It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Handful of 'left leaning sources' dominate Google's 'Top Stories,' study finds

page: 1
27
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:
+8 more 
posted on May, 13 2019 @ 06:55 AM
link   
How utterly unexpected...said nobody who is not in a coma.



A new study from the Computational Journalism Lab at Northwestern found that many of Google’s top hits for news searches came from just a handful of left-leaning sources.

Researchers Daniel Trielli and Nicholas Diakopoulos conducted their study by looking at the results of more than 200 news-related questions every day in November 2017. They found 6,303 individual links to articles in the Top Stories Box and counted an “article impression each time one of those links appears.”

Their data showed that 86% of Google’s Top Stories came from only 20 news sources. Just three dominated the coverage, with 23% of all impressions counted — CNN with 10.9%, The New York Times with 6.5% and The Washington Post with 5.6%.

Fox News, which was ranked fourth, only had 3%.


Interesting, so three unarguably anti-Trump news organizations get 23% of the placements - and the obviously pro-Trump one gets 3%. So the score is, basically, Left 4, Right 1. Seems fair (not).

Here are some other interesting numbers to consider, when trying to put this into perspective...

1) A recent Gallop Poll says that 27% of respondents consider themselves Republican and 26% consider themselves Democrat (44% say Independent)...that's more like a straight 1:1 ratio.
Party Affiliation

2) Coverage of the White House on the “Big Three” broadcast networks — ABC, CBS and NBC — remains 91 percent negative, according to a study by the Media Research Center (2018)...so, basically 9:1
Trump Coverage

3) In three separate Polls in late April, 2019, Trump's Job Approval Rating was found to be between 43% and 50%...so, again, the people seem to be about evenly divided - certainly very far away from 90% negative!
Trump Approval Rating

4) In terms of political contributions from the Big Tech Companies (who, by way of their pervasive "algorithms", populate the Internet with political messaging, ranked as they choose)...Facebook employees are 87% to Democrats...Alphabet (Google and YouTube) employees gave 94% to Democrats in 2016...Apple employees donated 91% of the time to Democrats. A bit of skew in these numbers, wouldn't you say?
Facebook Bias
Alphabet Bias
Apple Bias

5) Let's take a quick peek at Twitter. Of 22 prominent, politically active individuals who are known to have been suspended since 2005 and who expressed a preference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election, 21 supported Donald Trump. By my reckoning, that works out to about 95% of the suspensions being Pro-Trumpers!
Twitter Bias

6) In August, 2018, "a dozen of the biggest U.S. Tech Companies" (which included Facebook and Twitter) met, in secret, in San Fransisco to "prepare a 2018 Election Strategy". I am quite sure they will meet a few times again prior to the 2020 Presidential election. Given their 90+ percent Democrat leanings - their complete shock about the 2016 result - and their combined virtual monopoly on information sharing on the Internet (growing stronger by the day as they ban dissenting voices)...this kind of Big Tech Collusion should scare the daylights out of everyone.
Big Tech Secret Election Meeting

Forget Chinese or Russian interference in American political discourse and elections. The MSM and Big-Tech information dissemination machines will be massive subversive forces going into 2020.

Each percentage point away from 50:50 impartial coverage/exposure should be calculated (ie. a monetary value should be assigned) as an unlawful Corporate political donation to the Party who is receiving the benefit of the skewed coverage.

IMO, this needs to be reigned in - and now!

Google Bias

edit on 13-5-2019 by mobiusmale because: typo




posted on May, 13 2019 @ 07:07 AM
link   
a reply to: mobiusmale

First, I agree, the coverage, both broadcast, and internet, in no way reflects the actual views of the public, as a whole.

And how would you go about "reining them in"?

I mean, freedom of speech is pretty important.

While I think it is a problem, I don't think the "brainwashing" is all that effective.

