![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
I forgot to add these comments to a post
Apr. 10th, 2020 10:44 amI overlooked these when I wrote Explaining the Media Bias Chart, a popular topic of the past two years of Crazy Eddie's Motie News. For completeness, here they are as other sources of page views.
My comment on Useful Idiots on Parade.
One shouldn't be surprised by Slate's take on Assange. Ad Fontes' Media Bias Chart rates the publication as hyper-partisan liberal, which means it explicitly expresses its political views, so of course the panel would take a negative view of Assange after his role in the 2016 election. As for the quality of the panel's comments, they're probably not living up to the other dimension of Slate's rating, which is complex analysis and fair interpretations of the news. Well, that's what happens when one rates the text version of the site instead of its podcasts.
Slate probably didn't contest their rating. Wonkette did, saying that the Media Bias Chart confused their satire for propaganda. The writers and editors there in particular protested that they were not to the left of Jacobin and The Intercept (speaking of publications friendly to Assange), and did not make up stuff for the purpose of misinforming their readers, just for their amusement. The Media Bias Chart kept them where they were, even if they did find Wonkette hilarious.
My comments on Wonkette reacts to its Media Bias Chart placement at Booman Tribune.
Attribution for the tip jar.
Modified from Wonkette reacts to its Media Bias Chart placement, an update to 'A comparison of two measures of media bias shows readers and viewers respond to both ideology and quality', originally posted at Crazy Eddie's Motie News.
Wonkette's placement being a case in point. The system used to rate organizations could not distinguish satire from propaganda and did not care that it couldn't. Just the same, I generally find it useful, even if it failed in this specific instance.
My comment on Useful Idiots on Parade.
One shouldn't be surprised by Slate's take on Assange. Ad Fontes' Media Bias Chart rates the publication as hyper-partisan liberal, which means it explicitly expresses its political views, so of course the panel would take a negative view of Assange after his role in the 2016 election. As for the quality of the panel's comments, they're probably not living up to the other dimension of Slate's rating, which is complex analysis and fair interpretations of the news. Well, that's what happens when one rates the text version of the site instead of its podcasts.
Slate probably didn't contest their rating. Wonkette did, saying that the Media Bias Chart confused their satire for propaganda. The writers and editors there in particular protested that they were not to the left of Jacobin and The Intercept (speaking of publications friendly to Assange), and did not make up stuff for the purpose of misinforming their readers, just for their amusement. The Media Bias Chart kept them where they were, even if they did find Wonkette hilarious.
My comments on Wonkette reacts to its Media Bias Chart placement at Booman Tribune.
Attribution for the tip jar.
Modified from Wonkette reacts to its Media Bias Chart placement, an update to 'A comparison of two measures of media bias shows readers and viewers respond to both ideology and quality', originally posted at Crazy Eddie's Motie News.
Wonkette's placement being a case in point. The system used to rate organizations could not distinguish satire from propaganda and did not care that it couldn't. Just the same, I generally find it useful, even if it failed in this specific instance.
