Someone has attempted to categorize the biases of the different media outlets and organize that on one big chart. It is very interesting effort.
Here is the big chart:
And here a slightly smaller rendering (that is hard to read).
I believe that this approach fails badly. I have found things of interest, and absolute trash (IMHO) on many of the media outlets.
Bill Moyer’s Special “Buying the War” and Robert Perry’s Consortium News “The Existential Question of Whom to Trust“, traces the myriad of deceptions repeated by “authoritative, trustworthy and balanced” news sources that took us to war in Iraq.
From Consortium News:
Perhaps, the clearest case study of this up-is-down rewards-and-punishments reality was the Iraq War’s WMD rationale. Nearly across the board, the American political/media system – from U.S. intelligence analysts to the deliberative body of the U.S. Senate to the major U.S. news organizations – failed to ascertain the truth and indeed actively helped disseminate the falsehoods about Iraq hiding WMDs and even suggested nuclear weapons development. (Arguably, the “most trusted” U.S. government official at the time, Secretary of State Colin Powell, played a key role in selling the false allegations as “truth.”)
Not only did the supposed American “gold standard” for assessing information – the U.S. political, media and intelligence structure – fail miserably …, but there was minimal accountability afterwards for the “professionals” who failed to protect the public from lies and deceptions.
Indeed, many of the main culprits [who sold us the Iraq WMD lie] remain “respected” members of the journalistic establishment. For instance, The New York Times’ Pentagon correspondent Michael R. Gordon, who was the lead writer on the infamous “aluminum tubes for nuclear centrifuges” story which got the ball rolling for the Bush administration’s rollout of its invade-Iraq advertising campaign in September 2002, still covers national security for the Times – and still serves as a conveyor belt for U.S. government propaganda.
The Washington Post’s editorial page editor Fred Hiatt, who repeatedly informed the Post’s readers that Iraq’s secret possession of WMD was a “flat-fact,” is still the Post’s editorial page editor, one of the most influential positions in American journalism.
Hiatt’s editorial page led a years-long assault on the character of former U.S. Ambassador Joseph Wilson for the offense of debunking one of President George W. Bush’s claims about Iraq seeking yellowcake uranium from Niger. Wilson had alerted the CIA to the bogus claim before the invasion of Iraq and went public with the news afterwards, but the Post treated Wilson as the real culprit, dismissing him as “a blowhard” and trivializing the Bush administration’s destruction of his wife’s CIA career by outing her (Valerie Plame) in order to discredit Wilson’s Niger investigation.
At the end of the Post’s savaging of Wilson’s reputation and in the wake of the newspaper’s accessory role in destroying Plame’s career, Wilson and Plame decamped from Washington to New Mexico. Meanwhile, Hiatt never suffered a whit – and remains a “respected” Washington media figure to this day.
I will occasionally find a gem at InfoWars, Veteran’s Today and David Icke. But I do not believe the majority of what I find in those locations. Still, is it permissible to look and think for one’s self?
MSM Narrative Is About Control, Nothing More