> as is the tone of its news coverage
I read the Guardian for 20 years, it's not less partisan in its output, it's incredibly partisan - just like all the other big papers. Thinking a news source doesn't have a slant is incredibly naive, in my view, but since this is coming from another newspaper or journalist with their own biases and slant, it's at best false and at worst a lie.
I don't see how that's relevant to my comment? I've been using that site for many years for media I'm unfamiliar with and it's only somewhat helpful, and its current ranking of the Graun says nothing about its partisanship (or bias, which in their usage is a misnomer, in my view).
I can pick certain topics and check the Graun to see whether they ever deviate from positive or negative on those topics. That's partisanship, wholly different from where they land on the political spectrum.
I was chiming in to the broader thread not just your comment but I think it adds to your observation about the political bias.
I'd love to get a higher quality source of data on media bias and accuracy. Both of these matter because even reporting facts but emphasizing a certain perspective distorts reality. Inaccuracy or straight out making stuff up is another form of reality distortion.
Fair enough. I'm hopeful that with AI we can get better metrics (although it'll probably add another layer of bias!)
As to the distortions, the only defence against that appears to be to read a wide array of sources. I stopped reading the Guardian after one too many straight up lies but I certainly can't say they're the only ones.
I'm not sure that site is fair.
The Guardian has some statistical errors (600 vs 30), a couple serious and the others less serious (9% vs 3%).
It seems to be being held to a higher standard than media known to be less trustworthy.
Does seem odd to have Fox News, which they describe as exhibiting "promotion of propaganda, conspiracy theories, pseudoscience, the use of poor sources, and numerous false claims and failed fact checks", ranked above the guardian for factual reporting, when it describes the guardian as having "numerous failed fact checks over the last five years."
Neither is desirable, but one seems quite definitely worse than the other, and I wouldn't say the one making mistakes is worse than the one they call out as "PANTS ON FIRE"...
They're both ranked mixed which sits below the next level. Maybe fox is at the bottom of that bucket while the Guardian is not?
Also it would depend on the ratio of fact check issues to stories. Maybe Fox News runs a lot more news?
Either way, the analysis seems not crazy, and the Guardian seems biased and not 100% factual.
They have a numeric scale as well, which scores fox at 6.1 and the guardian at 5.7 (I think, I looked yesterday)
The guardian’s editorial is politically biased, it wears that on its sleeve, their opinion pieces come from a moderate-left viewpoint. But its reporting is generally factual, even if they make mistakes sometimes, as reported on that site.
Whereas they literally label some fox links as “PANTS ON FIRE”, I.e deliberate falsehoods. And we all know the story around, say, Dominion, where Fox knew they were lying but carried on. And the site gives them a higher score?
This is enough for me to doubt the site is anywhere near a reliable comparator.
I thought Fox News had declared themselves to be entertainment television only and not the news for legal purposes.
But yes, The Avengers is riddled with inaccuracies and may not reflect yesterdays actual events in New York, London and Wakanda.