Social Candace Owens has been dropped from The Daily Wire.

[Ruprecht]

Just a bunch of babble.

Hardly. Your image is the result of "up to" 60 American analysts evaluating American media on your American political scale. That is not a global evaluation nor an objective measurement (they don't even claim as much). The political scale is relative to both the viewer and more broadly the politics of the nation.
Even so, that chart has glaring outliers. Steve Forbes is a staunch Republican whose Father created his media group to report on business interests. That has continued through changes of ownership. It's inherently a right-wing establishment. It's most recognised products are it's rankings of wealth in various categories. That is inherently right-wing. Yet your chart places them centre-left.

 

[brothir]

Even so, that chart has glaring outliers. Forbes is a staunch Republican whose Father created his media group to report on business interests.

The Holy Father himself?! Never knew that Forbes was the source of modern-day divinity. Mysterious ways indeed.

 

[Ruprecht]

The Holy Father himself?! Never knew that Forbes was the source of modern-day divinity. Mysterious ways indeed.

Not modern day. It was Steve's dad Bertie, back in 1917.

 

[brothir]

Hardly. Your image is the result of "up to" 60 American analysts evaluating American media on your American political scale. That is not a global evaluation nor an objective measurement (they don't even claim as much). The political scale is relative to both the viewer and more broadly the politics of the nation.
Even so, that chart has glaring outliers. Steve Forbes is a staunch Republican whose Father created his media group to report on business interests. That has continued through changes of ownership. It's inherently a right-wing establishment. It's most recognised products are it's rankings of wealth in various categories. That is inherently right-wing. Yet your chart places them centre-left.

Jokes aside, my problem with this is that evaluating media on a political compass needs a pretty solid methodology behind it lest it should turn into people pointing at each other claiming everyone but himself is biased. What that method would even look like escapes me, and it would be very easy to put up two axes with media companies spread across them based on nothing but intuition that gets the extremes basically right and then heavily fudges everything in between.

 

[Ruprecht]

Jokes aside, my problem with this is that evaluating media on a political compass needs a pretty solid methodology behind it lest it should turn into people pointing at each other claiming everyone but himself is biased. What that would even look like escapes me, and it would be very easy to put up two axes with media companies spread across them based on nothing but intuition that gets the extremes basically right and then heavily fudges everything in between.

For that particular chart they have a few breakdowns of various lengths on how they arrived at their views over on their website. They aren't claiming that it's a global, unbiased, empirical metric.

 

[brothir]

For that particular chart they have a few breakdowns of various lengths on how they arrived at their views over on their website. They aren't claiming that it's a global, unbiased, empirical metric.

But that's what @Madmick is saying, while simultaneously claiming that it is solid and calling your objection's "babble". That's rather brazen, and I disapprove. Of course, he in turn misinterprets my disapproval as a matter of believing Ad Fontes was too lenient on right-leaning media. Betrays a mindset that it's all mercenary work, rather than wanting correct analysis.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Betrays a mindset that it's all mercenary work, rather than wanting correct analysis.

This is a really common mistake and a huge obstacle to interesting discussions here.

 

[tastaylvr]

I don't think @tastaylvr is American.

It doesn't matter. This can be weighed on a global scale.

It's comical that you have a random chart with people scaled and plotted randomly without any basis in reality then go "wow media is left leaning" even when the chart shows otherwise.

The discussion was about him saying that the "mainstream" media is against conservatives when that can't be further from the truth. If anything that chart proves me correct since that chart shows zero bias anyways..

The person I was talking to like most conservatives cry about shit that have no basis in reality. They think the world is out to against them and they cry about it 24/7. They have literally become the blue haired snowflakes they always cried about.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Hardly. Your image is the result of "up to" 60 American analysts evaluating American media on your American political scale. That is not a global evaluation nor an objective measurement (they don't even claim as much). The political scale is relative to both the viewer and more broadly the politics of the nation.
Even so, that chart has glaring outliers. Steve Forbes is a staunch Republican whose Father created his media group to report on business interests. That has continued through changes of ownership. It's inherently a right-wing establishment. It's most recognised products are it's rankings of wealth in various categories. That is inherently right-wing. Yet your chart places them centre-left.

Another issue is that the scale itself doesn't even make sense. Partisanship is an alternative to ideology, though it often follows a parallel track. It's usually identified by deviation from ideology.

