It is amazing how many desperate liberals circulate or defend the absurd, misleading and incompetent chart purporting to measure the bias of various news sources as if the thing had any integrity at all. First of all, they could not (I hope) have read the creator’s nonsensical criteria for her assessments. Second, it should be obvious that no single individual could possibly examine and compare over 40 news sources with anything approaching thoroughness and accuracy. How would this be possible, even as a full-time endeavor, which it most certainly was not in this case? A research group like Pew might be able to pull such a study off with a large budget, lots of time, and a substantial staff, and even then I’m very dubious.
The chart is a classic example of making fake research—garbage in, garbage out— look impressive through packaging. This is, of course, unethical.
For the record, here are some of the factors someone who was seriously interested in measuring bias objectively (and not primarily determined to show that mainstream media bias is a right-wing myth):
Does the media organization have a code of ethics? Does it follow it, and enforce violations openly and transparently?
Does the organization police conflicts of interest? (NPR allowed Gwen Ifill to moderate the 2008 Vice-Presidential debate while she was authoring a book about Obama’s candidacy. George Stephanopoulos was permitted by ABC to hold interviews related to the candidacy of Hillary Clinton. On CNN, Chris Cuomo was permitted to interview his brother.)
Does the organization address examples of blatant unprofessional journalism or punditry without waiting to see how the public reacts, or if the controversy will blow over?
Does it react quickly to deal with the displays of bias that create an appearance of impropriety? (see above)
Do reporters signal their opinions through tone, phrasing, and with on-air reporting, expressions and body-language?
Is content equally critical of both political parties and their leading figures?
Are extreme examples of bias and hostility permitted? Are apologies, if they are required, prominent? Carol Costello laughed on the air about Brtsol Palin being frightened and physically threatened. She was neither disciplined or required to apologize.
Are there examples of signature significance, when the organization allows a report or analysis that would never be allowed into print or on the air by an unbiased organization? The New York Times announced during the 2016 Presidential campaign that it would no longer strive for objectivity because it regarded Donald Trump to be an unacceptable candidate. NPR deceptively edited an interview with Ted Cruz.
Are headlines and screen crawls fair, objective and accurate?
Are commentators, experts, guests and panel members from all sides of the political spectrum equally professional and persuasive?
Has the organization delayed, omitted or buried stories that are unflattering to a particular party or politician? (The New York Times went to great lengths to frame President’s Obama’s false assurances regarding the Affordable Care Act as innocent mistakes.)
Does the organization hype or over-report stories that favor a particular party or politician?
Does the organization hype or over-report stories that are potentially damaging to a particular party or politician?
Does the organization apply the same standards to politicians in different parties? (Sarah Palin said stupid things, Joe Biden was just being Joe…)
Does the organization engage in open advocacy for political causes? CNN and other media sources aggressively promoted gun control measures in response to school shootings.
Can one predict with reasonable accuracy how a particular news source is going to cover a particular story?
It’s long list, and there are many more criteria on it. None of these appear to have played any part in “Vanessa’s” analysis.