• BrooklynMan@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    From MediaBiasFactCheck.com

    Wall Street Journal

    RIGHT-CENTER BIAS

    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.

    more at MediaBiasFactCheck.com

    • Sleepless One@lemmygrad.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

    • edward@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      Media Bias Fact Check, the site that makes no distinction between centrism and being unbiased.

        • edward@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          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”:

          • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.mlOP
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            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.

        • ghost_laptop@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          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.

        • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.mlOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          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.

          • BrooklynMan@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            if you have to put words in my mouth to feel better, I can’t stop you. but it doesn’t change the facts.

            • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.mlOP
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              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.

              • BrooklynMan@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                1 year ago

                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.

                • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.mlOP
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  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.