[pydry]

It bugs me whenever i see something like this. Left/Right isnt really a useful continuum to measure bias over.

Realistically most outlets feigns independence but demonstrate fealty to particular power centers.

It's obvious how little point there is when you try to "measure" RT on the left wing/right wing scale (theyre pro russia above all) but what applies to them applies equally to all other outlets.

It's particularly galling when the power center is authoritarian/corporatist but wears a progressive mask for sake of fooling the naive.

[yeahforsureman]

I get the problem. Wouldn't say it applies equally to other outlets. RT is very specifically a single-state propaganda tube, while a lot of Western press could perhaps be characterized as vaguely Atlanticist and pretty pro-globalization. But I'm not sure whether this was what you meant exactly by power centers.

Would they need more categories, then? Like geo-political orientation and state influence (although the latter would often be close to the press freedom rating)?

[pydry]

I meant more like the democratic party (new york times), republican party (fox), the national security establishment (washington post).

This is still too vague even, I think and there are probably complex sub-centres of power (e.g. factions within the democrats) and alliances (e.g. the neocon/democratic party nexus) reflected as well.

All of this gets airbrushed over by the traditional left/right continuum.

It's critically important too, coz it definitely drives both what is reported and how it's selectively presented and is a better predictor than an arbitary left/right designation.