I am curious how many of these medias actually admit that they are biased themselves?
Facebook is in an interesting position, they have such a wide swath of populations for reasons other than an editorial slant, they have people on site who might disagree with their position. Unlike the media where people who don't like the editorial bias of a paper simply don't read it.
It would be perfectly reasonable for Facebook to have an editorial position on the stories. But it has asserted that it does not. And that is where things get tricky. We saw on a propublica story about how the machine algorithm can get biased by poor data and assumptions, and we've seen from Facebook's media response that even when they don't have an "official" position, their employees naturally do and Facebook is seeking additional training for them to protect their biases from leaking into their curation choices.
That said, the "reality" of what is and what isn't trending is more about reinforcing one's belief in a position and less about the news. People who believe a story that strongly endorses their position but never trends is "suppressed", and stories that conflict with their opinions but are trending are "biased". I have yet to find any way to have a reasonable discussion about the popularity of views versus the correctness of those views with anyone who believes their point of view is being suppressed by "shadowy influences."
I don't think there is any way for Facebook to win here and a lot of ways it can lose.
Where is the Facebook editorial bias coming into play?
No it wouldn't, Facebook is nearly ubiquitous. It would have far too much control over dialogue.
Given how much liberal outlets scoff at the notion of there being a pervasive liberal bias in the MSM, I suspect they legitimately just don't see it as they're surrounded by people with the same political views and so are predisposed to believing that's what "normal" is.
The biggest cable news channel, the most popular newspaper (I think WSJ leads; EDIT: and certainly it dominates the business world), and almost all talk radio are highly conservative. They try to paint themselves as underdogs, but it's a little silly.
If you're a liberal and you want to watch news that doesn't offend you, you can choose from any of the major networks save Fox. If you're a conservative and want the same, you're stuck with Fox.
I don't agree.
First, there are plenty of smaller conservative ideological publications (two were listed in the original comment, plus endless more: RedState, Daily Caller, Breitbart, etc.). Almost all talk- radio, as I mentioned, is conservative.
Also I said in another comment, there is plenty of apolitical journalism.
(!conservative) != (liberal)
There are leftist ideologues, and they say the NY Times is conservative and there is no difference between the parties (as incredible as that sounds). Either you share their ideology, or you are in the 'other' camp.
The right-wing ideologues are the same: They define any journalism as not ideologically conservative as liberal. (They also call themselves outsiders when the control the 2/3 of the states and both houses of Congress). But it's not the case.
Could you name three major sources of it, preferably not personal blogs? I am asking out of curiosity and disbelief.
Now, this ability appears to be quite rare. I wouldn't be surprised if, worse yet, the kind of personality needed to do it made you less likely to become a journalist. In short, I doubt you could staff a newsroom full of people receptive to out-group ideas. (And if you think that you, yourself, aren't biased this way without very strong evidence for it I would suggest you take an outside view, per https://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Outside_view)
Because of all of this I'd appreciate a genuine answer to my question even if I end up disagreeing with it.
> Now, this ability appears to be quite rare.
I disagree that it's nearly so difficult or rare. The U.S. rarely has been this polarized, and everyone used to share the same news sources (major network nightly news - which probably still are the leading sources). Again, I think this approach is just the justification of those who want ideological war rather than finding ways, as so many have done so often in history, to bring people together.
> the kind of personality needed to do it made you less likely to become a journalist
You are entitled to your opinion, of course, but I have no reason to believe this statement is accurate.
At any rate, even back in the old days of media there certainly were many choices for conservative news. Jim Lehrer's PBS Newshour on TV, many regional newspapers, and business papers for instance. Populism had a few non-gossip national tabloids like the New York Post; talk radio too.
It is true that a lot of media was dominated by a modest-left stance (talk radio being the exception), but I don't find bias a problem per se (we all are biased after all). I lean modest liberal personally, but back when I actually watched TV news I thought the PBS Newshour was the best of the lot, as it seemed to avoid some of the scare story traps the "big three" occasionally worked themselves up over.
Of course, these days, thanks to the web, you have every opportunity to silo yourself in one bias you are not "offended by" if you want.
> poorly thought out, sensationalist, over-emotional reporting that is devoid of facts and plays on fears (this type of "reporting" occurs on both sides, unfortunately)
I think it's important to point out that this is a false equivalency. The conservative outlets that do reporting like this, such as Fox, Rush Limbaugh, the WSJ (it's editorial page, at least) etc. have far more audience than the liberal equivalents (the Huffington Post might be one, but I think even they are better than the three I mentioned).
If we try to be extra fair and say it's equivalent, we hide from what I think is the U.S.'s and world's biggest problem.
How would one measure this? How would one know if what they're detecting is not an opposing bias, but a lack of reinforcement of one's personal bias?
> Conservatives flock to places like Fox and WSJ because they're a refuge from the liberal bias that pervades the rest of the media
That's the story, anyway.
The far right considers everything but the most right-wing fringe of that to be the "liberal" mainstream media
As compared to what?
Since then the republican party has gone even further off the deep end.
Which you say, sincerely, because you're a liberal and the GOP is the other "team" or "tribe". There are plenty of us who don't think of ourselves as Democrats who see plenty of insanity on the left--look at the resurgence of socialism or the social justice crowd on campus and in the media.
Both parties have completely lost touch with voters, which is why we saw populist insurgencies in both. If there were more candidates in the Democratic primaries, we could just as easily have seen a Sanders nomination as we did a Trump one.
Claiming that political insanity is endemic to only one side ignores the batshit lunacy emanating from both camps.
And I think there's a lot of insanity on the left too.
Thinking a liberal satirist made a good point does not make one a mindless tribal zombie.
"Fair and Balanced"?
I'm not entirely sure about this. Trump's been eating the media's lunch in interviews; perhaps a more biased approach acknowledging his interview games would actually lead to better reporting.
I'd rather have reports from sources that don't try to pretend to be unbiased.
Bias is an integral part of journalism, it's up to the reader to understand this fact and collect information from multiple sources (if they're so inclined).
Personally I believe left/right bias isn't that interesting. The media has a strong bias toward sensationalism, and in elections there's a strong bias toward reporting on a horse race. Maybe this is the bias you're talking about. IMO these biases have helped Trump and Sanders respectively.
What a weird society we live in where everyone thinks the media is biased and few agree on exactly how.
you see it in say, chris matthews basically trying to "assassinate" sanders while cozying up to clinton.