Ask Skewz.com Founder About Detecting Media Bias

Skewz.com is not the Microsoft-funded Blews experiment that is supposed to help detect rightness and leftness in stories based on blogs that link to them. Instead of detecting blog links, Skewz relies on readers to submit and rate stories, and even tries to pair stories that have "liberal" and "conservative" biases so that you can get multiple takes on the same event or pronouncement. The Skewz About page explains how it works. The site has drawn a fair amount of "media insider" attention, including a writeup on the Poynter Institute website. But what does all this mean? Where is it going? Can Skewz.com help us sort our news better and make more informed decisions? We don't know. But if you post a question here for founder Vipul Vyas, maybe he'll have an answer for you. (Please try to follow the usual Slashdot interview rules.)

Are all americans one dimensional

[line-bundle]

I still do not understand why everything is left/right. Reality tends to be complicated and every story has a lot more aspects than left/right (even if you manage to define those two terms).

Re:

[chunk08]

True. Not all issues can be defined with left/right. However, in politics, we can generalize (oh the horror) thus: Left: Do as much as possible through government, especially welfare and education. Less free market. Higher taxes, more government benefits Right: Do as much as possible in the private sector. This includes welfare (private charities) and education. Lower taxes, less government benefits. Now this does not cover every issue, but it gives a general idea of the philosophies that an intelligent pe

Re:

[Jugalator]

And IMHO, that's exactly why it shouldn't be either left or right, because the middle ground is often a very good one. However, media is often aligned with either of the sides, and pushes for ideas I think often are suboptimal.

Re:Are all americans one dimensional

[PopeRatzo]

it shouldn't be either left or right, because the middle ground is often a very good one.

Here's teh problem with that, Jugulator: Through the manipulation of the media and overwhelming application of corporate power, the "middle" you speak of has been artificially pushed way to the Right.

Just look at how a politician like Barack Obama is said to be "far Left", when in fact, he's to the Right of a real Center. I've lived long enough to have seen a real "Left" in America, and my father and grandfather have lived through a time when there was even a farther Left, with the Wobblies and the CPUSA. In fact, during my granddad's adulthood, Socialism was not very far from the mainstream in the US. I wonder what would happen if a real Leftist ever became a serious candidate for office here. I'd go so far as to say that not one single member of Congress could be honestly said to be on the "far Left" and that includes Rep Sanders (Ind-Vermont).

On the other hand, someone like John McCain, who is widely (and wrongly) thought to be a "Centrist" supports a torture regime, the elimination of habeas corpus, warrantless surveillance of US citizens, corporate control of media, the elimination of the Department of Education, the repeal of all banking and securities regulation, and many more positions that would normally earn a politician a reputation as a member of the Far Right, if not actually Fascism.

Seriously, let me list those again: John McCain supports torture, holding people, including US citizens indefinitely without bringing charges, warrantless eavesdropping on telephone and email conversations, unregulated corporate control of all media, the elimination of the Department of Education, the repeal of all banking and securities regulation, etc.

And interestingly, he was one of the politicians who used to push the privatization of Social Security, although he wouldn't whisper a word of that any more. Remember, if Social Security had been privatized during Bush's first term, which Bush wanted and McCain supported, there would have been a lot of Americans who had their Social Security funds at Bear Stearns, which recently went from over $100 per share to $2.00 per share. Those Americans would have lost almost every penny. This is why you don't hear any more cheerleading for the idea of privatization of Social Security from conservatives any more, even though they would still love to see it happen.

No, "Left and Right" aren't really useful terms any more, when the spectrum has really become "Right and Further Right".

Re:Are all americans one dimensional

[Gordonjcp]

Actually, it's simpler than that:

Left = Quality of life at the expense of economic growth

Right = Economic growth at the expense of everything else, no matter what the cost

You see this in the US, where schools and hospitals are run purely to generate profit, with the barest minimum of education or care provided (got to keep those overheads down, no matter what!)

Re:

[imamac]

You see this in the US, where schools and hospitals are run purely to generate profit...

Funny thing is, I was in the ER last with with my two-year-old, and there was a big sign that says (in summary) "We will take care of you even if you can't pay." Come to think of it, it's in EVREY hospital in the country.

Re:Are all americans one dimensional

[h4rm0ny]

I'd say both definitions are (a) grossly inadquate as a basis for categorising political viewpoints which are massively more complicated and (b) merely attitudes that do not necessarily equate to the outcomes of any given policy. The divisive split between "left" and "right" is one of the things that most cripples democracy in the USA, today. By labelling something as belonging to one faction or another, serious consideration of the merits of a particular action can be derailed. Maybe tax cuts are the right thing at a given time to stimulate the economy. Maybe state aid to a faltering financial institution is going to head off disaster on another occasion. But instead of assessing ideas as good or bad, "left" and "right" become substitutes for good and bad and nothing needs to be said beyond that. Never mind that often enough it is not appropriate to categorise things in these terms. It seems half the time that political beliefs are treated as merely territory to be captured by "left" or "right" and claimed as fitting that faction's ideology.

In the words of the immortal Bill Hicks (well, except that he's dead): "Hey, waitaminute! It's one guy holding up both puppets!"

