Created page edit
Created the "Template talk:News media" page for the "Template:News media" page - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 16:49, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
Relevant discussion comments edit
{{news media}}
Copied from "Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2017 January 14#Template:News media":
- Strong keep - { {reply|Champion|Dimadick|Marxistfounder|Rjensen|Srich32977|The Four Deuces}} - Please note that the "{{News media}}" template, currently transcluded 22 times at the following links, concerns news source audiences, *not* the news sources themselves - that is, the "{{News media}}" template presents the rankings of "responding audience" results – not the rankings of "news sources" results – across the political spectrum - ALSO - Please see "recent related discussion" re Template:News media at the following => "Talk:Conservatism_in_the_United_States#Template_.22.7B.7BNews_media.7D.7D.22_OK_for_.22article.22_-_or_Not.3F" - as well as => "Template talk:News media" and "Talk:Fake news website/Archive 2#Useful charts but not deliberate hoax fraud" - In support of keeping the "{{News media}}" template, the following related very recent (2016) references may be helpful:
- Boing Boing is a bluelinked group-blog, some of their stuff counts as WP:RS but in my book it highly depends on the author of the specific piece, e.g. Cory Doctorow probably counts on most subjects he posts about as having expertise therein, but Mark Frauenfelder who is the author of the VoteroChart mentioned above, I have not heard of. Has a bluelink, a bit skimpy on refs albeit, which says he is a journalist. The published chart is somewhat simplistic since it gives no numeric indications, and the Boing Boing spectrum seems to be 'skewed' roughly one notch more liberal-leaning overall compared to the PEW and UCLA datasets covered below. Here is the BoingBoing aka Votero dataset, normalized to the d+6 through r+6 spectrum used by PEW:
| skewedRank | Frauenfelder at BoingBoing ref |
|---|---|
| ~~r+5 | Breitbart ('avoid') |
| ~~r+4 | beck#2 ('questionable') |
| ~~r+3 | FOX ('careful') |
| ~~r+2 | TFT, Hill |
| ~~r+1 | ABC, WSJ, Economist |
| ~~d+0 | NPR, BBC, AP, Reuters, UsaToday, CNN |
| ~~d+1 | WaPo, NYT, NBC, Guardian |
| ~~d+2 | Slate, Atlantic, Vox |
| ~~d+3 | HuffPo, MSNBC ('careful') |
| ~~d+4 | Occupy Democrats ('questionable') |
| ~~d+5 | Addicting Info ('avoid') |
Because the BoingBoing chart published by Frauenfelder is two-dimensional, and spectrum-shifted (more globalized than the USA-specific research efforts below), it is difficult to integrate the datasets together. Probably better to present them separately, in dedicated columns. 47.222.203.135 (talk) 17:37, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
Which news entities belong on which rows? edit
Erroneous Edits Reverted. FWIW - Erroneous edits by User:Marxistfounder have been reverted - Please note that "lists labeling multiple points" (of News media (USA)) in the original reference ( at http://www.pewresearch.org/pj_14-10-21_mediapolarization-08-2/ ) are ordered from "consistently liberal" on the top & "consistently conservative" on the bottom - ALSO - Scores are noted from -6 ("political values questions") to 0 (bottom of the uncompressed scale) & from 0 to +6 (top of the compressed-by-half scale) - "0", by definition, is noted as "Nonpartisan audience" - per cited reference ( at http://www.pewresearch.org/pj_14-10-21_mediapolarization-08-2/ ) - hope this helps in some way - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 21:08, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
- Hello again Drbogdan, I have taken the liberty of retitling this talkpage-section, and moved your wikilinked title down into the body thereof. Here is what seems to be the three current opinions, about which organizations belong on which rows:
| rank | Drbogdan (ref) (wikilink) | Marxistfounder (wikilink) | 47.222 (wikilink) |
|---|---|---|---|
| r+6 | beck#1, hannity, beck#2, limbaugh, breitbart | beck#1, hannity, beck#2, limbaugh, breitbart | beck#1, beck#2, hannity, breitbart, limbaugh |
| r+5 | drudge | drudge | drudge |
| r+4 | ...gap... | ||
| r+3 | fox | ||
| r+2 | fox | fox | ...gap... |
| r+1 | ...gap... | ||
| u+0 | nonpartisan | nonpartisan | "avg USA citizen" |
| d+1 | wsj, yahoo-on-next-line | wsj, yahoo-on-next-line | wsj, yahoo |
| d+2 | usatoday, abc, bloomberg, goog, cbs | usatoday, abc, bloomberg, goog, cbs | usatoday, abc, goog, cbs, bloomberg |
| d+3 | nbc, cnn, msnbc-on-next-line | nbc, cnn, msnbc | nbc/msnbc, cnn |
| d+4 | politico, economist, wapo, huffpo, pbs, bzf | bzf, pbs, huffpo, wapo, politico | pbs, bbc, wapo, huffpo, economist, politico, bzf |
| d+5 | nyt, colbert, npr, dailyshow | dailyshow, aljazeera, npr, nyt, colbert | npr, nyt, guardian, aljazeera, dailyshow, colbert |
| d+6 | slate, newYorker | slate, newYorker | slate, newYorker |
