Thread by @mcjulie

I wanted to talk about this terrible chart, and the concept of "bias" and how it's misused, often deliberately.

https://twitter.com/dliebelson/status/1183820187360989185

We have a cultural tendency to think of a LACK of bias as a positive quality -- a quality of being objectively measured & balanced, where everything is "on the one hand... but on the other hand..."

Like blind Justice, holding up her scales.

But not every idea has an ideal balance point somewhere in the middle. "Nazis: good or bad?" should have only one answer, BAD, expressed in the strongest possible terms.

Pursuit of "balance" often leads to injustice. Think of a parent or school official who would say, "it doesn't matter who started the fight, I'm punishing both of you for fighting."

Then apply that spirit to bigger things, like racial inequality.

The idea of "balance" or "neutrality" or "the middle" as a value in itself leads to both-sides-ism, which is a rhetorical trick inevitably employed on behalf of the worse side.

Like, if you think I can't say "Nazis are bad" without slipping some "nuance" in there.

So, right away I'm going to be very suspicious of a chart which appears to line up news outlets as if balancing a scale, rendering The New Yorker the equivalent of Breitbart.
It looks like a deliberate trick to legitimize Breitbart.

In the thread under the original tweet, the "AllSides" Twitter account pops in to say a few things like "oh, we're not saying bias is bad!" and "oh, we're not even intending to comment on things like accuracy and credibility!"

But look at the original tweet again. A library -- teaching students to use this chart -- and to AVOID using media from the columns farthest to the left & right.

Whether AllSides intended it that way or not -- and I do think they intended it that way and their Twitter account is being completely disingenuous -- students are being encouraged to use this chart as a measure of news quality.

In the discussion thread, somebody posts this chart I've seen before, where left/right is measured against something closer to news quality.

https://twitter.com/JimmyG303/status/1183850415386808320

It's not a perfect chart but it is much better, because it recognizes, for example, that bias and accuracy are two entirely different things and that maybe when it comes to news, accuracy is more important.

But also, it implicitly recognizes that bias itself isn't a binary concept. The AllSides chart -- ironically named -- treats it as binary, or trinary I guess. Left, right, neutral, with neutral considered "best."

In the discussion thread, people are predictably gobsmacked that NY Times opinion section would be considered "far left" -- what on earth is AllSides' using to evaluate?

Their Twitter account posts a link to a page describing their methods. allsides.com/media-bias/med…

It appears to be Internet crowd-sourced. Which sounds like garbage to me.

"patented"

Check out their slogan. Does it remind anyone else of the laughably false "fair and balanced"?

But also, it directly contradicts their Twitter handle's claim that they don't think "bias" is inherently bad -- their SLOGAN is "don't be fooled by media bias and fake news"

Don't be fooled by The New Yorker, everybody! Look out!

Yeah, no. AllSides has a very definite, obvious, right-leaning side, no matter how much they claim otherwise.

But they're also obviously biased in a different way -- everything about their page screams "extreme marketing hype."

"A patented media bias detection and display technology that drives what is arguably the world's most effective and up-to-date media bias detection engine."

Are they trying to make sure they come up first if you Google "media bias detection"?

"Patented" means they want to make money on it.

And if a library somewhere is using their chart as a teaching tool, they probably are. But also --

If AllSides' argument is that they're super great because they're constantly being updated with crowd-sourced data, the instant anybody prints out a chart to hand to kids, that chart isn't going to be very accurate anymore.

AllSides wants you to "join them" in making bias more transparent -- rate your own bias, then rate what you see as the bias of various media sources. That's how they do it. That's their patented technology.

What do you THINK you are -- left, lean left, center, lean right, right -- and what do you THINK the bias of this outlet is? Then they average them together in some way (that's probably the patented part) and get a rating.

So it's entirely subjective, with absolutely no quality control. If this thing went viral, the website could get flooded with people giving deliberately ridiculous answers & you get a Boaty McBoatface situation. nytimes.com/2016/03/22/wor…

And they're offering this stuff to schools. Note the difference in tone. The parent website uses Fox-flavored wording, while the one for schools talks about "critical thinking" and "democracy" allsidesforschools.org

I could probably spend all day poking at this and I've got stuff to do, so I'll try to wrap it up.

One, "media bias" is not a simple left/center/right trinary, and characterizing it that way is already a right wing frame.

For example, a lot of mainstream news outlets -- CNN, NY Times -- have a history not only of both-sidesism, but of being "socially liberal, fiscally conservative" -- which in my mind makes them center right. But the right wing has spent DECADES claiming they're far left.

After DECADES of the right making this claim, people tend to believe it, even if it's got no objective factual basis. So, obviously, that's going to influence something like AllSides, where the data is crowd-sourced.

Two, a simple left-right bias is not the best way of evaluating the accuracy of the information you get from a media outlet, and again, it's overly friendly to the right wing.

The far right column on the AllSides chart is mostly GARBAGE media outlets in terms of accuracy & credibility, while the far left column includes The New Yorker.

Why is that? Because, as Stephen Colbert famously observed, reality has a well-known liberal bias. The more liberal AUDIENCE for something like The New Yorker is more interested in facts, while the Breitbart audience mostly isn't.

This is because ALL our media outlets are businesses -- yes, they report the news, but essentially their business model is the same as the entertainment industry. Which is part of why there's so much bleed-through between news and entertainment.

I can't tell you how often I've had arguments with people on the right who assume that, as a liberal, I must **relate** to CNN the same way they relate to Fox or Rush Limbaugh. But I think CNN is garbage. Not AS garbage as Fox, but pretty garbage.

One of my journalism classes in college had us read a daily "national" paper, and we could choose from, I think, The Christian Science Monitor, The New York Times, The Washington Post, and The Wall Street Journal.

This was about **journalistic credibility** not "bias"

Third, this is very much a "who watches the watchmen" problem. The evaluating agency is clearly biased, their methodology is biased, their framing of the question is biased, and their results, predictably, are biased.

I remember being a kid and getting charts & handouts like this, in school and in church. They never told us where the charts came from, who made them & why, or how the school/church chose that particular chart.

This was most hilarious when I was being given handouts about "satanic" content in rock music, but even handouts with more surface credibility had the same underlying problem.
Who made this and why?
Who decided to give this to me, and why?

And, kids -- are there any kids on Twitter? -- when somebody hands you something, always ask that question, even if only to yourself.
Where did this come from?
Why is it here?

Who wrote this? When? What was their source? Can I corroborate with any other sources? What did they intend for it to mean? What meanings are communicated, whether intended or not?

Does the headline match the article? Does it overstate? Understate? What meanings are implied by the word choices?

Are there graphs? Are the graphs clearly labeled? What do the labels actually say?

There are a lot of ways to encourage people, including students, to thoughtfully engage with media and be sensitive to biases, but reducing everything to a simplified, crowd-sourced, left-right axis isn't one of them. The end.