 

[Madmick]

Hardly. Your image is the result of "up to" 60 American analysts evaluating American media on your American political scale. That is not a global evaluation nor an objective measurement (they don't even claim as much). The political scale is relative to both the viewer and more broadly the politics of the nation.
Even so, that chart has glaring outliers. Steve Forbes is a staunch Republican whose Father created his media group to report on business interests. That has continued through changes of ownership. It's inherently a right-wing establishment. It's most recognised products are it's rankings of wealth in various categories. That is inherently right-wing. Yet your chart places them centre-left.

Is it not ironic that your gripe about Forbes can be dismissed with your own argument? First, there's nothing "inherent" as a matter of partisan politics to a business news magazine, that was never the magazine's mission, but even if there was, what would have been "inherent" at the time would have shifted according to the shift in the partisan spectrum itself over time even within a specific country. It has been judged based on its contents, presently.

See, Rup, that's the thing about relativist postmodernist logic. It isn't logical at all. There is never sure footing beneath you.

 

[Madmick]

It's comical that you have a random chart with people scaled and plotted randomly without any basis in reality then go "wow media is left leaning" even when the chart shows otherwise.

The discussion was about him saying that the "mainstream" media is against conservatives when that can't be further from the truth. If anything that chart proves me correct since that chart shows zero bias anyways..

The person I was talking to like most conservatives cry about shit that have no basis in reality. They think the world is out to against them and they cry about it 24/7. They have literally become the blue haired snowflakes they always cried about.

No basis in reality? The very notion of a political spectrum is rooted in belief. One may assign those who judge the partisan drift of an article a political character according to questionnaires about policies or politicians or self-identification, but how do you score those? Perhaps the most objective methodology would be to then correlate their answers with official party platforms or the voting records of politicians (which are then weighted by their party). Of course, these methodologies only work on a left-right linear spectrum when there is a binary political platform, and most of the world doesn't have that.

But, no matter how you slice it, ultimately, it's all belief.

So show me your Australian or European weightings. What escapes all of you is that suddenly these same media conglomerates wouldn't be judged according to your foreign judgements of American political parties or stories, where as onlookers you tend to be more quaintly aligned, but by the more common political coverage within your own countries. And then you'd be divided again.

Spare me the speculation or vacuous protests. Where is the evidence media is right-wing? Doesn't exist. You have nothing. Because it isn't the reality. That's why you do nothing but complain about the evidence that does exist.

 

[Ruprecht]

Is it not ironic that your gripe about Forbes can be dismissed with your own argument? First, there's nothing "inherent" as a matter of partisan politics to a business news magazine, that was never the magazine's mission, but even if there was, what would have been "inherent" at the time would have shifted according to the shift in the partisan spectrum itself over time even within a specific country. It has been judged based on its contents, presently.

See, Rup, that's the thing about relativist postmodernist logic. It isn't logical at all. There is never sure footing beneath you.

By historical definition "right-wing" is the support for hierarchies as inevitable, natural, normal, or desirable. Including the hierarchy of wealth. Forbes both documents and supports that hierarchy as their most well known and consumed reporting. Without redefining terms that's right-wing behaviour.

The fact that directional positions ("left and right") on a spectrum without endpoints are relative to the point of observation isn't postmodern relativism. It's how spectrums and observation work. That does not contradict the above, nor my point about the relative position of this American spectrum.

 

[helltoupee]

Is it not ironic that your gripe about Forbes can be dismissed with your own argument? First, there's nothing "inherent" as a matter of partisan politics to a business news magazine, that was never the magazine's mission, but even if there was, what would have been "inherent" at the time would have shifted according to the shift in the partisan spectrum itself over time even within a specific country. It has been judged based on its contents, presently.

See, Rup, that's the thing about relativist postmodernist logic. It isn't logical at all. There is never sure footing beneath you.

Media is a for profit business - their primary concern is the bottom line, regardless of political 'leanings'. There's a reason why the media and large corporations often give to both parties, it's called hedging your bets.

For your chart to suggest that "Forbes" and "Stars and Stripes" (who caters to the military community) are leftists is absolutely ridiculous.

Furthermore, when people say that Conservative media dominates the American public, they are referring to viewership, and not long ago Fox and only Fox had more viewers than all the other outlets combined. Not to mention talk radio, which gave us Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh and dregs like Ann Coulter. Nobody on the left enjoys that much cultish dedication as people like the aforementioned do/did. Very few people drive around with 6ft tall Biden flags hanging out their F150, if at all.

So your point that the media is dominated by the left is a little nonsensical. There are more left leaning people in the country than right leaning, yet right wing shock jockeys, media personalities, and pundits absolutely dominate view totals. How on earth is influence effected by a media organization? By the number of eyeballs that are tuning in, and the right takes the cake with that. Leftists don't seem to be starstruck by politicians/pundits/personalities nearly as much as the right.

