Fake News Cancer on All of Us

Follow FACTUAL NEWS on

Questions?

• HomeRepublican Propaganda MillsFake News Cancer on All of UsRepublican Tax Cut ScamTrump wouldn’t be President if not for Robert MercerKochs buy the 2016 Election for $889 mil.Horowitz's supporters take over the White HouseRupert Murdoch Indoctrinates the MobThe Rich buy Republican Politicians and Court DecisionsIs the US Senate to be Controlled by the Richest Politician?Donald Trump Facts CheckDifference between the PartiesInvestigations of Republican Propaganda MillsFive Republican-Sponsored SUPREME COURT Justices allow GERRYMANDERING84% Republicans get their news from FoxSite Map •

•  •

How Biased is Your News Source?

Table of contents

  1. Which websites can be considered ‘Fake News’?
  2. Which news sources should we be reading?
  3. Who are the 10 most biased news sources?
  4. Who are the 10 most neutral news sources?
  5. Who are the 10 most liberally biased news sources?
  6. Who are the 10 most conservatively biased news sources?
  7. What news websites get the most traffic in the USA?
  8. Which sites can be considered contributors to echo-chambers?
  9. How many news sources use paywalls?
  10. Graphical data and correlations
  11. Website visits vs News media bias
  12. Reliability vs Unique American visitors in July
  13. Bias vs Reliability
  14. Monthly visits per person vs Reliability
  15. Why we must stop believing Fake News
  16. Full list of news websites analyzed
  17. Introduction
  18. Methods and sources
  19. Legend
  20. Data SUMMARY

Which websites can be considered ‘Fake News’?

This was one of the biggest questions that stuck out in my mind when I sat down to do this analysis.

The below list is any news source rated with a reliability factor of lower than 24 points (37.4%) according to Ad Fontes Media. News sources falling within these metrics can be considered to produce a significant amount of purposefully non-factual articles.

Be extremely skeptical when reading these news sources:

  1. World Truth TV — 11.6%
  2. National Enquirer — 15.1%
  3. The Gateway Pundit — 19.4%
  4. InfoWars — 20.3%
  5. NewsPunch — 22.5%
  6. Wonkette — 23.9%
  7. WorldNetDaily — 26.5%
  8. Twitchy — 26.7%
  9. Palmer Report — 27.6%
  10. PJ Media — 28.7%
  11. Bipartisan Report — 30.1%
  12. Occupy Democrats — 31.3%
  13. Breitbart — 32.2%
  14. Alternet — 33.4%
  15. Conservative Review — 34.1%
  16. The American Spectator — 34.4%
  17. The Federalist — 34.7%
  18. ShareBlue — 35.5%
  19. Crooks and Liars — 36%
  20. American Thinker — 36.1%
  21. Daily Kos — 36.2%
  22. Daily Caller — 37.4%
bullet8 of the above 22 news sources can be considered to have a liberal bias, with 14 of 22 having a conservative bias
bullet187 million total visits from Americans in July
bullet47k (World Truth TV) to 13 million (Breitbart) unique visitors
bullet3.3 average monthly visits per person
bulletEvery one of these websites can be considered very biased as well as very unreliable for factual information — with the odd exception of a neutrally ranked National Enquirer

Which news sources should we be reading?

Amongst all the clutter of thousands of news articles being pumped out every day, how are we to know if it’s reliable, factual, and not biased?

bulletThis is an important question, and according to the following data, these are the sites we should trust the most.
bulletTo calculate this, I used both metrics of reliability and bias, measured by Ad Fontes Media. I did a basic multiplication of the two data sets and weighted them equally.
bulletThe aim was to rank the publications by the least amount of bias with the most amount of reliability in their reporting.
bulletThe following 15 news sources ranked the highest under this metric.
  1. 79.2%    AP,                
  2. 78.9%    Reuters,                    
  3. 75.9%    Weather.com,
  4. 73.9%    ABC News,
  5. 73.9%    The Advocate,
  6. 72.9%    Bloomberg,
  7. 72.9%    National Public Radio,
  8. 72.1%    Wall Street Journal,
  9. 72.1%    The Hill,
  10. 71.9%    Financial Times,
  11. 70.8%    LA Times,
  12. 70.6%    PBS,
  13. 70.5%    Al Jazeera,
  14. 70.3%    CBS,
  15. 69.8%    Fortune,
bulletNone of the above news sources have a high enough score to be considered as being biased (their reporting is largely neutral in terms of politics — a very good thing)
bullet1.169 billion visits by Americans in July
bulletAverage of 1.9 visits per user monthly

Who are the 10 most biased news sources?

