But does whoever does the rating take account of the colossal list to starboard that has taken place over the past three or four decades?
What was once boring centrism is now slated as "leftism" by people who call themselves "conservatives" but whose sole notion of what's to be conserved is at best "finders keepers".
But does whoever does the rating take account of the colossal list to starboard that has taken place over the past three or four decades?
What was once boring centrism is now slated as "leftism" by people who call themselves "conservatives" but whose sole notion of what's to be conserved is at best "finders keepers".
At worst...
If Al Capone was among us now, he'd be a top GOP candidate for the presidency.
We generate overall news source scores based on scores of individual articles (in the case of online news sources) or episodes (in the cases of podcasts, radio, TV, and video-based sources).
Our current team of over 60 analysts, who are trained in our content analysis methodology, perform the ratings. Our analysts go through an initial 30 hours of training plus an additional 40 hours of ongoing training per year. Our analysts include academics, journalists, librarians, lawyers, military veterans, civil service professionals, and other professions that require high levels of rhetorical and analytical skills.
Each individual article and episode is rated by a pod of at least three human analysts at the same time. Each pod is politically balanced, meaning it contains one person who self-identifies as being right-leaning, one as center, and one as left-leaning. Articles and episodes are rated in three-person live panels conducted in shifts over Zoom. Analysts first read each article and rate them on their own, then immediately compare scores. If there are discrepancies in the scores, they discuss and adjust scores if necessary. The three analysts’ ratings are averaged to produce the overall article rating. Sometimes articles are rated by larger panels of analysts for various reasons–for example, if there are outlier scores, the article may be rated by more than three analysts.
Fine, thank you, but you have not addressed my main point about wildly varying criteria. What was center right in 1963 may be seen as far left in 2023.
Maybe it would help if one took historical cases... writings like Tom Paine's Common Sense... Or why not go further back and consider those of Montesquieu on the rights of blacks or Condorcet's on equal rights for women? Or fast forward to FDR's radio chats...
I just don't see a meaningful standard. Even adherence to truth is difficult to rate since it is so easy to use facts and true statements deceitfully, to proclaim fine principles as a screen behind which to commit crimes.
I can't help remembering conversations with a statistician about "lies, damned lies, and..."
But does whoever does the rating take account of the colossal list to starboard that has taken place over the past three or four decades?
What was once boring centrism is now slated as "leftism" by people who call themselves "conservatives" but whose sole notion of what's to be conserved is at best "finders keepers".
At worst...
If Al Capone was among us now, he'd be a top GOP candidate for the presidency.
Peter Burnett - "But does whoever does the rating take account of ..."
https://adfontesmedia.com/how-ad-fontes-ranks-news-sources/
We generate overall news source scores based on scores of individual articles (in the case of online news sources) or episodes (in the cases of podcasts, radio, TV, and video-based sources).
Our current team of over 60 analysts, who are trained in our content analysis methodology, perform the ratings. Our analysts go through an initial 30 hours of training plus an additional 40 hours of ongoing training per year. Our analysts include academics, journalists, librarians, lawyers, military veterans, civil service professionals, and other professions that require high levels of rhetorical and analytical skills.
Each individual article and episode is rated by a pod of at least three human analysts at the same time. Each pod is politically balanced, meaning it contains one person who self-identifies as being right-leaning, one as center, and one as left-leaning. Articles and episodes are rated in three-person live panels conducted in shifts over Zoom. Analysts first read each article and rate them on their own, then immediately compare scores. If there are discrepancies in the scores, they discuss and adjust scores if necessary. The three analysts’ ratings are averaged to produce the overall article rating. Sometimes articles are rated by larger panels of analysts for various reasons–for example, if there are outlier scores, the article may be rated by more than three analysts.
Fine, thank you, but you have not addressed my main point about wildly varying criteria. What was center right in 1963 may be seen as far left in 2023.
Maybe it would help if one took historical cases... writings like Tom Paine's Common Sense... Or why not go further back and consider those of Montesquieu on the rights of blacks or Condorcet's on equal rights for women? Or fast forward to FDR's radio chats...
I just don't see a meaningful standard. Even adherence to truth is difficult to rate since it is so easy to use facts and true statements deceitfully, to proclaim fine principles as a screen behind which to commit crimes.
I can't help remembering conversations with a statistician about "lies, damned lies, and..."