We edit this map

Do you agree with this?
I do for the most part, I'd put businessinsider.com toward the center right, it's great about exposing the business relationships that give away stuff like Russia actually being balls deep in the Trump administration, regardless of any spurious "hacking" notions

...

Reason is actually pretty ok on social issues since they're the one lolbert publication in the US that doesn't pander to baffled monarchists/white separatists.

Friend shared this photo on NSAbook couple weeks ago, told him it was pretty shitty.

All im seeing are bourgie "news" corporations so we edit the map by removing every one of them

I mean I think the guardian is kinda shit, but come on.

muh perfect goldilocks muh dick

It's almost completely wrong. Everything in the green "high quality" area at the top is guilty of knowingly spreading misleading government propaganda. Almost everything is right or liberal-leaning. In fact, if all of the publications kept their relative positions but were squashed down into the bottom right quadrant, the image would be a lot more accurate.

More alarmingly, they put Fox at the boundary between "high quality" and "mixed quality". That alone should completely discredit everything about this image.

Fox is in an odd place because they own a lot of harmless local and regional stations and channels, but nationally they are worse than wrong.

The Economist is not neutral. They even say this explicitly. They're part of the British liberal establishment.

* This chart only depicts "left" and "right" within the Overton window of American politics, and not actual left and right of all of political ideas.
* AP is absolutely not neutral at all.
* Jezbel is never quality.

in what fucking world?

Literally none of these should be higher than the lower third of the "mixed quality" section

...

How the hell is RT leans right?
Redacted Tonight (Lee Camp)
Max Keiser
Thom Hartmann
are all on the left
and that's not all of the left-wing stuff on RT

You can see Chris Hedges on RT too I think?

RT was lefty leaning until it went turd positionist some 1.5-2 years ago because no one wants to hear actual news from the third world point of view without idpol pandering anymore.
It's still nowhere near fucking mises though.

OP here, my local newspapers and tv stations, I haunt the comments sections trying to champion the immortal science of Dialectical Materialism and other obnoxious shit.

Yesterday, Trumpites freaked the fuck out about a critical story about Trump, and shouted FAKE NEWS like they do…

It was an AP story.

"AP IS FAKE NEWSSS"

Associated Press

oh yeah man, more unreliable than James O'Keefe, those AP cunts

...

Where are the PROOFS, Billy?

...

kek

...

...

Oh come the fuck on, it's literally a horseshoe.

...

RT has some good pro-soviet stuff.

I would put them in the middle.

Vox is actually pretty high quality when it gives up its hyperpartisan bullshit, putting them below uniformly trash outlets like HuffPo, Jezebel or Daily Kos is simply wrong. It's also mainstream liberal hyperpartisan bullshit, which makes the left-to-right scale confusing (it's garbage not because it's far-left, it's because it's far up its ass on a centrist ideology).

CNN does not lean left, it leans towards those currently in power. So does Newsweek. They're also significantly more garbage, as is WashPo. New York Times and Guardian are mixed bag, with both leaning garbage.

I vouch for RealClearPolitics, it's right-wing, but even-handed and its article selection is extremely informative. FiveThirtyEight is about right, too. Reason is significantly more partisan (Vox style), and probably should be lower on quality (but it's hard for a leftist to tell, I'm obviously biased).

Can't tell about others, but I suspect most of them are also more bullshit and more to the right than the picture claims.

...