So if your question is which political ideology has the most influence over the public, there is no question that belongs to the right. Even if we take your chart at face value, so what, the Left has a higher number of tiny, little outlets with no ability to influence large swaths of people? What kind of argument is that?

 

[Madmick]

Media is a for profit business - their primary concern is the bottom line, regardless of political 'leanings'. There's a reason why the media and large corporations often give to both parties, it's called hedging your bets.

For your chart to suggest that "Forbes" and "Stars and Stripes" (who caters to the military community) are leftists is absolutely ridiculous.

Ironic. I could just as easily complain that The Guardian is only assigned a "Left Leaning" character by these bodies when, in fact, unlike Forbes, or Stars & Stripes, it was founded with an explicitly partisan mission statement. Also, those who maintain it might take offense at your suggestion that all media report solely for profit-- at least when referring to them-- when they declare their model specifically counters this motive.

And it's not "my" chart. Every single survey of political belief that seeks to map political belief will net the same result-- whether American or otherwise. Global news media is left-leaning.

By historical definition "right-wing" is the support for hierarchies as inevitable, natural, normal, or desirable. Including the hierarchy of wealth. Forbes both documents and supports that hierarchy as their most well known and consumed reporting. Without redefining terms that's right-wing behaviour.

Wrong. You're conflating "wealth" with business. Business isn't inherently a hierarchy. It is the foundation of industry. Also, this is stupid. By this logic, I could declare every news body formed specifically to cover the niche of politics, such as Capitol Hill ongoings, as "right-wing" because it caters to the hierarchy of government. In other words, you're being so vague as to not say anything.

The fact that directional positions ("left and right") on a spectrum without endpoints are relative to the point of observation isn't postmodern relativism. It's how spectrums and observation work. That does not contradict the above, nor my point about the relative position of this American spectrum.

I just said this. It's all relativism when discussing political belief. This is the only truly inherent concept we've discussed.

I've challenged you to present an Australian or more global assessment. You've offered nothing but speculation in the absence of evidence. You argue only personal belief. Your personal opinion of the spectrum is meaningless outside of its existence as a point on said spectrum.

 

[nostradumbass]

Media is a for profit business - their primary concern is the bottom line, regardless of political 'leanings'. There's a reason why the media and large corporations often give to both parties, it's called hedging your bets.

For your chart to suggest that "Forbes" and "Stars and Stripes" (who caters to the military community) are leftists is absolutely ridiculous.

Furthermore, when people say that Conservative media dominates the American public, they are referring to viewership, and not long ago Fox and only Fox had more viewers than all the other outlets combined. Not to mention talk radio, which gave us Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh and dregs like Ann Coulter. Nobody on the left enjoys that much cultish dedication as people like the aforementioned do/did. Very few people drive around with 6ft tall Biden flags hanging out their F150, if at all.

So your point that the media is dominated by the left is a little nonsensical. There are more left leaning people in the country than right leaning, yet right wing shock jockeys, media personalities, and pundits absolutely dominate view totals. How on earth is influence effected by a media organization? By the number of eyeballs that are tuning in, and the right takes the cake with that. Leftists don't seem to be starstruck by politicians/pundits/personalities nearly as much as the right.

So if your question is which political ideology has the most influence over the public, there is no question that belongs to the right. Even if we take your chart at face value, so what, the Left has a higher number of tiny, little outlets with no ability to influence large swaths of people? What kind of argument is that?

That's more than a little ridiculous to consider ABC, NBC, CBS, the NYT, WaPo, Politico, CNN, MSNBC, LATimes, Disney, ESPN, all of Hollywood "tiny, little outlets with no ability influence large swaths of people", but AM radio and the lone conservative cable news network are the real influential ones.

There aren't more left leaning people than right leaning people in the country, the country has always been mostly center right, with the media waaay to the left of the public. When most of the country is moderate or conservative, and 90% of the media are on the left, then yeah, that 10% tend to do better than the 500 other outlets splitting a minority of the population.

 

[brothir]

That's more than a little ridiculous to consider ABC, NBC, CBS, the NYT, WaPo, Politico, CNN, MSNBC, LATimes, Disney, ESPN, all of Hollywood "tiny, little outlets with no ability influence large swaths of people", but AM radio and the lone conservative cable news network are the real influential ones.