News organizations used to be a bastion of reliability. But somewhere in the past few decades, the idea that opinions could be substituted for facts became acceptable.

In my humble opinion, bias should be kept out of the news, as much as possible.

And from that viewpoint — here are the 10 worst offenders for having the most bias according to Ad Fontes Media.

(Remember, the bias rankings are on a scale of -42 to +42. The more negative the bias ranking, the more liberal. The more positive it is, the more conservative it’s considered.)

Avoid these sources if you value neutrality:

  1. Wonkette,                   -31.15
  2. InfoWars,                     31.05
  3. American Thinker,       29.82
  4. Palmer Report,           -29.37
  5. NewsPunch,                 28.58
  6. The Gateway Pundit,   28.55
  7. Occupy Democrats,     -25.59
  8. Conservative Review,  25.3
  9. ShareBlue,                  -24.95
  10. Life News,                    24.75
bulletThese websites get almost 44 million visits from Americans each month
bulletThe number of unique individuals visiting each site ranges from 150k (ShareBlue) to 4 million (The Gateway Pundit)
bulletThey are visited 3 times per month on average (a high value for the online news industry)

Who are the 10 most neutral news sources?

This list shows who is consistently rated to be the most unbiased site of the 102 websites in this analysis.

News media to consider the most neutral sources:

  1. The Hill, 0.09
  2. Forbes, 0.2
  3. Christian Science Monitor, -0.21
  4. Business Insider, -0.38
  5. Fortune, 0.43
  6. Marketwatch, -0.54
  7. Financial Times, 0.62
  8. Bloomberg, -0.85
  9. Reuters, -0.95
  10. AP, -1.06
bulletThese websites are visited almost 504 million times by Americans every month
bulletThe number of unique Americans visiting these websites ranges from 600k (Christian Science Monitor) to 69 million (Business Insider)
bulletThey are visited roughly 1.9 times per user each month.

Who are the 10 most liberally biased news sources?

  1. Wonkette, -31.15
  2. Palmer Report, -29.37
  3. Occupy Democrats, -25.59
  4. ShareBlue, -24.95
  5. Truthout, -24.4
  6. Bipartisan Report, -23.55
  7. Crooks and Liars, -23.46
  8. Second Nexus, -22.61
  9. FreeSpeech TV, -22.49
  10. Daily Kos, -21.49
bulletVisited 38 million times in July
bullet70k (FreeSpeech TV) to 3.9 million (Daily Kos) unique visitors
bullet3.5 average monthly visits per person

Who are the 10 most conservatively biased news sources?

  1. InfoWars, 31.05
  2. American Thinker, 29.82
  3. NewsPunch, 28.58
  4. The Gateway Pundit, 28.55
  5. Conservative Review, 25.3
  6. Life News, 24.75
  7. The American Spectator, 23.89
  8. Daily Signal, 23.31
  9. The Federalist, 23.29
  10. WorldNetDaily, 22.92
bulletVisited 49 million times in July
bullet380k (The American Spectator) to 3.9 million (The Gateway Pundit)
bullet2.6 average monthly visits

What news websites get the most traffic in the USA?

The following websites all received over 100 million total visits from people in the USA in July, 2020.

  1. 742,371,890    CNN —  visits from American IP’s
  2. 668,129,829    Weather.com
  3. 426,550,743    Fox News
  4. 327,664,512    New York Times
  5. 179,578,280    Washington Post
  6. 170,825,945    BBC
  7. 155,024,495    Daily Mail
  8. 134,269,014    The Guardian
  9. 119,723,175    USA Today
  10. 106,020,684    Forbes
  11. 103,012,877    Business Insider
  12. 102,145,476    New York Post
  13. 3.23 billion total visits in July
  14. 41 million (Daily Mail) to 175 million (CNN) unique Americans visited

  15. 2.9 average monthly visits

Which sites can be considered contributors to echo-chambers?

bullet

Measuring the echo-chamber effect isn’t inherently intuitive. To come up with this ranking, I matched the two metrics of reliability and site visits per month.

bulletThe line of thought is that ‘fake news’ websites are more likely to write strong opinions without the benefit of truth behind them.
bulletIf these websites also had a strong correlation of repeat visitors — I would say that is an echo chamber of strong believers in ideology, rather than facts.
bulletAlso remember, the visits per month is an average. Some people can be visiting far more — and likely to believe what they are reading.

