this post was submitted on 21 Jun 2023
-4 points (16.7% liked)

Україна | Ukraine 🇺🇦

1464 readers
1 users here now

Welcome to Ukraine!

Ласкаво просимо в Україну!

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] BrooklynMan@lemmy.ml 0 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (35 children)

From MediaBiasFactCheck.com

Wall Street Journal

RIGHT-CENTER BIAS

These media sources are slight to moderately conservative in bias. They often publish factual information that utilizes loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by appeals to emotion or stereotypes) to favor conservative causes. These sources are generally trustworthy for information but may require further investigation.

Analysis / Bias

The Walls Street Journal hasn’t endorsed US political candidates since 1928; however, they are criticized for supporting far-right populist politicians abroad. For example, in South America, they all but endorsed far-right Congressman Jair Bolsonaro in Brazil’s presidential election. They have also written favorably about Chilean Dictator Augusto Pinochet. The WSJ has been strongly criticized for its pro-Trump coverage. According to The Atlantic, there was an alleged conflict about how to cover Trump, resulting in an opinion editor’s departure.

In review, the WSJ utilizes emotionally loaded language in their editorial headlines that favor the right, such as this: “Wrap It Up, Mr. Mueller Democratic dilemma: Impeach Trump for lying about sex?” They also frequently promote anti-climate change messages such as this: “The Phony War Against CO2.” Here is another example from an editorial on Trump’s position on climate change “Not the Climate Apocalypse: The EPA’s power rule won’t save coal and won’t poison the planet.” Further, IFCN fact checker Climate Feedback has cited numerous editorials in which the Wall Street Journal uses very low scientific credibility. The pro-science Climate Science & Policy Watch has also criticized the WSJ for rejecting the 97% consensus of climate scientists. Lastly, The Guardian has an article describing how the WSJ “peddles big oil propaganda” while “disguising climate misinformation as opinion.”

When reporting regular news, the WSJ uses minimally loaded words such as this: China Agrees to Reduce Tariffs on U.S. Autos. News articles are also adequately sourced to credible media outlets like the Financial Times and Washington Post.

more at MediaBiasFactCheck.com

[–] edward@lemmy.ml 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Media Bias Fact Check, the site that makes no distinction between centrism and being unbiased.

[–] BrooklynMan@lemmy.ml 0 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

your opinion ≠ fact, although you're welcome to attempt to prove your claim.

[–] edward@lemmy.ml 0 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

Are you saying that being a centrist and being unbiased are the same? Is there no such thing as a centrist bias?

And don’t say I’m putting words in your mouth. You said that my comment isn’t fact, so what about it isn’t factual?

Or are you saying the site does make that distinction? Because their scale of left bias - unbiased - right bias with a complete lack of centrist bias is proof that they don’t. Here’s the proof of my claim, right from their website, the center is labeled “least biased”:

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml -3 points 2 years ago

Amazing that a grown adult doesn't understand the concept of bias. Wait till he discovers that what centrist opinions are changes from country to country. Gonna absolutely blow his mind.

load more comments (33 replies)