- My apologies if I have misrepresented what anybody was trying to say. I converted to the the table-layout, rather than the timeline-layout, because I don't want to get the r+6/r+5/...u+0...d+5/d+6 groups confused. I ran across this source independently on the 20th, here is the discussion. I was not aware that Drbogdan had created this template, but I definitely like it. Though I do think it has some placement-errors; Fox is not supposed to be immediately adjacent to WSJ, in particular. 47.222.203.135 (talk) 16:28, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
- @47.222.203.135 - Thank you *very much* for your comments - and additions - seems *very* interesting imo - I may have to study this further - should note that I added "missing" bloomberg, daily show, slate, newYorker to the Drbogdan column in the table - also - added "missing" bloomberg, slate, newYorker to the Marxistfounder column - for my part, I tried to order the listing, from beck#1 (most conservative audience) to newYorker (most liberal audience), as best I could, based on the original Pew Research Center reference at => http://www.pewresearch.org/pj_14-10-21_mediapolarization-08-2/ - however - the exact scoring was presented as clear as the {{News media}} template format might permit afaik - please note that fox (more conservative) is placed very near (ie, next-in-order-to) wsj (less conservative) in the original cited Pew Research Center reference - in any case - hope this helps in some way - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 17:11, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks for the table-fixes Drbogdan, appreciated. You and I are looking at the exact same ref. But we disagree that Fox being next-in-order-to WSJ is the same thing as placed-very-near. The gaps are crucial. Here is the imagefile.[1] As you can see, Beck/Hannity/Blaze/Breitbart/Limbaugh are in a cluster at roughly R+6, with Drudge slightly less-conservative-of-an-audience at R+5 approximately. Then there is a large gap, then FOX all alone near R+3, then another larger gap (and a changeover from repub-lean to dem-lean!) before you have centrist-or-slightly-liberal-leaning-audience WSJ. My proposal is that, wikipedia needs to show the gaps.
- So I suggest that we change from using Template:timeline and instead start using a wikitable, with rows from D+6 through D+1, the USA-media-audience-centric +0 row, and then rows R+1 through R+6. I think the gaps are more important than the exact ordering, because gaps indicate that Fox at R+3 is roughly as conservative-leaning as NBC is liberal-leaning at D+3... and just as important, that there are *plenty* of increasingly-centrist entities in the D+3/D+2/D+1 range that are liberal-leaning but not as liberal-leaning as NBC in terms of actual audience, whereas there are zero media entities besides Fox in the R+4/R+3/R+2/R+1 range on the other side of the partisan-divide. 47.222.203.135 (talk) 15:50, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
- @47.222.203.135 - Thank you *very much* for your comments - and additions - seems *very* interesting imo - I may have to study this further - should note that I added "missing" bloomberg, daily show, slate, newYorker to the Drbogdan column in the table - also - added "missing" bloomberg, slate, newYorker to the Marxistfounder column - for my part, I tried to order the listing, from beck#1 (most conservative audience) to newYorker (most liberal audience), as best I could, based on the original Pew Research Center reference at => http://www.pewresearch.org/pj_14-10-21_mediapolarization-08-2/ - however - the exact scoring was presented as clear as the {{News media}} template format might permit afaik - please note that fox (more conservative) is placed very near (ie, next-in-order-to) wsj (less conservative) in the original cited Pew Research Center reference - in any case - hope this helps in some way - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 17:11, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
![[1]](https://assets.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/12/2016/01/PJ_14.10.21_mediaPolarization-08.png){kind=link}
Adding publisher-bias, next to audience-bias edit
I also propose that we add in the publisher-bias data, from the 2005 paper. Something like this:
| rank | audience bias ref diff | publisher bias ref diff | think tanks ref diff |
|---|---|---|---|
| r+6 | beck#1/#2,hannity,limbaugh,breitbart | Heritage, FRC, ATR, CPAC | |
| r+5 | drudge | ||
| r+4 | NFIB, NRL | ||
| r+3 | FOX | Cato, CAGW, NTU | |
| r+2 | fox | WaTimes | AEI, II4SS |
| r+1 | NRA, C4SIS | ||
| u+0 | nonpartisan | WWF, ACLU[1] | |
| d+1 | wsj, yahoo | PBS, CNN, ABC, UsaToday | Brookings, CE4IP, Amnesty |
| d+2 | usatoday,abc,bloomberg,goog,cbs | content-linked-by-Drudge,[2] NBC | RAND,[3] CFR |
| d+3 | nbc, cnn, msnbc | NPR, WaPo | FAS, AARP |
| d+4 | politico,economist,wapo,huffpo,pbs,bzf | CBS, LATimes, NYT | Sierra, CC, EDF, NARAL, Urban, NAACP |
| d+5 | nyt,colbert,npr,dailyshow | ||
| d+6 | slate, newYorker | WSJ[4] | NOW, CDF, CFA, EPI, C4TJ, CBPP |
References
- ^ Only with Mitch McConnell's anti-campaign-finance-restrictions floor speeches included... otherwise the ACLU belongs in D+1 group.