Based on the data and in my opinion, the following websites are harming the news industry and our political discourse.

  Reliability average Monthly Visits
Palmer Report 27.6% 8.2
Crooks and Liars 36% 6.2
Daily Kos 36.2% 5.3
Breitbart 32.2% 5.3
Twitchy 26.7% 5.1
Fox News 41.8% 4.9
The Gateway Pundit 19.4% 4.8
PJ Media 28.7% 4.4
InfoWars 20.3% 4.3
FreeSpeech TV 38.7% 4.0
RedState 41.3% 3.7
Wonkette 23.9% 3.6
American Thinker 36.1% 3.6
Alternet 33.4% 3.2
Daily Caller 37.4 3.1
Daily Wire 38.1% 3.0


How many news sources use paywalls?

bullet

21 of the 102 sources analyzed had some form of paywall from my discovery. This wasn’t a perfect method, so it’s possible I missed one or two news sources.

bulletI went on every single news site and clicked/skimmed through 5 different articles. If a paywall prompt opened up at any point in that journey, I marked it down.
bulletIn the below list, anything over 62.5% is considered to be pretty reliable by Ad Fontes Media. I bolded the ones below that can be considered reliable sources.

Paywalled news sources:

bulletDaily Wire, 38.1%
bulletMarketwatch, 70.0%
bulletTalking Points Memo, 65.6%
bulletNew York Times, 74.2%
bulletBloomberg, 74.4%
bulletWashington Post, 68.3%
bulletWall Street Journal, 75.5%
bulletFinancial Times, 73.0%
bulletNational Review, 41.2%
bulletThe Economist, 66.2%
bulletChristian Science Monitor, 69.5%
bulletThe New Yorker, 65.4%
bulletLA Times, 76.4%
bulletWashington Times, 49.0%
bulletBusiness Insider, 67.4%
bulletThe Atlantic, 62.8%
bulletNew Republic, 56.9%
bulletVanity Fair, 55.3%
bulletForeign Policy, 64.8%
bulletThe Nation, 52.2%
bulletQuartz, 64.6%
bulletInterestingly, most of the above sites are considered neutral and reliable news sources. It leads to a question of whether or not paywalls limit truthful information being disseminated enough. An article for another day, perhaps.
bulletFrom the list above, every non-reliable news source has a political leaning. This also includes 100% of the above conservative-leaning sources.
bullet1 billion visits from Americans in July vs 4.6 billion visits from the entire data set of 102 news sources
bullet560k (Christian Science Monitor) to 130 million (New York Times) unique visitors in July
bulletInterestingly, only 1.9 average monthly visits for these sources (perhaps it’s less because of the paywall?)

Graphical data and correlations

bullet

I am not a data scientist although I have studied the subject as part of my two university degrees in the past.

bulletTo make sure I was on the right track, I ran this article by a friend of mine that is a professional quantitative analyst.
bulletBased on his advice, I have left out any conclusions to the following data — I merely present my opinion.
bulletSome correlations were shown to be statistically significant, while others showed very little numerical relationships.
bulletI’ll leave you to be the judge of which ones may or may not be.


Website visits vs News media bias

I was curious to see if the popularity of a news source affected its bias.

I don’t believe there is a strong relationship in the data, but it is interesting to note the most popular sites are all relatively unbiased — with the exception of Fox News, as denoted above.

Reliability vs Unique American visitors in July

It’s important to know if our most popular sources of news are reliable. I thought this would be an interesting graph to visualize because of this.

Fortunately, most of the most popular sources can be considered reliable, with Weather.com having the most visitors as well as being the most reliable.

On the other side of things, we can see two of the more unreliable but popular websites are outliers — Fox News and the Daily Mail.

Bias vs Reliability

On this chart, we can see measured bias vs measured reliability. The horizontal axis is divided by a line measuring reliability.

bulletEssentially, the closer to the middle a data point, the less biased it is.
bulletThe higher up a data point, the more reliable that news source is considered.

It’s nice to see a strong connection between highly reliable sites and their unbiasedness — a position I believe all proper news sites should strive for.

On the opposite side, it seems the more biased a website is — whether right or left — the more fake news they spew out into the world to absorb.

This chart also shows an interesting feature of the data set — 63% of all of the publications are left-leaning, even if a little bit.


