> 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.
Withholding that wouldn't be accurate.
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.