits. You do understand the rest of us have seen your bullshit and know you people are faking and have been hiding your racism forever.
Politico (mild left bias, but in the "most reliable" area of the chart) took a deep dive into a day of OAN output, just to demonstrate what OAN's propaganda looks like: https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2021/02/07/oan-trump-network-11-hours-466134
Again you have no data to support your claims. Now here is a claim I can't support with data but boots-on-the-ground experience weighs heavily in favor of it's validity: I personally know and interact with way, way more conservatives than you do. And voting is very much binary - blue or red. A lot of people vote red because they don't want blue, and vice-versa. These voters very likely do not believe in or support every single issue of their candidate or their party, but they only have two choices. Thus a red voter might believe in all the crazy shit you mentioned, but that doesn't mean that another red voter does. Granted if you want to broad brush and stereotype (you are very prone to that) then you could lump all red voters in the racist/crazy category and not have to actually engage your brain into doing further research. I'm not going to change your mind - your beliefs are your beliefs even if they aren't accurate.
Same article also points out the use of the "Orange Man Bad" meme, just in case you had any doubt left about OF's ability to form independent thoughts.
"X-Y-Z good/bad" seems prevalent enough that I think that might be a null data point. I wonder if we had a version for Obama?
I'm currently in Wisconsin. I've lived in Michigan, West Virginia, Georgia, and Texas. I have family in Kansas and Arkansas. I know many people who identify as conservative and in casual conversation state the same right wing talking points one hears on the news. However, when the conversation goes to more than casual conversation, when I present my side, and convey my reasoning and can show why I think that way, those "conservatives" tend to agree with my liberal ideas. But, and here's where things fall apart, if someone isn't willing to read or invest their own time into finding out the truth, they are easily swayed. I can convince someone of my side, but then the next conservative speaks to that person and convinces them of the other side. So, unless you wish to be known as a doorknob (someone easily turned), you might wish to start reading even if they are only on the right side of the chart, but I suggest you look at the media toward the top of the chart.
