Wonkette’s Ranking: How and Why Media Bias Chart Ranked ’em!

One new ranking on Media Bias Chart 4.0, added upon request by many commenters, is Wonkette. It’s in the bottom left corner of the chart. Apparently those at Wonkette were so displeased by this ranking that they wrote this article–Wonkette is Fake News Like Louise Mensch, According to World’s Best Fucking Chart— about it, which employed most of the factors that resulted in its low ranking in the first place. It was the first story on their page for most of today, which is, um…flattering, I suppose? I proceeded to get lots of opinions from Wonkette’s readers about how my overall chart is great but my placement of Wonkette is so very wrong. A word of caution—if you like all the placements except the placement of your favorite source, consider that your view of that source is likely influenced by what their messaging tells you they are, which is not necessarily what they are. Our rankings use content analysis, which is often inconsistent with organizations’ own slogans or marketing messages about themselves (e.g., though Fox claims to be “fair and balanced” our analysis shows otherwise).

4 Letter Words Create High Scores for Bias

The main reasons for Wonkette’s low quality placement are that in our ranking methodology, highly unfair characterizations of political opponents, such as ad hominem attacks, name calling, and foul language result in low scores for quality and high scores for bias—even if it’s for humor.

I see they object to this. I am not calling them “fake news.” That term is not on the chart. Note that the category they are in for quality is “propaganda/ contains misleading info,” which is an “and/or” category. That is, the category is propaganda OR misleading. My ranking categorized them as “propaganda” because its articles get such high scores in the “unfairness instances” metric on the article grading rubric. Propaganda is defined in the Oxford English Dictionary as “information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view.” Many Wonkette headlines are also misleading—for example, though the headline says otherwise, the chart does not say it is “fake news,” and, it is ranked meaningfully higher than Louise Mensch’s blog, Patribotics. However, Wonkette’s articles can be categorized more often as “propaganda” than “misleading.”

Their Defense is Not Really a Defense

The defenses offered on behalf of Wonkette tend to fall into the following categories:

  • It’s funny/it’s just a joke/it’s “clever snark”
    1. They tell you it’s a supposed to be funny
  • It’s based on facts/ cites to other news sources

Satire and humor leads to bias.

These defenses fail to save it from a low quality score in our rankings for the following reasons:

“It’s funny/it’s just a joke/it’s “clever snark”

This is true. Their writing is hilarious, especially as viewed through the lens of other liberal, internet savvy, politically astute readers who love a sick burn. However, things that are funny can also be unfair at the same time. So insults, ad hominem attacks, curse words, and name calling, WHILE VERY FUNNY, are still unfair means of persuasion. We categorize several rhetorical devices and statements as unfair in our rankings. A general guideline for what counts as “unfair” are 1) practices not in accordance with journalism ethics and writing style guides and 2) types of information that would not be admissible in court according to rules of evidence. I’ve written more on the “unfairness instances” metric in this previous post.

You may not be convinced that funny insults make a source low quality (just merely biased, you may concede), especially if you like and agree with them. If you like Wonkette and the names it calls Republicans and Trump, consider what you would think of the quality of a source on the right if it regularly called Hillary Clinton a bitch or a hag or worse. Also consider what moderate or slightly conservative readers would think of the quality of Wonkette’s stories in terms of how persuasive they are to them.

They tell you it’s a supposed to be funny/snarky/mean.

Prefacing a statement of questionable merit by telling someone you are going to say it is rarely a defense to the merit of the statement itself. For example, if you say “no offense” before you say something offensive, or “not to be racist,” before saying something racist, or “at least I’m being honest” before saying something mean, it’s still offensive, racist, or mean. Telling you it’s supposed to be unfair is not a defense to writing something unfair.

Is it factual news from a news site or just a satirical blog?

It’s based on facts/ cites to other news sources

Notwithstanding some misleading articles and headlines, Wonkette’s defenders argue that most of its stories are based on other fact-based reporting stories. This is true—most of Wonkette’s articles cite to other sources. As I stated earlier, they are not “fake news.”

However, there are many reasons a source can be low quality even though it is “based on facts” and is not outright false. For example, it can have poor grammar or spelling, lack context or be incomplete, or present poor arguments. It can also be so speculative as to be misleading (as is the case with the Palmer Report—that’s another post). None of these are the case with Wonkette; Wonkette’s quality placement is based almost completely on its quantity and severity of unfair characterizations.

Many observers of the chart mistakenly assume the vertical quality dimension is simply a measure of truth to falsity from top to bottom. That is part of it, but note that pretty much every category other than the bottom-most one (Contains inaccurate/fabricated info) is mostly “based on facts.” There are simply many other ways news sources can be high or low quality.

Some may object to the quality taxonomy (the vertical axis) itself that would result in the placement of this kind of content so low.  An underlying premise in my ranking of quality is the question “how effective is this source at convincing the other side?” (especially when considering or analysis/opinion). I argue that extremely mean humor/satire is a very ineffective form of persuasion.

