Lol at the fact that there's no "extreme left" popular media sources. They literally have no idea who we (all of us ideologically) are.
Speak for yourself lol, I may be confused but at least I know where I stand :hammerandsickle:
I mean yeah? Do you think Breitbart and InfoWars are more reliable then fox?
Holding a piece of shit in each hand: "but which one is more of a piece of shit????"
ah no, you see, truth is a subjective relationship between differing viewpoints wherein there can be no objective reality.
on our patented Truthiness Scale of Factuality™️ you can plainly see that lies are given priority based off of how they made us personally feel.
consequently, as im sure you can understand, any indication that our interpretation of reality is not the truth is a violation of our end user licensing agreement, which you agreed to by viewing the above image.
youll be hearing from our lawyers.
Jacobin is politically motivated though. Sorry not everyone is an edgy internet leftist.
seems like the upper left hand corner is missing something called chapo.chat
For an even quicker instant death, check out this updated version which has dozens of additional media outlets plotted, including several in the "most extreme left" category such as Wonkette and Occupy Democrats.
I like that there's room to be more unreliable than InfoWars. I refuse to read anything else in this chart
"theyre turnin the frogs gay!"
we rate this a four on the Truthiness Scale of Factuality.™️
"The Obamas.... They smell like sulfur folks, they're satanic demons who eat children. DO YOU UNDERSTAND ME?! WE ARE COMING FOR YOU. AAAARRRGHHHH!!!! I'LL RIP THE HEART OUT OF YOU GLOBALISTS!!!"
Through our vigorous fact-checking, we have concluded that this news outlet have a bias toward the right wing of the political spectrum and we place it firmly in the middle of the space that represents Serious Reliability Issues
to be entirely fair to infowars, this is only a reliability isssue until they start actively cutting peoples hearts out.
at which point we will gladly increase their reliability score.
This image doesn't even make sense by THEIR standards.
It has the NYPost and christian sci monitor up in "most reliable".
Then it puts fox news down in unreliable, and CNN in sorta reliable.
The chart makes no actual sense, even as propaganda. It's like saying that CNN is the worst news outlet while MSNBC is the best one--there is literally no person on earth with that opinion.
Unrelated to where things are placed on this chart, I generally think this sort of political compass of news reporting is good, there's a difference between news reporting and opinion/punditry in virtually every outlet. Outlets like AP or Reuters along with a number of other ones in that square mostly just air any given political figures press releases without challenging anything, which is largely the biggest difference between news reporting and punditry.
In contrast, an outlet like democracy now differs from other left leaning outlets in that they are far more focused on fact reporting than punditry, they bring people on to speak for themselves rather than say TYT which is far more partisan focused and is in turn less fact based.
FAIR.org is where it's at, since it's mainly a cross-section of corp news with the goal of exposing the dominant narrative/bias.
Also Labornotes.org for organizing news, and chapo
I honestly agree with this chart. We like to be edgy and stuff but the news outlets within the green square are good. Anyone who tells you otherwise is specifically looking for leftist propaganda and confirmation bias.
in my opinion, these news sources can be good to a degree.
how i view it is: you can read these news sources to learn about shit, it's not that they never have good pieces points or analyses, but you must be constantly aware what they report and how they report it will very frequently frame issues to support US (or western, liberal capitalist) interests.
in terms of people saying these are bad only looking for leftist propaganda and confirmation bias, i gotta say your take is very presumptuous and also wrong, there's a lot of valid criticism you can have of these news orgs and there are definitely legitimate news sources outside of that mainstream sphere. why do you conflate critiques of this sort with "being edgy?" that sounds like a failure of understanding what these critiques are about or perhaps even their existence.
what makes you so dismissive of criticism of mainstream news?
Many of Chapo heads want far-left fake news, let's be real for a second. People here would claim DPRK state media is more accurate than the BBC.
The ones in the green square are mostly fine for news, and especially domestic news, reporting (the post for example definitely is not fine for that), this said, they often intermix their news reporting with punditry, and the punditry from all of these outlets is insanely biased.
LMAO what a crock of shit. Reminder - https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/hurricane-katrina-looters/
🧐 the completely unbiased and factual Christian Science Monitor