You can't, generally, pee on ppl, and convince them that it's raining.

edit on 5132019 by Mach2 because: Sp



posted on May, 13 2019 @ 07:12 AM
link   
a reply to: mobiusmale

While it isn't fair, I don't support gov't interference in business, even in this case, where business is clearly trying to interfere in gov't.
It's really up to us, the consumer to say, "enough"
Hopefully this will open some more eyes and reveal the bias to people who don't realize that it's there.



posted on May, 13 2019 @ 07:14 AM
link   


Interesting, so three unarguably anti-Trump news organizations get 23% of the placements - and the obviously pro-Trump one gets 3%. So the score is, basically, Left 4, Right 1. Seems fair (not).




IMO, this needs to be reigned in - and now!


Yeah, people need to learn to think for themselves again, without the aid of Google, and understand that no matter left or right, it makes no difference to how your country is run



posted on May, 13 2019 @ 07:19 AM
link   
a reply to: Zcustosmorum

I disagree, that it doesn't matter.

Are you telling me having a majority of "Constitutionlist" judges, at all levels, is the same as having liberal activist judges?



posted on May, 13 2019 @ 07:25 AM
link   
a reply to: mobiusmale

Cant say I'm surprised.
Unfortunately today people tend to want to be told the truth instead of figuring out the truth.

The truth of course is subjective but they are just following the dangling carrots in front of their noses never questioning who's holding the carrot.



posted on May, 13 2019 @ 07:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: Mach2
a reply to: mobiusmale

First, I agree, the coverage, both broadcast, and internet, in no way reflects the actual views of the public, as a whole.

And how would you go about "reining them in"?

I mean, freedom of speech is pretty important.

While I think it is a problem, I don't think the "brainwashing" is all that effective.

You can't, generally, pee on ppl, and convince them that it's raining.


Yes, in the end, market forces should prevail...and those who are demonstrating disproportionate left-bias will likley go out of business (due to loss of audience/ad revenues). That is assuming that market forces will be allowed to work.

My solution...and not being a lawyer, I do not know how difficult it would be to implement...is that these "news" organizations should be prosecuted for making illegal campaign contributions if their news coverage is found to be (let's say) more than 10% skewed from the middle.

So, for example, if CNN's News reporting is 90% anti-Republican/Trump then it should be deemed that the value of 40% of their airtime is an illegal political donation to the Democrat Party - and they should be fined for that, and maybe their top executives should be prosecuted. I suppose that this means that Fox would have to balance their News coverage as well...

In my thinking, these organizations could escape legal jeopardy by simply declaring that their coverage is, in fact, not "News", it is "political opinion"...so the public should not consider their coverage to be unbiased. CNN, Google, Facebook, and others, would have to come right out and say that they are Democrat supporters, and that their content reflects this bias/preference - or face legal consequences.

Perhaps others have a better, or more eloquent, solution.



posted on May, 13 2019 @ 07:27 AM
link   
a reply to: Mach2



liberal activist judges?


Is there such a thing? The law is the law, unless of course there's an envelope of cash lying on someone's desk



posted on May, 13 2019 @ 07:28 AM
link   
a reply to: mobiusmale

Yea, so what?

Google is a private company so they can be biased as much as they want!!!

Said all far-leftists ever.



posted on May, 13 2019 @ 07:31 AM
link   
a reply to: mobiusmale

No. I disagree.

It's up to us as consumers to understand what is and is not biased. As for Google, the problem there lies in its algorithms. We know they're biased, but how many people do? If anything, the answer should be to force an announcement of bias with no punishment.



posted on May, 13 2019 @ 07:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: Zcustosmorum
a reply to: Mach2



liberal activist judges?


Is there such a thing? The law is the law, unless of course there's an envelope of cash lying on someone's desk


Not even close to being accurate, IMO.

If that were true, RBG would have voted the same as Kennedy on all those SCOTUS decisions.

I think your views are clouded by cynicism.

I can certainly understand how you got to that point though.



posted on May, 13 2019 @ 07:37 AM
link   
a reply to: Mach2



I can certainly understand how you got to that point though.


Thank you for your understanding, cash and profit are what the big decisions are built on, not whether you're left or right, not morality, and certainly not for the welfare of citizens



posted on May, 13 2019 @ 07:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: vinifalou
a reply to: mobiusmale

Yea, so what?

Google is a private company so they can be biased as much as they want!!!

Said all far-leftists ever.



