Why not just say "Hundreds of hyper-conservative sites masquerading as local news?"
Except that it would also be sticking to the facts, no?
If you pour out a bag of marbles and find that all of the marbles are the same color, reporting that all of the marbles were the same color would be reporting just the facts.
But what you're suggesting to do isn't downplaying conclusions, it's downplaying the findings. Instead of reporting that the bag is filled with marbles all of the same color, you'd just report that the bag is filled with marbles. But the marbles all being the same color is still factual, and not reporting that leaves out something potentially important.
> We found that while left-leaning sites prioritize statewide reporting, right-leaning sites are more focused on local reporting
Obviously there are more small, local outlets than large, expansive ones.
These liberal sites may touch on statewide issues but just clicking on a few of them, they seem pretty insubstantial and low-effort. They are severely outnumbered by the conservative sites.
> Only 24 of the 445 sites we’ve identified so far are liberal-leaning.
This is probably why there have historically not been more deeply conservative papers compared to centrist or liberals let alone 95%.
Its a transparent strategy by a small number of actors to influence people on many fronts.
Edit: I am not taking a political stance here. Just saying there are news sources left out of this survey.
From the article:
> We suspect many of the local sites are not based in or actually operating within the communities they serve. Timpone had previously operated “local” news sites using content produced by writers based in the Philippines and using fake bylines
I am not taking a political side, just pointing out that this is not a complete survey of all sites, and the article at times suggests conclusions that can't be fairly made from this data unless it was a complete survey.
Another example: there is not a single site on the map in New York City. It would be very surprising if there wasn't at least one partisan local news site in NYC.
And you're replying without evidence that the stuff they didn't measure (and you didn't) must exist, because New England has democrats in it?
By a large margin, most "news" that I've seen that gets any popular attention (through channels with any significant number of consumers) has been of the variety that paints conservatives as being the problem, having unfair advantages, &c.
So what does that tell you about the actual balance of power?
It's entirely predictable.
Yes, news outlets have a partisan bias, that's pretty much unavoidable, but there's an expectation that they have some degree of independence and that they do actual journalism and analysis.
On the other hand, hyper-partisan outfits are just mouthpieces for their political masters.
Judging by the strange bedfellows of the conservative movement, maybe Richard Spencer.
And in our case, I believe the situation is even more "interesting": there are a variety of mainstream parties, not only two like in USA. Even though, it's the far right that operate most of such disguised local news websites.
They are invariably full of ads and, not by coincidence, I become aware of such sites mostly by Google suggested content.
Withholding that wouldn't be accurate.
95% of these sites are conservative-leaning. That's the story here, and as GP says, implying that this is a problem across a wide ideological spectrum is wrong.
But to your point, we don't know unless we know, and my assumption could be totally wrong.
1) Pareto: where there's a power law based distribution. So it is possible that 5% of sites have more than 50% of impact.
This just means it isn't out of the bounds of possibilities. But we'd have to dig deeper into which sites garner the majority of eyes (though we'd expect a power law in this).
2) Left learning areas tend to be more population dense.
Of course with these two considerations we haven't really made any conclusions. I just want to point out that a small number of sites can reasonably hold the majority of viewership. Which sites those are and which bias they entail, that requires a real analysis. We've just stated that the conjecture isn't impossible.
No. The story there is that hyperpartisan sites are masquerading as local news. That they're mostly from a few conservative companies should be prominently said, but to claim that they're only conservative is obviously incorrect and misleading.
I believe the GP just hadn't read the complete article but merely skimmed, saw five conservative companies and understood "it's all conservative sites".
I don't see anyone in this thread (or the article) claiming that they're "only conservative", do you?
FTA:
>As the map indicates, there are considerably more conservative-leaning sites than liberal-leaning sites. Only 24 of the 445 sites we’ve identified so far are liberal-leaning.
It's 95% conservative sites. Do you dispute that? I think GP was dead-on in their assessment, skimming or not.
In the comment I replied to:
> Why not just say "Hundreds of hyper-conservative sites masquerading as local news?"
As a suggested headline, that would certainly imply they're only conservative. A headline should accurately describe the content. Mentioning that the super majority are conservative would be an improvement, implying that they all are would not be.
> It's 95% conservative sites. Do you dispute that?
I literally quoted the relevant part there, what kind of question is this? Must this site really turn into Twitter? Did you really need a "Ha! Gotcha! Screencapped and Retweeted!!!!!" moment?
Not really sure what the last part of your comment even means.
I said "A" you said "But it's A. Do you dispute that?" as if I hadn't just literally said A. That's very low, and really not something I'd like to see more of on this site.
I would like to see less of whatever this is on this site.
And add "and we didn't look very hard for hyper-left sites"?