Re:Are all americans one dimensional

[Naughty Bob]

They are useful, though massively abstract concepts- nobody is saying that the terms themselves are 'seeds' from which entire Philosophies are able to be derived. Interestingly, the terms originated from the old French parliament, where the Aristocrats sat to the right of the King, and the commoners sat to the left.

The divisive split between "left" and "right" is one of the things that most cripples democracy in the USA, today.

Correction: The divisive split between "Right" and "Far Right" is one of the things that most cripples democracy in the USA, today.

Re:Are all americans one dimensional

[Kelz]

Thanks for being the problem.

Re:

[Naughty Bob]

Thanks for being the problem.

Hey, don't mention it. x

Re:

[Captain Splendid]

socialism which history has demonstrated to be a failure.

Yeah, shame you don't have any real world examples.

Re:Are all americans one dimensional

[OwnedByTwoCats]

Liberals don't destroy economies. Conservatives do.

Go back 100 years. The economy did better when Democrats controlled the White House than when Republicans did. Leave off the best and worst of both parties, same answer. So it isn't just the Great Depression.

I'll take the economic "destruction" of 1993-2000 that came along with a 38% top marginal income tax rate, which is still lower than the marginal tax rate for middle income people paying FICA and in the 25% tax bracket (25% + 1
For the past 28 years, conservative Republican policies have been "borrow and spend". Raise taxes on the lower and middle classes, and cut them on the wealthiest. Run up huge deficits. Hand China and India the power that comes with holding nearly a trillion dollars in US obligations.

Conservative fiscal policy, as practiced by Reagan, Bush, and Bush, are inherently unsustainable. That unsustainability is finally coming home to roost, with a plummeting dollar.

Thank you!

[mcmonkey]

In the words of the immortal Bill Hicks (well, except that he's dead): "Hey, waitaminute! It's one guy holding up both puppets!"

Oh my lack of god yes! Funny thing is, I just finished replying to a post accusing me of being a "rabid ultra-left Democrat" with:

You've been had. Just like racism is a way to get poor white folks fighting poor brown folk so they don't realize most of their problems have nothing to do with color. The policies that lead to the rich getting richer and the poor paying the bill

Re:

[sesshomaru]

Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos.

Re:Are all americans one dimensional

[inviolet]

I'd say both definitions are (a) grossly inadquate as a basis for categorising political viewpoints which are massively more complicated and (b) merely attitudes that do not necessarily equate to the outcomes of any given policy. The divisive split between "left" and "right" is one of the things that most cripples democracy in the USA, today. By labelling something as belonging to one faction or another, serious consideration of the merits of a particular action can be derailed.

Serious consideration is derailed, indeed, but it's not a conspiracy. It is simply human nature to find simple categories with which to make predictions and choices. Any consideration of nuances, shades of grey, contradiction and ambiguity, requires a lot of mental energy... not to mention more mental hardware than many people have to begin with.

Mental energy is a more precious resource than money, and even more than time. We all have more time than we have energy -- that's why we come home at night and "vege out".

This is why most political arguments are fights over categorization... once a thing has been categorized (and we all feel an urgent need to do so for any issues that remain expensively uncategorized), we can apply very simple logic when dealing with it again. White hat, good guy; black hat, bad guy.

An example: although ethanol logically belongs in the category of "mind-altering addictive substances", we lack the political will to admit it, because if we announce "alcohol is in the category of 'drug'", we'll then be obliged to apply our "drug == bad" logic to it.

Lord knows how I ever got hooked up with this godforsaken species. Where's the damned mothership already?

Re:

[dcam]

The definitions are even stranger if you aren't an American. From an outside perspective it isn't left and right, it is right and extreme right.

Re:

[KiltedKnight]

You're both skewing it.

It's really:

Left

• do what you can to pay lip service to social freedoms while telling people how to think
• provide as much wealth redistribution as you possibly can
• restrict economic freedoms as much as possible

Right

• do what you can to pay lip service to economic freedoms while actually screwing the little guy
• redistribute wealth to the corporations and the CEOs
• restrict social freedoms by invading the private lives of otherwise law-abiding citizens

Re:Are all americans one dimensional

[ScienceDada]

Your definition is completely reversed.
The "Left" is for strong central government--as you say, "top down"--(i.e. Federal government).
The "Right" is for strong local control--as you say, bottom-up--i.e. States' rights.
In America, these have been opposing sides since the framing of the Constitution.

Re:

[Naughty Bob]

Your definition is completely reversed.

Only if you chose peculiar definitions of 'Top' and 'Bottom'.

Bottom in my context means 'most needy of society's assistance', and top means the reverse.

Re:

[JeanPaulBob]

Hmm...You were also talking about different areas of political philosophy.

He was talking about local/private vs. federal action.

You were talking about "social justice"[1] policies, corporate tax breaks, and tax cut philosophy. (Tax philosophy as in, should cuts be a constant percentage across the tax brackets (weighted in dollars toward the rich), or percentage-weighted toward the poor.)

Hmm...In your terms, I think most conservatives would not affirm that they want to care for society from the top-do

Re:

[aplusjimages]

Just look at these post, no one can define left and right properly. Each poster tells the other poster that their definition is wrong. That's because we are all complex and a leftist will define being leftist different than another leftists and the same holds true for people on the right. Screw defining it.

Re:Are all americans one dimensional

[Omestes]

Something is hard, so trying it isn't worthwhile?

