2022 Study on Reliability, Bias, and Professionalism of News Networks

[Arnox]

The Factual's Media Ecosystem 2022 - The Factual | Blog

Which news sources consistently deliver the best, most reliable news? The Factual analyzes 1,000 articles each from 245 major news sites to find out.

thefactual.com

You all may find this interesting. They apparently did a huge study here rating a bunch of news agencies on left/center/right bias, factual reliability, and professional tone. Unfortunately, when it comes to the factual reliability part of it, unless you wanna do a hell of a lot of research yourself, you'll have to take their word for this. Or don't. I will say this in their favor though. The sites they do claim are full of crap are heavily left and right leaning sites in pretty much equal proportion, and the full center-leaning sites are claimed to be the most factual.

Here's some TL;DR statistics they're reporting.

Top 5 Least Professional:
1. (10%) Louder With Crowder
2. (11%) Democracy Now
3. (13%) The Mary Sue
4. (17%) Red State
5. (18%) Esquire Magazine

Top 5 Least Factual (according to them):
1. (21.9%) The Epoch Times
2. (36.7%) Louder With Crowder
3. (39.5%) Daily Mail
4. (41.8%) RT News
5. (42.1%) Democracy Now

Top 5 Most Professional:
1. (84%) ABC News (Reliability: 67.1%)
2. (83%) Stars and Stripes (Reliability: 51.7%)
3. (82%) The Epoch Times (Reliability: 21.9%)
4. (81%) Washington Times (Reliability: 55.0%)
5. (80%) Reuters (Reliability: 69.6%)

Top 5 Most Factual (according to them):
1. (86.3%) FactCheck (Professionalism: 70%)
2. (85.9%) Smithsonian Magazine (Professionalism: 74%)
3. (80.9%) Science Alert (Professionalism: 57%)
4. (80.5%) Space.com (Professionalism: 74%)
5. (78.0%) Poynter Institute (Professionalism: 49%)

 

[Phiwise_Offline]

>Spending research money on propping up labcoats

Into the roundfile it goes. The best surgeons don't want to look like surgeons.

 

[Arnox]

>Spending research money on propping up labcoats

Into the roundfile it goes. The best surgeons don't want to look like surgeons.

Not sure what you're trying to say here. As to the link though, it is an interesting read, but consider a couple things. When it comes to news and compiled reports, we are not dealing with evaluating one person or another. We dealing with evaluating the trustworthiness of GROUPS of people. It doesn't matter for us how a group presents, one way or another. We only care about their results. Does the group put personal feelings aside for facts? How good has their accuracy been? In this case, we must do a broad statistical analysis. And in that case, professionalism and track record are major factors, or combining those two, probability of correctness is the major factor we're looking at here.

The article is also talking about having to make a judgement on someone just by looking at them. We don't have to do that. We have history and experience that we can evaluate. We don't need to assume anything or make snap judgements because we already have all the facts in front of us. Someone just needed to do the long boring work of sifting through it all.