These media sources are slight to moderately conservative in bias. They often publish factual information that utilizes loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by appeals to emotion or stereotypes) to favor conservative causes. These sources are generally trustworthy for information but may require further investigation.
Analysis / Bias
The Walls Street Journal hasn’t endorsed US political candidates since 1928; however, they are criticized for supporting far-right populist politicians abroad. For example, in South America, they all but endorsed far-right Congressman Jair Bolsonaro in Brazil’s presidential election. They have also written favorably about Chilean Dictator Augusto Pinochet. The WSJ has been strongly criticized for its pro-Trump coverage. According to The Atlantic, there was an alleged conflict about how to cover Trump, resulting in an opinion editor’s departure.
In review, the WSJ utilizes emotionally loaded language in their editorial headlines that favor the right, such as this: “Wrap It Up, Mr. Mueller Democratic dilemma: Impeach Trump for lying about sex?” They also frequently promote anti-climate change messages such as this: “The Phony War Against CO2.” Here is another example from an editorial on Trump’s position on climate change “Not the Climate Apocalypse: The EPA’s power rule won’t save coal and won’t poison the planet.” Further, IFCN fact checker Climate Feedback has cited numerous editorials in which the Wall Street Journal uses very low scientific credibility. The pro-science Climate Science & Policy Watch has also criticized the WSJ for rejecting the 97% consensus of climate scientists. Lastly, The Guardian has an article describing how the WSJ “peddles big oil propaganda” while “disguising climate misinformation as opinion.”
When reporting regular news, the WSJ uses minimally loaded words such as this: China Agrees to Reduce Tariffs on U.S. Autos. News articles are also adequately sourced to credible media outlets like the Financial Times and Washington Post.
Glowing reviews saying US government funded media outlets are unbiased and highly factual should trigger alarm bells in the head of anyone looking to get a factual reporting of events. Websites like mediabiasfactcheck don’t serve to help people look at news critically: they encourage people to put critical thinking in someone else’s hands so they don’t need to bother with it themselves.
Are you saying that being a centrist and being unbiased are the same? Is there no such thing as a centrist bias?
And don’t say I’m putting words in your mouth. You said that my comment isn’t fact, so what about it isn’t factual?
Or are you saying the site does make that distinction? Because their scale of left bias - unbiased - right bias with a complete lack of centrist bias is proof that they don’t. Here’s the proof of my claim, right from their website, the center is labeled “least biased”:
Amazing that a grown adult doesn’t understand the concept of bias. Wait till he discovers that what centrist opinions are changes from country to country. Gonna absolutely blow his mind.
You people always have an issue with any source that differs from the narrative you want to listen. If it’s Chinese news, it’s because it’s Chinese; if it’s Russian news it’s because it’s Russian; if it’s some African news it’s because Africa doesn’t like Europe; if it’s some Latinamerican news it’s because we’re poor and we don’t know better; if it’s some Usonian news it’s because they’re right wing or too moderate or the writer something. So basically the only not-biased-source™ is a very niche set of articles written by the Usonian/European center-left/left-wing neoliberals.
That’s a nonsensical statement. Every source has biased, so what you’re really saying is that you discard any information that doesn’t come from your own bubble. Pretty funny how you talk about wasting time, yet you took the time to write these content free comments here.
Nobody is putting words in your mouth. I’m just unpacking the implications of your statement. The facts are that you keep making content free comments that don’t contribute anything to the discussion.
when you “unpack” words i did not say, then yes you are putting words in my mouth. and whether they contribute to the conversation is not measured by how emotional or irrational you become in response.
No, that’s not what putting words in somebody’s mouth means, but of course it’s too much to expect you to understand the terms you throw around. Also, thank you for your psychoanalysis, that’s about the level or rationality I’ve come to expect from you.
From MediaBiasFactCheck.com
more at MediaBiasFactCheck.com
I have a test I like to apply to media bias websites. See how factual known US propaganda rags are rated.
Radio Free Asia: Factual Reporting High
Voice Of America: Factual Reporting High, Bias Rating Least Bias
Glowing reviews saying US government funded media outlets are unbiased and highly factual should trigger alarm bells in the head of anyone looking to get a factual reporting of events. Websites like mediabiasfactcheck don’t serve to help people look at news critically: they encourage people to put critical thinking in someone else’s hands so they don’t need to bother with it themselves.
Media Bias Fact Check, the site that makes no distinction between centrism and being unbiased.
your opinion ≠ fact, although you’re welcome to attempt to prove your claim.
Are you saying that being a centrist and being unbiased are the same? Is there no such thing as a centrist bias?
And don’t say I’m putting words in your mouth. You said that my comment isn’t fact, so what about it isn’t factual?
Or are you saying the site does make that distinction? Because their scale of left bias - unbiased - right bias with a complete lack of centrist bias is proof that they don’t. Here’s the proof of my claim, right from their website, the center is labeled “least biased”:
Amazing that a grown adult doesn’t understand the concept of bias. Wait till he discovers that what centrist opinions are changes from country to country. Gonna absolutely blow his mind.
feel free to actually address what the article is saying
i prefer not to waste my time on speculation from biased sources.
You people always have an issue with any source that differs from the narrative you want to listen. If it’s Chinese news, it’s because it’s Chinese; if it’s Russian news it’s because it’s Russian; if it’s some African news it’s because Africa doesn’t like Europe; if it’s some Latinamerican news it’s because we’re poor and we don’t know better; if it’s some Usonian news it’s because they’re right wing or too moderate or the writer something. So basically the only not-biased-source™ is a very niche set of articles written by the Usonian/European center-left/left-wing neoliberals.
That’s a nonsensical statement. Every source has biased, so what you’re really saying is that you discard any information that doesn’t come from your own bubble. Pretty funny how you talk about wasting time, yet you took the time to write these content free comments here.
if you have to put words in my mouth to feel better, I can’t stop you. but it doesn’t change the facts.
Nobody is putting words in your mouth. I’m just unpacking the implications of your statement. The facts are that you keep making content free comments that don’t contribute anything to the discussion.
when you “unpack” words i did not say, then yes you are putting words in my mouth. and whether they contribute to the conversation is not measured by how emotional or irrational you become in response.
No, that’s not what putting words in somebody’s mouth means, but of course it’s too much to expect you to understand the terms you throw around. Also, thank you for your psychoanalysis, that’s about the level or rationality I’ve come to expect from you.
moving goalposts and “i know you are but what am I?” is not much of an argument.