I think the point is that it is impossible to define because it doesn't actually mean anything. Its an arbitrary label we can throw onto other people we don't like. Each word is packed full of idiotic stereotypes, and psychological fallacies.

Left = commie
Right = fascist.

We might not admit to these translations, but I think that they are the general image we get when either term is used. And I don't think any person, or political ideology, ever actually can fall into a pure left/right schema. Its almost as moronic as the "red" and "blue" state myth, which serves no purpose than to pigeon hole people for the derision of other people.

I find it very easy to hold views from the so-called left and right at the same time. Many of them are not as contradictory as this simplistic classification would grant.

Out of curiosity where would famous political philosophers fall in this? Is John Locke, and J.S. Mill a leftist, while Thomas Hobbs is a righty?

Re:Are all americans one dimensional

[Mr. Slippery]

The "Left" is for strong central government--as you say, "top down"--(i.e. Federal government). The "Right" is for strong local control--as you say, bottom-up--i.e. States' rights.

So neocons who have striven to extend the power of the federal government are leftists? And Greens who work for more local control are right-wingers?

No. Federalist versus anti-federalist is a different dimension from left versus right.

The political terms left and right date to the French revolution, when nobility sat on the right and commoners on the left of the legislature. In modern terms, they refer to Labor and Capital. To be in favor of the interests of investors and owners is to be on the right; to be in favor of the interests of workers and ordinary citizens is to be on the left.

It doesn't matter whether you're an Maoist who believes in dictatorship of the peasants, or a anarchist who believes in no government and thus no private capital, you're a leftist; and it doesn't matter if you're a plutocrat who believes that the rich should control the government, or a libertarian capitalist in the minimal government that can enforce strong property rights, you're a right-winger.

Various alliances made over the years have obscured this, to the point where people think of gun control, censorship, abortion, foreign policy, and many other issues in left/right terms, but that's fuzzy thinking. Politics is multi-dimensional, and left-right is just one axis.

Re:

[Mr. Slippery]

Yes neocons are leftists. They are not for the goals of smaller government, even though they pretend they are.

Left/right has nothing to do with bigger/smaller government. Anarchists are leftists and in favor of a smaller government. Members of the Libertarian party are rightists in favor of a smaller government.

We would do well to think of government as a vector, possessing both magnitude and direction. The force of government can push left or right (or through several other dimensions), and it can do

The One Party State

[copponex]

The last administrations have done nothing to return states rights, and in fact have moved the Executive Branch further outside the bounds of congressional and even judicial oversight. There's no such thing as left and right in American Government. They pander to the left or the right, but their focus is on more government control. They both start the same wars, participate in the same corruption.

The two wedge issues are gay marriage and abortion for the right, which would never survive the "clear and secular purpose" litmus test, and the wedge issues for the left are "Bush is dumb" and "we want change," despite the fact there are no real policy differences. One side refuses to take nuclear options off the table in dealing with Iran, and the other side refuses to take nuclear options off the table when dealing with Iran.

It's really quite beautiful when you think about it. America is a One Party State, complete with gerrymandered lines and mass media that shuts out thirty party options. Why argue about things like our right to interfere in the affairs of sovereign nations when you can just leave that out of the discussion entirely?

Re:

[Wah]

Unfortunately your definition predates modern politics.

State's right haven't been an issue since the "right" lost the civil war.

Since then, most everyone on the national level is for a strong central government (kind of a self-selecting kind of thing), and 'state's rights' are a topic by topic thing (i.e. if federal laws are in your favor, you like them. If they aren't, you don't).

Re:Bzzt wrong

[mrraven]

Yes American here however I'll take issue a bit and say that religion and the "right" has been noted by politcal researchers using sound emperical methods, see for example:

"In 1939, Leonard W. Ferguson carried out an analysis of political values using ten scales measuring attitudes toward:

        * War
        * Reality of God
        * Patriotism
        * Treatment of criminals
        * Capital punishment
        * Censorship
        * Evolution
        * Birth control
        * Law, and
        * Communism

Submitting the results to factor analysis, he was able to identify three factors, which he named Religionism, Humanitarianism, and Nationalism. Ferguson's Religionism was defined by belief in God and negative attitudes toward evolution and birth control; Humanitarianism was related to attitudes opposing the harsh treatment of criminals, capital punishment, and war; and Nationalism described variation in opinions on censorship, law, patriotism, and communism. Note that this system was derived through purely empirical methods; rather than devising a political model on purely theoretical grounds and testing it, Ferguson's research was purely exploratory. Although replication of the Nationalism factor was spotty, the finding of Religionism and Humanitarianism had a number of replications by Ferguson and others.[1][2]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_spectrum [wikipedia.org]

As I said I think the definitions of left and right are pretty muddied these days but I do think there are worthwhile differences to note between secular humanistic thinkers who we may label "left" for lack of better terms and those with a more tough minded religous thought who we may label right wing.

Just my .02

Sorta...

[thule]

Left: Looking after society from the bottom up.

but change comes from the top down via strong government.

Right: Looking after society from the top down.

A true conservative (not Republican) tries to minimize government as much as possible (though not as much as a libertarian) and believes that the market will work problems out for itself. So the right doesn't look at top down, it looks at the marketplace as a complex whole that cannot be controlled at any point without causing unintended outcomes. I would say that the left is much more top down than the right, but justifies it's top down approach

Re:

[chunk08]

I'd say that's quite a right wing definition

OK... It is a definition. Calling it "right-wing" is no argument at all. Pointing out specific areas of disagreement would be.