That is, actually, a conservative view.

If you want to argue that they are a "monopoly", and action needs to be taken, I could see that arguement, but breaking them up won't necessarily change their political stance.



posted on May, 13 2019 @ 07:42 AM
link   
a reply to: mobiusmale

And studies find that ATS is being dominated by the right.

Look at homepage, tell me that I'm wrong.
edit on 13-5-2019 by Thecakeisalie because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 13 2019 @ 07:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: Zcustosmorum
a reply to: Mach2



I can certainly understand how you got to that point though.


Thank you for your understanding, cash and profit are what the big decisions are built on, not whether you're left or right, not morality, and certainly not for the welfare of citizens


Exactly why I believe the judiciary is key.

Administrations, and lawmakers come, and go. Conservative jurists are the last line of defense, in that they alone have the power to strike down that which is unconstitutional.



posted on May, 13 2019 @ 07:51 AM
link   
a reply to: mobiusmale

The funny thing is, this loading of the deck is what got Trump elected. He got billions in free coverage because the media kept sensationalizing any story connected to him.

The thing is, the media has always been bias, the only thing that has changed is how we have content delivered. Before Fox, the scales were tipped in a time where there wasn't many choices. Now people have access to whatever they'd like. Many like to stay in their own little bubble of confirmation bias.

There are plenty of options out there, and using the private services like Google is a choice consumers can make.



posted on May, 13 2019 @ 07:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: mobiusmale

No. I disagree.

It's up to us as consumers to understand what is and is not biased. As for Google, the problem there lies in its algorithms. We know they're biased, but how many people do? If anything, the answer should be to force an announcement of bias with no punishment.


A large part of the problem, I think, is that the majority of people are casual news consumers at best. They will just take on board whatever they are told is true, or believe whatever messaging they are most often exposed to, without ever taking the time to question, or do their own research.

The "War of the Worlds" radio broadcast in 1938 is a perfect example...


...most of these Americans were listening to ventriloquist Edgar Bergen and his dummy “Charlie McCarthy” on NBC and only turned to CBS at 8:12 p.m. after the comedy sketch ended and a little-known singer went on. By then, the story of the Martian invasion was well underway.

...Perhaps as many as a million radio listeners believed that a real Martian invasion was underway. Panic broke out across the country. In New Jersey, terrified civilians jammed highways seeking to escape the alien marauders. People begged police for gas masks to save them from the toxic gas and asked electric companies to turn off the power so that the Martians wouldn’t see their lights. One woman ran into an Indianapolis church where evening services were being held and yelled, “New York has been destroyed! It’s the end of the world! Go home and prepare to die!”


War of the Worlds Panic

You would think that, as a population, we are a little more sophisticated in this day and age...and would not just assume that what we are listening to...that seems to be a news broadcast...is true.

But, I am not so sure about that, as I watch videos of people bing interviewed on the street who have very strongly held political beliefs based on what they have been told - but actually have no idea what the objects of their scorn (or adulation) have actually said or done.

Propaganda imprints the human mind, just as much as does the truth - when you are not aware that it is propaganda.
edit on 13-5-2019 by mobiusmale because: typo



posted on May, 13 2019 @ 08:19 AM
link   
a reply to: mobiusmale

It's not the government's job to protect people from themselves. Down that way lies madness and total control ... for the greater good, of course.

I would be more in favor of breaking up the tech giants as monopolies in some cases.



posted on May, 13 2019 @ 08:20 AM
link   
a reply to: mobiusmale

I once heard O'Reilly say, "I have leftists on my show all the time!" Well, when you are that far to the right EVERYONE is a leftist!!!!!



posted on May, 13 2019 @ 08:22 AM
link   
a reply to: dfnj2015

Except O-Reilly wasn't an extreme right-leaning person. He was about as close to centrist as anyone. He held some right-leaning views, some of those very conservative, but he also held some traditionally left-leaning views as well.

If a person is going to be a centrist, that's how you do it. You hold some views on the left and some on the right.

O'Reilly was anti-corp and pro-Global Warming for example, but very soc-con.
edit on 13-5-2019 by ketsuko because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
27
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join