Monthly visits per person vs Reliability

Another attempt at trying to see evidence of an echo-chamber effect. Some websites such as the Palmer Report have a very high rate of repeated visits.

Unfortunately for neutrality, several of these are assessed to be very unreliable, if not extremist.

It also shows that most of the highly reliable news sources are not visited that frequently. The one exception to that is Weather.com, with 3.6 average visits per month per user.

A bit ironic since I can’t remember the last time my weather app accurately forecast the rain. (/s)

Why we must stop believing Fake News

I spent an incredible amount of time on this article. By far the most I’ve ever done for a single piece.

The constant anger, arguments, and contempt we see in our everyday lives spurred me on to gather and analyze this dataset.

And yet, I find myself now with even more questions than I was able to answer in creating this article.

bulletHow can we stop such bias from infecting the national discourse?
bulletWhere is the line between allowing propaganda to permeate freely versus free speech? Is this an absolute argument, or can we somehow find a line to discern the truth from fiction?
bulletCan we please stop listening to tinfoil hat-wearing maniacs ?
bulletAs you can see from some of the data above, there are many sites that are clearly spreading false information, opinion, and extremism.
bulletThis does not bring us together.
bulletIt leads to us doubting our neighbors, our friends, our parents, and other important people in our lives.
bulletEternal distrust.
bulletYou can’t believe what you hear.
bulletEvery man for himself.
bulletIt seems that many people these days, mistakenly in my opinion, search for sources based on what they already want to hear.
bulletThey look for articles to confirm their suspicions. Their thoughts and feelings.
bulletRight or left, it doesn’t matter. If you search on Google for something to back up your feeling on a subject (regardless of truth) — you will find it.
bulletThere’s an article for everything now.
bulletOpinions being added to the news cycle has corrupted the impartiality of it.
bulletThis is not how we come together as a world, as a nation.
bulletWe must be better than this.
bulletIt’s my belief that many of these websites, their owners, and their anchors are one of the largest absolute causes of anger in the world today.
bulletBe better, people.
bulletI’ll close off by stating my most nagging thought after conducting this extensive exercise — I couldn’t wait to clear my browser cookies fast enough.

Thank you for reading my analysis.

If you noticed any glaring errors please let me know in the comments section. I’ll try my best to respond to any other questions and comments as well.

Introduction

Rupert Murdoch: “I challenge anybody to show me an example of bias in Fox News Channel.”

Challenge accepted !

bulletRupert Murdoch, the founder and current chairman of Fox Corp (owner of Fox News) first said the above quote in an article on the Salon website in 2001.
bulletAnd even though it’s from almost 20 years ago, I can’t think of a more telling quote about the current environment of news in America.
bulletWas there actually any iota of truth to that statement?
bullet“Fake news!”
bullet“Mainstream media!”
bullet“Hoax!”
bulletAll of these phrases seem to be shouted from the rooftops everywhere we look these days.
bulletOn TV, on the internet, social media — even in private conversations with family and friends.
bulletThis has weighed on me (and probably you too) for a while now.
bulletNot only have normally friendly conversations turned vitriolic, but it seems a candid discussion about actual facts is getting more and more impossible every day.
bulletMy curiosity finally got the best of me and I spent a huge amount of time over the last couple of weeks collecting and analyzing related data.

I explored the subject of what truly can be considered fake news today.

bullet Which sites are actually biased?
bullet Which news sources consistently provide more fiction than facts?
bullet How impactful are the relationships between reliability, bias, and traffic?

I explore these questions and many more in the following analysis.

Enjoy!

Methods & sources

bullet

I’ll start off by sharing how and where I got the information to create this analysis. I feel, now more than ever, that there’s already far too much bias in the information on the web.

bulletAs such, I tried my best to remain neutral in the following analysis.
bulletIf you spot any errors or corrections needed, please comment and I’ll take a look.
bulletSource #1: Ad Fontes Media
bullet

The initial data set I went to find was a statistically backed source of media bias and truthfulness.

bulletThis is a seemingly impossible task to accurately track.
bulletConsider the thousands of news stories and opinion pieces that are published every single day.
bulletNow multiply this by all of the blogs, opinion sites, and media organizations putting their own version of each story out into the web.
bulletThen imagine that happens every single day, and multiply the numbers by decades.
bulletIt’s easy to see the insurmountability of such a project.
bulletAnd yet — in steps Ad Fontes Media.