Left: Looking after society from the bottom up.
Right: Looking after society from the top down.

So the government exists "to look after society?"
Not to protect us and our liberty?

Re:

[Naughty Bob]

So the government exists "to look after society?"

Yes.

Not to protect us and our liberty?

That you think the two are separate objectives speaks volumes.

Re:

[electrictroy]

>>>Left: Looking after society from the bottom up.
>>>Right: Looking after society from the top down.

I don't know how you can label the Leftist view of letting the government run everything (healthcare, housing, food) as a bottom-up approach. That sounds like a top-down approach to me (where the top mandates how citizens are supposed to live).

Personally I prefer "authoritarian" versus "libertarian" as a way to separate the articles.

Maybe I'll create my own website.

Re:

[electrictroy]

P.S. For example:

I'd label Hillary Clinton as "authoritarian" because she says, "You must buy health insurance. You have no choice; if you don't buy insurance, you will be jailed (or fined)." That mandatory requirement that all citizens buy insurance is an authoritarian viewpoint, where citizens must follow the will of President Hillary (and/or the Congress) as if she were king.

I'd label Ron Paul as "libertarian" because he wants doctors to serve patients, and patients to "pay as they go" when they recei

Re:

[electrictroy]

My view of government is described in the American Declaration of Independence.

- The People are the ultimate authority.
- The government only exists because the People created it.
- It is granted SOME power by the People to protect human rights (unified defense, for example).
- All other powers not granted to the government by the Constitutional contract, is reserved to the People.

That's my view of government, and it is supplemented by Thomas Jefferson's writings. For example he wrote, "If it were possible to

Re:

[RareButSeriousSideEf]

How about this... instead of using subjective definitions of Left and Right and trying to compare media outlets' similarities with same, why not take a less subjective approach like the following:

In this paper we estimate ADA (Americans for Democratic Action) scores for major media outlets such as the New York Times, USA Today, Fox News' Special Report, and all three network television news shows. Our estimates allow us to answer such questions as "Is the average article in the New York Times more liberal than the average speech by Tom Daschle?" or "Is the average story on Fox News more conservative than the average speech by Bill Frist?" To compute our measure, we count the times that a media outlet cites various think tanks and other policy groups. We compare this with the times that members of Congress cite the same think tanks in their speeches on the floor of the House and Senate. By comparing the citation patterns we construct an ADA score.

From: A Measure of Media Bias [ucla.edu]
Tim Groseclose
Department of Political Science
UCLA
Jeff Milyo
Department of Economics
University of Missouri
December 2004

Not this again...

[statemachine]

That study's conclusions are flawed and it even says so.

1) Right-wing bias of the study's authors including or excluding data:
Wanting to make sure the ACLU appears left-leaning by excluding data:

While most of these averages closely agree with the conventional wisdom, two cases seem somewhat anomalous. The first is the ACLU. The average score of legislators citing it was 49.8. Later, we shall provide reasons why it makes sense to define the political center at 50.1. This suggests that the ACLU, if anythi

Re:

[ArsonSmith]

I'm kinda confused on your meaning. I read it and think to my self up to 28 million people on food stamps is bad, but in the context and comparison to Democratic Socialism I think you imply only 28 million people surviving on food stamps is bad because the other ~270 million USians have to fend for them selves.

Re:

[Naughty Bob]

I guess my point was that these left/right arguments on /. always seem to be framed in the context of unbridled capitalism being the natural, correct way, with any leftist position being indistinguishable from Stalinism.

So I pointed out that the US has the kind of problems that most democracies wouldn't countenance for a second.

Sure, the US system makes billionaires hand over fist, but at an intolerable cost.

Re:

[jgarra23]

Are all americans one dimensional

No, our (and yours even more so) media would just like you to think that. I'm amazed that the rest of the world thinks they're so spot-on about Americans when your media arguably distorts facts in an even more insidious and twisted fashion than ours does. Seriously guys, come on, are you this naive?

Re:

[NeutronCowboy]

I think all comments after the parent are pretty much redundant. It took me a while to figure out why this new site bothered me, but the parent summarized it quite nicely: the distinction between left/right and liberal/conservative are completely artificial in this country, and largely defined by opposition of the other side, not support of an idea or platform. Sites like skewz do nothing more than perpetuate the idea that there is a right/left dichotomy that has clearly definable boundaries. In my opinion

Re:

[sm62704]

OK, I want marijuana, prostitution, and gambling legalized. Do I vote for a Republican or a Democrat?

See, the thing is, there really is no right/left. Democrats and Republicans are like two wings of the same party (both wings want me in jail). The reason for the percieved right-left is that the corporate and monied interests control all non-internet media, and those interests are allowed to bribe candidates with so-called "campaign contributions". Joe Moneybags gives ten million to the Democrat and ten mill

Re:

[LuYu]

I still do not understand why everything is left/right. Reality tends to be complicated and every story has a lot more aspects than left/right (even if you manage to define those two terms).

This is nearly what I was going to say. Who really cares about two arbitrary and meaningless (and historically malleable) categories like "conservative" and "liberal"? I mean, what is the difference between Coke and Pepsi, anyway? Are they not just two versions of the same thing? Finally, is breaking things into

Re:

[Adambomb]

(even if you manage to define those two terms).

