Evaluating News Sites for Bias
The central premise of this chart is a qualification of the idea that we can’t “trust the biased media.” Generalizing mainstream media in that way assumes that all mainstream media has a bias (usually assumed to be liberal). This chart is meant to argue that, while there is bias in the media, there is no single focus of that bias. There is no one, monolithic "the media." There are media companies that are biased liberal and there are media companies that are biased conservative and there are those that stick closely to the ethics of objective journalism.
Because of the nature of the Internet and social media, millions of people every day share memes and photos and biased information without any context or analysis of where they come from. A passive, uninformed media consumer may be unconsciously influenced by whichever media is readily available or may gravitate toward sources that speak to his or her unconscious biases. However, it is possible for you to be an educated, active consumer of media and to balance biases by checking multiple, high-ethos sources.
Bias is not necessarily a sign of inaccuracy. Some of the sites that are in the low ethos/high bias area of the chart have valid stories, some of the time. However, even news from a high ethos site with a strong bias is generally less credible news because the authors have an incentive to slant their reporting to support their political views (and to cater to the views of their audience). You are essentially reading an argument based on some of the facts. Therefore, it is good to know which perspective a source is coming from, so that you can better understand the potential for inaccuracies resulting from political bias.
This chart is an attempt to provide some context to understand the relative political lean and credibility of some of the more commonly referenced sources. Because “fake news” sites appear and disappear quickly on the internet, it is impossible to classify all of them. The best strategy is to use this chart to research questionable claims by questionable sources by comparing what high ethos sources have to say about the issue.
The Internet age has created a paradoxical media-reality. We have more information available than ever before, and we are quite possibly more ignorant than ever before. The massive volume of headlines and claims flowing at us makes it overwhelmingly difficult (but not impossible) to know what information is valid and what is not.
However, completely discounting all mainstream media as biased is risky because it sets the stage for “fake news” to take hold. If no mainstream news sources can be trusted, then all “news” sources (from CBS to Reddit) are essentially equal. That means that a fake news story claiming (incorrectly) that the Pope endorsed President Trump in 2016 that appears in a social media feed will have the same credibility--to a passive media consumer--as a story from Reuters or FactCheck.Org, that says (correctly) that he didn’t.
The media ethos chart can also protect social media users from reposting a meme falsely showing President Trump saying that Republicans are the “dumbest group of voters in the country” and citing that as a reason to run for president as a Republican. Many people continue to post that Trump meme on social media only for it to be corrected and debunked by CNN and many other mainstream news sites.
Now it is time for the real disclaimer. The “media bias chart” above is not meant to be an authoritative source. It is not the final word on media bias or quality. It is for information purposes only. You should feel free to question or to disagree with the placement of any source on the chart. You should make a habit of comparing the differences in coverage of an issue across all four quadrants of the chart.
The fact remains that this chart is the product of a single author claiming some level of experience discerning what is high-quality media and what is not. There was a time not that long ago when “the media” was limited to only a few sources (three TV networks, a few major newspapers, and a spectrum of local newspapers). It may have been a simpler time, and it may have been comfortable to rely on the “experts” to parse and deliver the news. But in some ways, there was the opposite problem. Views that were too “radical” for the mainstream were suppressed by the editorial discretion of the experts at the major news outlets and, as a result, were rarely heard. Today, thanks to the wide variety of sources on the web, they can be heard, but they also contribute to the deluge of contradictory claims that is so confusing.
As to my credibility, the only thing I can say is that I have made a good faith effort to utilize my education (B.A. & M.eD. at Lehigh), my experience as a rhetoric teacher (25+ yrs), and my judgment to provide as impartial a guide as possible. My motivation is simple and, I hope, pure. I hope to provide you, the reader, with tools to help navigate our increasingly complex media landscape and to empower you to make informed, intelligent decisions about where you get your information and how you inform your opinions on the issues of the day.
