[cygx]

Viewers have various options to choose from (eg CNN, MSNBC, Fox, Newsmax, ...). The divion CNN+MSNBC vs Fox (in terms of, say, viewership or ad revenue) seems to be roughly comparable to what you'd expect from voter demographics.

If, say, Newsmax rose to prominence and we'd see more fragmentation on the 'right', or CNN and MSNBC were to merge, and we'd see less fragmentation on the 'left', what would that change?

[kuzimoto]

Just looking at the "AllSides Media Bias Chart" there are more "major" sources that are left-leaning than right [0]. The chart includes top sources by traffic. I mean this doesn't calculate all traffic and determine if in general left sources are more viewed but it's a start.

[0] https://www.allsides.com/media-bias/media-bias-chart

[cygx]

The chart includes top sources by traffic

But traffic is decided by the market. There's nothing wrong with left-leaning media being more popular.

[acdha]

That’s a very subjective chart and by their own admission doesn’t even try to compare for honesty or credibility. Most of the two R columns routinely run fake or highly selective coverage to a degree which only Democracy Now and certain HuffPost writers approach.

There is an enormous difference between an outlet like the New Yorker, which is definitely liberal but also fiercely committed to fact checking, and outlets like Newsmax or The American Conservative which are proudly movement conservatives first and journalists second, if at all.

This desire to present a false equivalence is understandable - it makes it easier to avoid acknowledging a major schism in the country - but the misrepresentations requires are a disservice to their readers. Just the fact that The Economist is listed as leftist to the same degree that The Post Millenial or NY Post are listed as right wing tells you how interested they are in accuracy!

[_zg4q]

> That’s a very subjective chart

Can you explain? On the site:

> The AllSides Media Bias Chart is more comprehensive in its methodology than any other media bias chart on the Web. While other media bias charts show you the subjective opinion of the one person who made it, our ratings are based based on multipartisan, scientific analysis.

> and by their own admission doesn’t even try to compare for honesty or credibility

I don't think this matters in the context of the point I was making.

> Most of the two R columns routinely run fake or highly selective coverage

Hmm, so this further reduces the number of quality right-leaning sources. Seems to further prove my point. Remember, the chart shows sites with the most traffic.

> There is an enormous difference between an outlet like the New Yorker, which is definitely liberal but also fiercely committed to fact checking, and outlets like Newsmax or The American Conservative which are proudly movement conservatives first and journalists second, if at all.

Maybe, but it doesn't matter in the context of my point. Also, if they are clear about their biases it shouldn't matter, unless presenting outright lies. Many left-leaning sources try to come off like they are objective. Also:

> A leading New Yorker writer omits crucial facts to run interference for Joe Biden against serious allegations of corruption in Ukraine, writes Joe Lauria. [0]

Many left-leaning sources were also guilty of this (twitter going so far as take down the tweet from the NY Post as "hacked information" even though there was zero evidence this was the case, and Facebook de-prioritizing shared link of the same).

This is my opinion and based around some examples I've seen, but I believe that conservative sources have a tougher time making money, because people will attack their ad-partners for supporting those companies. I'd like to see where this happens to left-leaning sources.

[0] https://consortiumnews.com/2019/10/08/the-new-yorkers-partis...