Hmm, it's been attempted before [wikipedia.org]. Fairly well too, seeing as even the writers admit to the ambiguities and gradients in possible political opinions.

Re:

[Maxo-Texas]

I agree... currently the Left is for big government.. while the Right is for big government... hmm.
But the left suppresses free speech ( "PC"- reeducation ) while the right suppresses free speech.. hmmm.
And so on...

Even on issues like abortion, there are pro and anti-republicans, democrats, and others. Some republicans are really just pro business. Of course so are many democrats (as long as the business is in their state... i.e. Boeing vs Airbuss recently).

Re:

[penix1]

Ask yourself this:

Is there any federal level politician that can be considered "middle" or "lower" income when they ran for office (we know they aren't once they gain office)? That answer would be a big resounding NO! It takes huge amounts of money to even begin running for a national office these days. So just how does the vast majority of Americans (lower to middle income earners) get fair representation against the high earners big spenders? Again, they don't. The wealthy have always had more representat

So what is liberal or conservative?

[MickLinux]

So, is sexual impropriety liberal (Clinton) or conservative (Gingerich)?
How about economic activism (Greenspan)?
What about pro-war?
How about government hypervigilance against its own citizens?
How about abortion?
What about economic stimulus?
How about WTO?

Honestly, with the way all the votes actually go when a liberal or conservative party has control of everything, I have to say that in each of these cases, the "liberal" and "conservative" positions are identical, and the opposite position has no coverage.

Re:So what is liberal or conservative?

[morgan_greywolf]

And how much difference does it make?

For example, [Ll]ibertarians don't tend to see politics in this light. They see things as "statist" or "non-statist". Any viewpoint favoring the rights of the individual over the power of State intervention is non-statist. To a [Ll]ibertarian left and right can both be wrong, as they may, and oftentimes DO, both represent a statist viewpoint.

Re:So what is liberal or conservative?

[jellomizer]

If it's stupid it's left-wing.

Re:

[jellomizer]

The BBC takes an outsider view of American Politics which is rather refreshing. There really isn't much invested interests in Pushing an American Left or Right agenda.

Re:

[Kelz]

Also in general instead of filling in the gaps in "major" news stories they usually do either a cultural story or a story about something far worse happening in other parts of the world, which is far more informative than Paris Hilton.

Re:

[jellomizer]

Both that is what happends when you get a bipartiasian agreement

Re:

[sm62704]

Tennis elbow?

Re:

[jellomizer]

Liberals are less about freedom and more about inacting change.
Conservatives are about keeping the status Quo.

The truth is we really need both sides. We do need change and we need a group to insure that we don't fix what isn't broken or the fix is worse then the problem.

A world of Conservatives would lead to a stagnet society where nothing will change.
A Liberal world New things will be tried all the time trying to fix any problem that comes up, even if it makes it worse.

Unfortnatly many old "liberals" have

Incentivising Registration?

[eldavojohn]

What do you offer to entice users to register and rank stories for you? It seems that the benefits just come from the people that do all the work, is your only incentive that the person feels good for helping you out? Do you rank your users? Is there a reward system even if it's only number of stories ranked?

The article said you are hoping to raise your current set of 600 users to something more like 10,000--what are you doing to accomplish that?

Re:

[jgoemat]

The article said you are hoping to raise your current set of 600 users to something more like 10,000--what are you doing to accomplish that?

Uh, posting a story on slashdot?

Why is everything about "bias"?

[MillionthMonkey]

Shouldn't just "being full of shit" count for anything? Why not just rate stories on their frequencies of lies, distortions, unsupported assertions, and factual inaccuracies?

That's what gives the impression of "bias" to a reader in the first place.

Re:Why is everything about "bias"?

[Trojan35]

I agree with your overall point, but there is a difference between lies and bias. Example:

Truth: Joe went to the store to buy milk.
Bias #1: Joe, once again being the dutiful husband, went to the store to get some milk.
Bias #2: Joe, once again leaving his wife home alone with the child, went to the store to get some milk.

See the difference?

Re:

[h4rm0ny]

Nice example. The obvious next questions are: who was he getting milk for and what did his wife feel about the matter? Of course, we find it difficult to ask follow up questions from the mass media. It's a broadcast, not a dialogue, and maybe it's that disenfranchisement that is at the root of the problem.

Re:

[inviolet]

I agree with your overall point, but there is a difference between lies and bias. Example:

Truth: Joe went to the store to buy milk.
Bias #1: Joe, once again being the dutiful husband, went to the store to get some milk.
Bias #2: Joe, once again leaving his wife home alone with the child, went to the store to get some milk.

See the difference?

Good answer.

Continuing this example, here is a demonstration of an even nastier form of bias, first pointed out by Goldberg in _Bias_:

Commentator: "Now we'd like to he

Re:Why is everything about "bias"?

[drooling-dog]

Came here to say that, more or less.

The problem I have with the term "bias" is that it's going to apply to any source of news and information that attempts to present some context, background, and interpretation into its reportage. The stripped, "unbiased" news merely reports what this or that political figure says, without any clue about where they're really coming from. When the media tries to do this, they not only fail to paint an accurate picture of what's going on, they often outright mislead.