If you haven’t heard of them, they’re responsible for the Media Bias Chart:

Interactive Media Bias Chart - 2

Interactive Media Bias Chart® This Interactive Media Bias Chart® is a data visualization that displays measures of news… www.adfontesmedia.com

The Media Bias Chart is a project that aims to evaluate as many major news sources in the U.S. as possible (within their budget limitations).

For every article they analyze, their panel of reviewers consists of 1 person leaning left, central, and right. They also have a meticulous methodology that needs to be followed.

You can read more about this project here. Currently, they are following and evaluating over 100 news organizations, while adding more when they can.

Source #2: The news websites

Unfortunately for my cookie history, part of my process involved visiting every single news site at least 5 times to evaluate their use of paywalls and revenue sources.

In the end, I settled on a list of 102 organizations that I was able to extract all of the same data from, for a proper comparison across the board.

Source #3: SEO tools

I also wanted to analyze news media website traffic. Most of this information is kept strictly private, likely due to competition and other factors.

Fortunately for this article, I was able to use two different SEO ( Engine Optimization) tools to examine information such as:

bullet Total website traffic
bullet Unique monthly visitors
bullet US traffic (separated from the rest of the world)
bulletFor this analysis, I used two different SEO tools, SEMrush and SimilarWeb.
bulletThese tools are known to not be 100% accurate due to how they calculate their figures.
bulletThat being said, they are a good estimate of website traffic, amongst other things.
bulletMore importantly, they are great to use as a benchmark, as their methodology is applied equally to any website you query.
bulletBecause of the above aspects, I used both tools to average out the results to present a more accurate viewpoint.
bulletNow let’s get to the meat of the analysis — and the findings.

 

Legend

I need to explain a few things before showing the results.
Firstly, we need to look at how Ad Fontes Media measures bias and reliability of news sources.

Bias

bullet

Measured on a scale from -42 to +42

bullet

Values from -6 to +6, I consider being mostly neutral

bullet

Values lower than -18 and higher than +18 are approaching propaganda and can be considered extreme

bullet

Ad Fontes measured “bias” based on Topic Selection and/or Presentation, Sentence Metrics, Comparisons (for bias by omission)

bullet

Please read more about their complex and rigid methodology here

Reliability

bullet

Measured on a scale from 0 to 64

bullet

I ‘translated’ this data set to a direct percentage to be easier to understand

bullet

The highest value is only 51.98 (81.2%), so please remember this while interpreting the data

bullet

Values from 0 up to 16 can be considered extremely unreliable — literal fake news — “Serious reliability issues and/or extremism

bullet

Values from 16 up to 24 can be looked at as very questionable content — “Some reliability issues and/or extremism

bullet

Values from 24 up to 46 can be assumed to be reliable but may have a lot of opinions — “Reliable for news, but high in analysis/opinion content

bullet

Values from 46 to 64 are the most reliable for factual news — Read these news sources when you find them

bullet

Ad Fontes measured “reliability” based on Element scores, Sentence scores, Unfairness instances

bullet

Again, I encourage you to read more about their methodology if you have the time

Website traffic

bullet

Website traffic data was collected for the month of July

bullet

Website traffic data was reduced to only include visits from American locations

bullet

102 total websites analyzed (more were excluded due to lack of consistent information available)

Identifiers

bullet

I used 3 different emoji’s to identify news sources based on their measurements

bullet

denotes conservative-leaning websites (higher than +6 on bias)

bullet

represents liberal-leaning websites (lower than -6 on bias)

bullet

is for neutral unbiased news sources (between -6 and +6)

 Data SUMMARY

bullet

34.5 (53.9%) average reliability score across the dataset

bullet

34 sources can be considered significantly liberal

bullet

28 sites can be considered significantly conservative

bullet

40 news sources were ranked as being neutral

bullet

63% of all of the publications are left-leaning, even if just a little bit. (Is this the source of the ‘Liberal News Mainstream Media’ trope?)

bullet

2.3 average monthly visits per user

bullet

4.6 billion visits from Americans for these 102 websites in July

bullet

Each site had an average of 16.5 million unique Americans visited these websites in July

bullet

The most unique visitors were Weather.com (185 million), CNN (174 million), and the New York Times (130 million)

bullet

The least visited sites were Fiscal TimesWorld Truth TV, and FreeSpeech TV, with each having less than 100k unique American visitors in July

bullet

I drank 17 coffees and 36 black teas while compiling this

J.J. Pryor SOURCE TowardsDataScience