[NaturalPhallacy]

The scariest thing about biased news sources is not how they cover something but whether they cover something at all.

People who don't tune into multiple will simply have no idea that something even happened. They'll have completely different realities based on their perceptions.

Just looking at the graph you can see four whole stories that CNN completely omitted, yet there was nothing that CNN covered that Fox ignored. I'm sure there are weeks where fox ignored something too, but in this data the omissions are one sided.

This is why one of my daily bookmarks is https://www.allsides.com/unbiased-balanced-news

If any outlet on either side covers it, I'll see it.

[jollybean]

First - your assessment of 'omitted by CNN' isn't quite right.

"yet there was nothing that CNN covered that Fox ignored. " - this is wrong. There is at any given time, thousands of 'stories' to cover. Almost by definition CNN will have covered something else that Fox didn't. All of the stories they covered are not on that chart.

...

There's one level scarier and that's when neither/none of them cover something.

In particular, the issue of possible lab leak and US institutional involvement in research over in China.

It's kind of the biggest story of a generation, but it's complicated and almost all that will come out of it is insane populist hysteria and misrepresentations, to it's kind of ignored.

It's so hot that nobody seems to want to give it really good airtime; also, it might also be because of relationship with National Security apparatus who probably have maybe told them not to talk about it, but it's hard to know. It's like one of those 'wartime' issues where most of the press closes rank a bit. The implications are just gigantic.

If nobody talks about it, then it didn't happen ... kind of thing. It remains an issue for bureaucrats and academics to meander on.

[NaturalPhallacy]

>There's one level scarier and that's when neither/none of them cover something.*

Completely agree.

>In particular, the issue of possible lab leak and US institutional involvement in research over in China.

I read the Fauci emails. The person who brought it up made it perfectly clear she thought there was an unnatural segment of DNA in the virus. Yet people were silenced in the beginning for even suggesting the possibility of a lab leak. After receiving and responding to that email he denied the lab leak possibility.

Any sane cynic who's been around long enough will assume that all the major players are working on biological weapons. It's reminiscent of the nuclear arms race with similar implications. But we can't even talk about it? Scary.

[jollybean]

It was not about 'biological weapons' just slightly dangerous pandemic research.

The issue is not so much the hyper details but the ultimate confusion that arrives from the weird web of interwoven relationships, differing levels of complacency, lack of transparency, corruption in some cases ... without really a proper target to point a finger at (except the Chinese government, it's a clear problem there).

It's an intriguing situation really. The 'truth' is not some Scooby Doo 'reveal' but a messy confluence of issues that circle right back to our own institutions and credibility. The populist rage makers could do almost anything they want with it.

[kaba0]

According to this [ https://adfontesmedia.com/download-the-media-bias-chart/ ] CNN’s website and Fox’s parent company is similarly factual, with a slight bias to their respective side.

Their TV channels on the other hand are more biased, but CNN is still more factual.

I’m sure some people will not like this, but there also seems to be a correlation between right bias and loss of factuality (and I remember reading a study that show similar things as well).

Nonetheless, it’s best to watch less biased, factual reportings.

[jedberg]

It should be noted that the four stories that CNN didn't cover aren't actually real stories, but are bordering on conspiracy theories.