Motivations are important in politics. If the authors of the "Clean Air Act" are actually backed by polluter interests, or if the "Patriot Act" actually does nothing but strip us of rights and liberties that real patriots fought and gave their lives for, then that case needs to be made. I've had enough of news media that constantly give disingenuous and manipulative politicians the benefit of the doubt by merely transcribing what they say, or allowing them to put their labels on things unchallenged. They're little more than PR agencies then.

Re:

[sm62704]

Fullofshit.com taken over by cybersquatters in 3... 2... 1...

Re:Why is everything about "bias"?

[Lendrick]

Case in point:

skews.com has this article [breitbart.com] rated as "liberal" -- it looks to me like it's just the result of a (somewhat alarming) study on education. This article here [foxnews.com] appears to have been labeled "conservative" just because it came from Fox News.

Re:

[Moryath]

Why not just rate stories on their frequencies of lies, distortions, unsupported assertions, and factual inaccuracies?

Problems:

- Lies of comission = stuff they just plain get wrong
- Lies of omission = stuff they deliberately leave out to tilt the story
- Bias-words; portraying the "facts" with a strong tilt or weasel words designed to push a positive/negative impression of something, like describing terrorists as "freedom fighters" or "insurgents" or "militants" instead, or running a story that twists and ti

Re:

[mcmonkey]

There's your interview. That's the one question I'd like answered.

Jon Stewart's rant on Crossfire has already been mentioned, but I'll add, there's no issue inherent in the Crossfire format. The issue is, just having both sides of an issue represented does not mean you are unbiased. If one side is lying, it's not ok just because you have someone from the other side to counter with their own lies.

Fake "Balance"

[Doc Ruby]

What is the point of providing only two "balancing" stories with "liberal" vs "conservative" biases, when neither "liberal" nor "conservative" are labels with any real meaning except propaganda buzzwords, when the two illusory groups agree on so much but also mutually exclude so much not falling under their convenient labels, and when there are so many other viewpoints? A point other than validating the grossest oversimplification of the world since "right brain / left brain" dumbed down psychology to meaningless twaddle, that is.

And when one or the other is just wrong, why dignify them as "balance"? What's the point of balancing lies against truth?

Why not many ratings?

[MickLinux]

Right now, I think the consensus on slashdot is that this website as described would not be worth a first visit. But maybe it could be made worthwhile.

Let me put forward my brother's idea, in conjunction to a reply to this post. First, the reply:

If liberal/conservative means bunk to you -- as it will to most slashdotters -- surely the same process could be applied to a different division that is important to you "high tech/low tech" "wicked/humble" or whatever you want.

You might not care about labeling s

Re:

[Lendrick]

The truth is under no obligation to be "balanced". Rating media bias by tallying how many stories get linked from either side of the political spectrum pushes the media to aim for "balance" instead of the truth. If either side is more corrupt than the other, just report it truthfully. Don't tone the story down just because some jackbag declares that you're biased.

This quest for balance is the reason that news reporters interview people on both sides of the political spectrum, and when one side spouts thi

Re:

[Doc Ruby]

Real journalism is supposed to use sources and evidence to find the facts, then understand what's happened/ing, and finally tell the story of the truth.

Instead, contemporary fake journalism is just gossip, finding different people to contradict each other, and never comparing any statements to any facts, measures or truth whatsoever. The current journalistic "fact" as reported is merely "X said Y", often leaving X anonymous and Y some buzzword generalization. Those statements are worth including in a report

Re:

[Stradivarius]

Demonstrable falsehoods are one thing. But more often it's not that simple. For example, there was a fascinating study [wisc.edu] about coverage of a massacre in Beirut, where the same news articles were viewed by both sides as biased towards the opposing point of view. Clearly the exact same article can't be biased in both one direction and its opposite, but yet both groups felt their point of view was being treated unfairly.

In other words, the two sides had completely different ideas of what constituted "the truth"

Re:

[sm62704]

And when one or the other is just wrong, why dignify them as "balance"?

Because as often as not both are wrong. Both parties parrot the "things that are bad about marijuana" when the things they say about it are either wrong ("causes cancer") or is a result of the laws themselves ("leads to harder drugs").

I wonder what the Green party's position on marijuana is? Too bad I can't find out what the Greens or Libertarians are for and against by reading a newspaper, or for that matter this new bugus piece of shit

Re:

[Doc Ruby]

Stewart was right about fake duality being merely fake duopoly.

But "tuning out" is just a way to stay apathetic and uninformed, and therefore powerless. Stay tuned, but stay skeptical and independent. The world is indeed a big bad ugly place - and a big bad beautiful place, and a big nice ugly place, and a big nice beautiful place, and points between. We need everyone we can to stay connected. To each other, not just to a fake duopoly that really just divides us in two.

So what in general is the media.

[jellomizer]

The Left say the media is to Right.
The Right say the media is to Left.

How do you prevent your own views from skewing the results. Because someone who is Left or Right of Moderate would consider themselfs a moderate, while they are not truely moderate. So they would True Moderate coverage as Slightly to the Left or Right.

