Gransnet forums

News & politics

Media Literacy & Bias (interesting website) 🗞️ 📺 📻

(37 Posts)
FannyCornforth Thu 13-Jul-23 09:14:57

Hello

I’ve just discovered this - Ad Fontes Media.

They analyse various news outlets for political bias.

I’m only just navigating my way around it; there is also an interactive app, and they provide educational resources.

I know that many of you will find it interesting too

adfontesmedia.com/

Maremia Thu 13-Jul-23 16:47:07

Had a quick look and it is quite high tec. After all the recent controversy with The Sun, and which other stories are being masked, I wonder who has compiled this, and how neutral are they?

toscalily Thu 13-Jul-23 17:26:15

This is what Wicky says:
Ad Fontes Media, Inc. is a Colorado-based media watchdog organization primarily known for its Media Bias Chart, which rates media sources in terms of political bias and reliability. The organization was founded in 2018 by patent attorney Vanessa Otero with the goal of combating political polarization and media bias. Ad Fontes Media uses a panel of analysts across the political spectrum to evaluate articles for the Chart.

FannyCornforth Thu 13-Jul-23 17:33:06

Maremia

Had a quick look and it is quite high tec. After all the recent controversy with The Sun, and which other stories are being masked, I wonder who has compiled this, and how neutral are they?

Well, that’s why I shared it.
If it’s bogus please let us know

toscalily Thu 13-Jul-23 17:36:21

At least you know someone is paying attention Fanny

Doodledog Fri 14-Jul-23 01:53:50

It’s not bogus - it’s been around for years and is well regarded.

MaizieD Fri 14-Jul-23 09:15:02

Doodledog

It’s not bogus - it’s been around for years and is well regarded.

Founded 2018? Around for 'years'? 🤔

Mind you, every respected institution was new once upon a time.

I wonder if the fact that it is US based would skew their analysis?

I did have a quick look, but not a deep dive...

Doodledog Fri 14-Jul-23 10:06:05

Five years is years, is it not? 🤔

Yes, of course there is a US bias, but anyone using it as a rough guide to the reliability of a news source with which they are not familiar (which is what it is for) will factor that in. It is a useful starting point and doesn’t claim more than that.

‘Bias’ is subjective at best, as are definitions of left and right wing, which is why there could never be a totally reliable guide, in any case. . .

Maremia Sat 15-Jul-23 11:33:01

Thanks all of you GNs for that re-assurance. I will have a good and proper read of this source. We really need to know who is pushing the 'hot' stories in the media.

grandMattie Sat 15-Jul-23 12:08:41

Euronews is very factual and dry. No bias except towards European stuff.

Freya5 Sat 15-Jul-23 12:54:03

I wouldnt believe what wicky says either.Like the supposed bbc fact check, who checks the checkers. All biased to their own political beliefs.

Doodledog Sat 15-Jul-23 13:05:08

Do you mean Wikipedia, Freya? If so, you are right not to believe it. Anyone can write (or alter) a wiki page, so they are notoriously inaccurate, particularly where individuals are concerned.

Bijou Sat 15-Jul-23 15:08:01

I will never forget that when I was sixteen the History teacher warned us never to believe what I read in the newspapers because they publish a lot of articles to boost sales.
That was in 1930
I never buy newspapers and don’t believe everything I hear on TV

FannyCornforth Sat 15-Jul-23 15:51:57

Hello Bijou, I applaud your healthy cynicism, and I hope that you are well thanks

NanaDana Sat 15-Jul-23 16:01:18

The mass media, and now also social media, are both immensely powerful. They have the wherewithal to make the innocent appear guilty, the guilty appear innocent, and to endlessly muddy the waters in between. Also, with the advent of A.I., our ability to differentiate between accurately reported and fake news is already being eroded. As regards media bias, the issue is much wider than mere political, religious or even morality-based leanings. A major bias factor is the drive for increased readership/viewing figures, and hence profit. The media also have a tendency to present gossip, rumour, and speculation as fact, and can always trot out a paid expert to back this up, despite the fact that a different expert can usually be found to refute the first one. So we should never forget that with the mass media the primary bias is more often than not, the drive to improve ratings.. a commercial decision. The position with Social Media is slightly more complex. Here, the influence of personal agendas is very much to the fore, as contributors seek out mass media “facts” (but see above for the problems with that), which support their particular standpoint, and comment accordingly. Those who disagree then have two options. The first is to seek out “facts” which effectively contradict the original argument, or alternatively, to claim that the “rock solid” case which is being presented, is based on the shifting sands of unsupported speculation. In my experience, the latter approach tends to be both more rational and more credible, although there will always be exceptions. As for the “impartiality” of Ad Fontes Media, as I have no knowledge of them, I am unable to comment. However, I would most certainly welcome any intervention which would afford an opportunity for a more balanced presentation of “the news” in general, as that would most certainly help encourage a more open-minded, socially responsible and positive debate about the issues which challenge our society. So good luck with that. They’ll need it, bearing in mind the entrenched power that our mass media have developed over the years, and will not easily give up.

DaisyAnneReturns Sat 15-Jul-23 16:04:03

Doodledog

It’s not bogus - it’s been around for years and is well regarded.

By whom?

Anniel Sat 15-Jul-23 16:28:11

Took a quick look and it is a USA group. How much attention is paid to UK and European media?

DaisyAnneReturns Sat 15-Jul-23 16:39:19

NanaDana

I wonder if you could explain why the Malcolm X quote was pertinent and also who the rest of the article is by? It would make it much easier to read if we have context I think. Thank you.

Freya5 Sat 15-Jul-23 17:17:34

Doodledog

Do you mean Wikipedia, Freya? If so, you are right not to believe it. Anyone can write (or alter) a wiki page, so they are notoriously inaccurate, particularly where individuals are concerned.

Yes, I did mean that, and you're right. When doing my research for my degree, we were advised not to use it because of that reason.

Oreo Sat 15-Jul-23 17:42:51

Good well thought out post NanaDana👏🏻👏🏻

I’ll have a look at this site when I get the time, but childminding calls for now.It does get harder and harder to navigate around political bias.

NanaDana Sat 15-Jul-23 19:20:38

Message deleted by Gransnet. Here's a link to our Talk guidelines.

NanaDana Sat 15-Jul-23 20:18:22

DaisyAnneReturns

NanaDana

I wonder if you could explain why the Malcolm X quote was pertinent and also who the rest of the article is by? It would make it much easier to read if we have context I think. Thank you.

I am unaware of any quote by Malcolm X. Also, as a published author and poet, I strongly object to the inference that I have plagiarised this post, and chosen not to attribute it to some other author. Every single word is mine, and mine alone. As a complainant in a case concerning breach of copyright, I am only too well aware of the sin which you somehow see fit to accuse me of. I find your unwarranted accusation most uncalled for, and deeply insulting as regards both my professionalism as a writer, and my personal integrity. Disappointing.

Oreo Sat 15-Jul-23 22:41:56

It seems obvious to me NanaDana that this is your own comment.Why anyone would think it lifted from another source I can only guess at.

Oreo Sat 15-Jul-23 22:42:40

I can’t see any Malcolm X quote either!

MerylStreep Sat 15-Jul-23 22:51:05

Nanadana
A polite request. I would like to read your posts but could we have some paragraphs 🙏 please?