There aren't more left leaning people than right leaning people in the country, the country has always been mostly center right, with the media waaay to the left of the public. When most of the country is moderate or conservative, and 90% of the media are on the left, then yeah, that 10% tend to do better than the 500 other outlets splitting a minority of the population.

Fox News was, maybe still is, the largest cable news outlet, which gives it substantial influence compared to smaller ones. You're also not listing conservative newspapers like The Washington Times. The claim that the majority of the media is liberal but only a small portion of the population is should be further inspected, because it's unsustainable on its face.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Media is a for profit business - their primary concern is the bottom line, regardless of political 'leanings'. There's a reason why the media and large corporations often give to both parties, it's called hedging your bets.

Corporations don't give money to political campaigns. When you see listings of donations from corporations, that's usually aggregations from employees. So the reason they give to both parties is that different employees have different preferences.

Specialty outlets like Fox and Breitbart or Mother Jones have a mission that is related to advocacy. I would distinguish them from the mainstream news, which is committed to balance and nonpartisamship as a principle (and yes, that means a bigger audience). But that that means is that they will, as much as possible, maintain neutrality on controversial issues, which biases them against reality when one side is right on an issue. But they're also going to go against advocacy organizations, which don't have balance as a goal. And there are way more, and more popular, advocacy media organizations that cater to the right. So rightists (or partisan Republicans) will inevitably see the MSM as biased to the left. And the same dynamic ensures that they actually are biased to the right.

To illustrate how it works, look at climate change. That is a real thing that is happening that a lot of rightist organizations deny. So the MSM reports on it as a matter of controversy, which is biased against reality, but rightist organizations are further biased against reality so followers of it will see the MSM as biased.

 

[Ruprecht]

Wrong. You're conflating "wealth" with business. Business isn't inherently a hierarchy. It is the foundation of industry. Also, this is stupid. By this logic, I could declare every news body formed specifically to cover the niche of politics, such as Capitol Hill ongoings, as "right-wing" because it caters to the hierarchy of government. In other words, you're being so vague as to not say anything.

I just said this. It's all relativism when discussing political belief. This is the only truly inherent concept we've discussed.

I've challenged you to present an Australian or more global assessment. You've offered nothing but speculation in the absence of evidence. You argue only personal belief. Your personal opinion of the spectrum is meaningless outside of its existence as a point on said spectrum.

I'm not conflating anything, they literally rank individuals by their wealth (since it's their most popular product, they now have categories for the charts ranging from the original outright wealth to the wealthiest sports stars and even social media/tik tok celebrities) and promote the unhindered pursuit and creation of that wealth in the climbing of that hierarchy. That's been the overarching nature of their articles all the way back to when it was primarily news for investors. There's nothing vague about it. That is what their business development is about, climbing up that wealth hierarchy. They were advertising a "Future of Wealth Summit" here last year about it. Plenty of data on the dynamics of wealth concentration. Not a critical examination.
"Success Global Media".
Bad as the Prosperity Doctrine preachers.
They are quite transparent in that they document and support the hierarchy of wealth by promoting it as natural and desirable. I have no idea what they publish that could be considered to have a left-wing bias which outweighs that focus, but if it exists it certainly is not as well known or widely consumed as their "wealthiest" lists and it's certainly not the topics they advertise.

I'm not sure what you're looking for? The fact that Rupert Murdoch's Newscorp runs 7 of Australia's 12 daily papers, or that they get the most online engagement (although probably from Americans). The fact that Australian politics are generally to the left of American politics? Perhaps a study showing that our conservative voters hold opinions more in line with your 2016 Clinton voters?
Your "evidence" for a global left wing media bias was the opinions of a panel of "up to" 60 Americans discussing American news and with a few obviously questionable placements that are certainly right-wing on our local spectrum. Having Stars and Stripes top dead centre for reliability, centrist/lack of bias and factual reporting also doesn't seem like a very global opinion, given what I remember from their embedded reporters during the invasion of Iraq (admittedly that's the last time I've knowingly watched anything they've done).

 

[Spam On Rye]

Sources for what? I watched his '90s show, and I watch his show now. I pointed out that it was even called "Politically Incorrect." He called himself a (right-wing) libertarian then. This isn't even a controversial point. I thought you said you watched his old show.

Also, you're not quite right on my position about CNN in 2016, but I think it’s kind of trolly to even try to switch to another topic like that.

Maher is a classic liberal and has been since forever. You are among the select few who imagines Maher right-winger. What exactly is the right to you?

 

[Blayt7hh]

lmao this thread has gone way off the deep end.