Accounting for Regional Disparity

[eldavojohn]

I listen to a lot of NPR news stories and the majority of my fellow Americans find these stories to be tilting to the left. I see them as unbiased an, as a result, am often labeled a liberal. How do you plan on dealing with different countries that have populaces with different mindsets? For example you cover stories on abortion and in some countries this is legal at any stage and others it is not. I would expect the citizens of a country where it is illegal to view any story allowing it in only the first trimester to be very liberal while in the USA that may be viewed as a more balanced middle ground. Do you cater (inadvertently or on purpose) to one single population/area/demographic?

Re:

[jellomizer]

I listen to NPR myself and I find it the best place to get news. But it does have a Left Slant to it. Often when something goes right it the credit is given to a Democratic Senitor, when something goes wrong it is label Enacted by the Bush Administration (Even though that bill may have been passed by a democratic majority congress). When interviewing the Democrats they are less confrontational about the issues. It is no where as bad as Fox news but if you listen carefully to NPR and the wording and inflect

Re:

[Lemmy Caution]

NPR only has a left slant to it if you have an American notion of the left/right spectrum, and if you ignore the show "Marketplace", which often displays a market-fundamentalism that would make Ludwing von Mises blush.

Also, most public radio stations buy shows from a variety of sources, not all of which are NPR. American Public Media is another producer of public radio content, and is often chosen by public stations with more conservative demographics.

Re:

[Lemmy Caution]

Oh, tying together my two observations: Marketplace is actually an APM product.

Re:

[Nimey]

I'd take you more seriously if you didn't write like you were semi-literate, what with the perception of conservatives being less educated and all.

Re:

[Gat0r30y]

what with the perception of conservatives being less educated and all.

Well, unfortunately its a fact that the more education you have received, the more likely you are to be "Liberal" or register as a democrat. The statistical correlation is undeniable. I will leave the causation for speculation, since I'm not entirely certain there is any specific cause out there we could attribute this to.

Re:

[jellomizer]

I would say that correlation is due to a couple of factors and not that Democrats are Smarter Then Republicans.

Issue One: Republicans are more business friendly. So if you are a republican you are more likely to skip higher education or not go for advanced degrees and go straight to the work force.

Issue Two: University Professors Unions. Being that most professors belong to a Union (which are rather tighly linked to the democratic party) they will not try to speak out against the Unions or their problems. I

Re:

[Gat0r30y]

I think you missed what is most certainly the most influential - Parents. Democrat parents raise democrat kids, republican parents raise republican kids. Just like with religious beliefs , you gotta get em early. Liberals generally place a higher value on going to a liberal arts college and the whole higher-ed process, so their kids will want to please their parents by going to said liberal arts college.
On another note completely - about professors, there are generally two refuges for conservatives in h

Re:

[Straif]

You left out the part that studies also show the less education you receive the more like a person is to be "Liberal".

In general "Conservatives" are more likely to have graduated high school and/or have a bachelor degrees while "liberals" are higher represented in the high school drop out and Masters/PhD's categories. Although in almost all categories (except the drop out rate which tends to lean Liberal by up to 20% more than Conservative)) the variance is usually less than 10%.

PEW has some good studies t

Re:

[DreadPiratePizz]

I too listen to NPR often, and while their choice of stories may be somewhat biased liberally, the coverage of each story is fairly balanced. This of course raises the question as to what is meant when people say the media has a bias: Is it the choice of stories, or the coverage of the stories?

How will you account for response bias?

[moderatorrater]

How will you keep the results from being biased by the responders? For instance, if you were to have more links to this from fox news than from other news outlets, you would get a large number of conservatives rating stories. In that instance, you would get a lot of people saying that right-leaning stories are more unbiased and more unbiased stories would be rated liberal. The opposite would be true too; if you get a lot of traffic from moveon.org, there's going to be a large number of people rating things as conservatively biased.

This effect could even arise from random fluctuations with a small enough response group, and unless this is controlled, your site could eventually be labelled as "conservative" or "liberal" which would discourage the opposite group from voting, possibly providing a feedback mechanism for bias.

How would you prevent this from happening while still allowing users to generate the results?

Re:

[Kelz]

If both moveon and fox news people join and start rating, it would even out I'd imagine. Oh and hey, perhaps there should be a slider at the very top of the site to determine the site's bias!

Misleading

[mapkinase]

The whole idea of having conservative vs liberal division is very misleading.

In reality there are at least two divisions - along economical and political lines.

For examples, majority of blacks are socially conservative and economically "liberal" (democratic).

Muslims (I am being one of them) are socially conservative and economically they I believe fill quite wide spectrum: from libertarians to socialists.

Cultural polarization as a web service

[Tsar]

What filters will be available in the future? Will users be able to limit the stories they see to those rated, say, (+4,Reactionary) or above? That would allow your portal to emulate the Drudge Report, the Daily Kos or the John Birch Society homepage at the user's whim, removing the risk of accidental exposure to differing viewpoints.

Missing sliders

[Tsar]

From your site's What is Skewz? [skewz.com] section:

Skewz was started by a group of 4 guys with diverse political views who engaged in frequent political sparring. We tired of the coarseness of the public political dialog and the tendency for both sides to talk past each other. The goal was not to make peace between liberals and conservatives. Instead, we wanted to encourage liberal-conservative dialogue by improving on the intelligence and thoughtfulness of the discussions. We hoped that doing so would take focus from the cosmetic appeal of parties and personalities that generate allegiances and place it instead on wit and wisdom of intelligent debate.