The final wonk…

I admit it was my subjective decision to have that underlying premise, but I submit that this type of content only serves to reinforce one’s existing beliefs and alienate the other side, and is therefore, highly polarizing. There are certainly lots of sources that do this: for example, John Oliver, Bill Maher, and other evening comedy shows also use pretty cruel humor. There is an audience for it because it is cathartic. There is an important place in our discourse and democracy for humor—we need to have the freedom to be able to make fun of our leaders. But to the extent people rely on it for 1) news ( i.e., fact reporting) and 2) takes on the news (i.e., analysis/opinion), I think that kind of content  is highly polarizing, and thus, extremely damaging.

As support for the proposition that it is damaging, I point to the state of our country’s current discourse and the resulting election of our current president.

I’m not saying these sources have no merit. Humor has purpose. I watch these shows. I’ve read lots on Wonkette. But to the extent people rely on these for news, I argue they should not rely on them, and to the extent these sources try to fill the space where news is, they do damage.

By |2018-09-16T21:29:23+00:00September 14th, 2018|Uncategorized|12 Comments

About the Author:

12
Leave a Reply

avatar
11 Comment threads
1 Thread replies
0 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
12 Comment authors
BillSarah MurphyFoobarDixonBMcT Recent comment authors

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Marc Freedman
Guest

Vanessa, well stated on Wonkette. Your site clearly is a service for analyzing news reporting, not entertainment.

David
Guest
David

Why so serious?

Maybe your chart doesn’t have a proper place for Wonkette, looks to me like you put it in untrue. Not so. Astute is what they are.

Sir David Chaillou, KSW
Guest
Sir David Chaillou, KSW

I would like to share the same thought with you that I shared with my fellows at Wonkette, that there is a major axis that is completely absent from your analytical grid of information sites, and that is the meaningfullness of the content. I just had to laugh when I saw that the Huffpost was square in the middle of the “Analysis bracket, because it seems to me that the Huffpost contents are mostly escapist infotainment. Wonkette on the other hand may tackle issues from an humoristic and clearly partisan angle, but it definitely incites its readers to exercise both… Read more »

Brian
Guest
Brian

I originally gave you the benefit of the doubt that you’d simply done a bare minimum of research on Wonkette and slapped them on the propaganda side of the list for “balance.” But apparently, your methodology prizes civility and not being mean over not having intentionally misleading stories, twisting facts to fit narratives, and straight up making things up.

Neat.

Foobar
Guest
Foobar

Being snarky and offensive certainly counts as “Unfair Persuasion”, but offensive snark that’s supported by evidence and journalism should not be dinged that extra rung down to “Propaganda / Misleading”.

The dictionary definition of propaganda is, IMO, misleading. Bias by itself should never be sufficient to demote something to propaganda. That extra tier of badness should be reserved solely for content that’s based on glaringly deceptive choice of facts (or outright lies) and Wonkette doesn’t meet that standard.

David Trethewey
Guest
David Trethewey

… How are you STILL so wrong? Almost literally every one of your counter examples falls DIRECTLY into false equivalence territory. You might as well throw the Onion on your chart opposite of Breitbart.

c4t
Guest
c4t

No comments…. that seems unlikely. I’mma guessing moderation is on lock down for Jesus swears.
So instead of telling you how I really feel, I’ll just say:
Bless your heart.

BJW
Guest
BJW

“As support for the proposition that it is damaging, I point to the state of our country’s current discourse and the resulting election of our current president.” So…Wonkette is partly responsible for Donald Trump? The rest of your arguments, while I would disagree, seem logical. This one does not. Wonkette has been around for awhile, but it is reactive, not proactive. I’m pretty sure that 40+ years of the unity of the Religious Right with the Republican party, plus the pandering to the wealthy, plus good old fashioned racism, are far more the reasons why we have Donald Trump. Also,… Read more »

BMcT
Guest
BMcT

You seem to be suggesting that language that fosters a perception, among some, that the source is biased is itself evidence of bias. (“Also consider what moderate or slightly conservative readers would think of the quality of Wonkette’s stories in terms of how persuasive they are to them.”) That seems a stretch. Both of the following statements are objectively true. Which, as a stand-alone statement, is more biased: “Ted Bundy was one sick fuck,” or “Ted Bundy was a charming and popular man who had the misfortune of being raised by a tyrannical bully”?

Dixon
Guest
Dixon

Hi. Could you please add more news sources from The Young Turks Network, such as Secular Talk,
The Majority Report w/ Sam Seder, and The Humanist Report?

Sarah Murphy
Guest
Sarah Murphy

Vanessa, after reading a few Wonkette articles (which I would not have done had you not posted this), I have to admit – I find them humorous, and would read them occasionally just for the fun of it. But your discussion above is spot on. Wonkette is not a place to find the news as such. Strong opinions are great, and need to be heard, but your chart, which I use to help kids at my school evaluate what they are reading/seeing, has a different purpose. To help folks identify balanced reporting as against opinion. Thank you for the work… Read more »

Bill
Guest
Bill

My comment goes back to the post by BJW where he or she says that Vanessa is blaming Wonkette on the fact that we now have Trump in the white house. I’m not sure that this is what she was getting at. The fact is that long ago, our political discourse has degenerated to the point that much of it, if not most, is filled with vitriol, hyperbole and excessive foul language. This has been the case during several periods in our history, not least of these being just prior to the civil war. These qualities are not conducive to… Read more »