- ^ Specifically, an analysis of the prose content to which Drudge links shows that prose is roughly D+2 when normalized; the selection by Drudge of which stories to link unto, was NOT analyzed for publisher-bias.
- ^ Only their non-classified publications were analyzed for publisher-bias, which excludes much of their defense-related and military-related work.
- ^ Specifically their news-pieces which are considerably more liberal-leaning in what think tanks are cited, than the WSJ editorial-pages which are much more conservative than their news-reporting; see detailed discussion in the source.
Drbogdan, is this helpful? Also ping TFD, does this balance out your concern? My 2005 source does not have the economist, but presumably we can collaboratively dig up a source which does position their publication-bias on the wikitable proposed above. 47.222.203.135 (talk) 16:48, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks for letting me know about the notion of "publisher-bias" in the wikitable - interesting - may have to think more about this at the moment - one possibility re the present audience-bias template is to develop a modified-template - to better define gaps in some ok way - may try to work with this on the newly created sandbox page at => Template:News media/sandbox - to me at the moment, the present template seems better than the suggested wikitable(s) - the template imo seems more reader-friendly - and understandable - the imagefile, defining the gaps, has not been neglected in the template, and is clearly and directly linked on the template - the wikitable otoh seems less reader-friendly - and less understandable - and less helpful imo atm - perhaps both, the template and wikitable, may be worthy - and useful - perhaps a more complete (finished?) wikitable may be developed for viewing - and compared - with the template? - of course - both, the template and wikitable, may be useful in various Wikipedia articles - depending on the exact nature of article content - in any case - hope this helps in some way - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 17:42, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
- Audience-bias is a relatively rare but fascinating study; publisher-bias studies have a much longer history, see the new sources I added at TemplatesForDestruction. If you don't want to use a wikitable as too unreadable, and I don't want to use the timeline as too-inaccurate (no gaps!), maybe we can work on an svg file that satisfies both readability and accuracy? I suggest we try to do something like the PEW imagefile,[2] where we have a number-line-of-dots, with attached-text-labels. But we can make our version a vertical line, rather than horizontal, so it fits better as a sidebar. 47.222.203.135 (talk) 18:31, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks for the comments - to some extent, I was thinking about the vertical version (with gaps) - as a newly modified template (if you like, you may try creating one at the template sandbox page) - a vertical SVG image may also be possible of course - but the SVG image per se may not be clickable with over 25 wikilinks to Wikipedia articles - a feature of the present template version - however - one *may* be able to modify the SVG image into an image map afaik - maybe best to create an ok SVG image as a first step? - iac - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 19:05, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
- Audience-bias is a relatively rare but fascinating study; publisher-bias studies have a much longer history, see the new sources I added at TemplatesForDestruction. If you don't want to use a wikitable as too unreadable, and I don't want to use the timeline as too-inaccurate (no gaps!), maybe we can work on an svg file that satisfies both readability and accuracy? I suggest we try to do something like the PEW imagefile,[2] where we have a number-line-of-dots, with attached-text-labels. But we can make our version a vertical line, rather than horizontal, so it fits better as a sidebar. 47.222.203.135 (talk) 18:31, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
- The report shows the average Democrat rates 84.3 on the scale, while the average Republican rates 16.1, while almost the entire news media rates about 65. So Fox News viewers are far more conservative than Fox News, while NBC, CBS and ABC viewers are far more liberal than those networks. so you would have to show that "publisher bias" occupies a very small range compared with "audience-bias." Indeed mainstream U.S. media coverages a very narrow section of the U.S. ideological spectrum. TFD (talk) 20:38, 22 January 2017 (UTC)