It seems that your site's focus is currently on cultural/political bias rather than the "wit and wisdom of intelligent debate." If your project is to be true to its goals, shouldn't there be evaluation sliders for an article's wit, insight, wisdom and informativeness? We use a simplified system for that on Slashdot and it works surprisingly well most of the time.

Re:

[sm62704]

Skewz was started by a group of 4 guys with diverse political views who engaged in frequent political sparring

I think that was a typo, shouldn't it read "frequent political spamming"?

Skewz me?

[Jeffrey Baker]

Skews makes no sense. Take this article as an example:

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=080401184532.kxjxy7xo&show_article=1 [breitbart.com]

It's an AFP wire story with completely straight, factual reporting about high school graduation rates in the USA. There is no commentary from the author whatsoever. However Skewz users rate the story as "Liberal", giving it 2.5 out of 5 points on the Liberal scale. I'm having a hard time seeing the logic there. How can a purely factual report on this topic possibly be considered leftist?

Re:

[ObsessiveMathsFreak]

How can a purely factual report on this topic possibly be considered leftist?

The facts have a well known liberal bias.

Re:Skewz me?

[EMB Numbers]

I agree that the article doesn't express any bias in it's tone by just reporting the "facts". The bias comes from the choice of what "facts" to state. The statistics in the article are for graduation within only 12 years. The statistics would claim that a child who repeated kindergarten doesn't count when he graduates after 13 years of public school. And the stats are still rather obviously difficult to believe Come on, Detroit only graduates 24% of students. You believe that ? Only 70% of students graduate nation wide ? You believe that ?

How about the US Census Bureau statistics: "85 percent of adults age 25 and over had completed at least high school, an all-time high" http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/education/001863.html [census.gov]

How about Child Trends: "Dropout rates of young people ages 16 to 24 in the civilian, non-institutionalized population gradually declined between 1972 and 2005, from 15 percent to a low of 9 in 2005."

Choosing what nonsense to report also exposes a bias.

Re:Skewz me?

[uncadonna]

Reality has a liberal bias, that's all.

Complaints?

[Notquitecajun]

Have you ever gotten complaints from actual journalists about how their stories are rated? I think one thing that we rarely - if ever - hear is how actual journalists rate the news. I'm not talking pundits, either, I'm talking about those who are supposed to report on the who-what-when-where-how of the news.

Ironic? Dontcha think?

[EveryNickIsTaken]

Given that you aren't American, why should I listen to you or your site's take on American news and politics? Would someone in Mumbai honestly care about how Americans view their politics and news media?

What about consensus?

[prxp]

What about when both parties reach a consensus and the story ranks 100% liberal and 100% conservative? Does the system explode? Is this a new sort of Quantum Computer? Enlighten me, please! (but hey, be fair and balanced, will you?)

Truth, and the real bias we need to worry about

[Gat0r30y]

It seems that the news media has become increasingly segmented, and indeed this provides a way for people to get only the news they want to see. But my issue stems not from Left or Right, but from a more general perspective. An increasing bulk of the news out there is increasingly aimed at the Lowest Common Denominator. I can see that there is a place for tabloids, and their stories, just like there is a place for soap operas. However, it seems that the tabloid mentality has infiltrated all facets of co

Multiple takes?

[InvisblePinkUnicorn]

If by "multiple takes" you mean the two sides shouting, "Let's violate our citizens' rights through tax breaks funded by deficit spending!", and "Let's violate our citizens' rights through increased taxation!"... then sign me up!

Hmm, the Microsoft attempt looks more sophisticate

[melted]

Hmm, the Microsoft attempt looks more sophisticated: http://research.microsoft.com/~chrisko/papers/ICWSM_paper.pdf [microsoft.com], albeit totally orthogonal to what skewz.com does.

Are you guys using machine learning at all? If not, how do you protect yourselves against user bias (e.g. the situation where liberals like your site and conservatives don't, so you get mostly liberal stories). Personally, it seems to me that Skewz is just a glorified Digg with sliders.

Re:

[faloi]

This will merely attract the obsessive ultra-right crusaders to dump "left wing bias" en masse on everything.

Actually, a quick look at the site makes it look like the "far left kool-aid drinkers" (I think that's the right way to put it) are dumping "right wing bias" en masse on everything.

You are right, though. It's still not an accurate measure of bias. Some of the new stories appear to be filtered primarily by source rather than any particular bias. And some of the stories exist in the gray area, an

Re:

[plasmacutter]

Actually, a quick look at the site makes it look like the "far left kool-aid drinkers" (I think that's the right way to put it) are dumping "right wing bias" en masse on everything.

that's because there is clear right wing bias on pretty much everything.

Fox news, along with many other well funded members of the ultra-conservative propaganda machine which has arisen since media deregulation allowed massive consolidation, foists biased reporting on real news--and often fraudulent or intellectually dishonest sl

Singin' the Blews

[sm62704]

I'm sorry, it's all my fault. I started it in 1998 when my Quake site (the Springfield Frag Fest) reported "nooze" which was news obtained from other channels (no real reporting) and often was inaccurate, biased, or just plain made up out of whole cloth bullshit (like Nacho's shambler pissing on the couch).

I apologize. Really. I was just trying to be different and everybody seems to have followed. For penance I now spell "blog" as "blagh".

-mcgrew

PS- the round corners are NOT my fault! That was a different a