US media bias resources

There is a lot of discussion about media bias in the US, especially since Donald Trump became the centre of attention. It’s well known that CNN leaves very leftward, and Fox News strongly favours the right. There are a lot of others, some more extreme, and many somewhere in between.

Political bias or leaning is not in itself a bad thing, as long as news is well reported and backed by facts. No one media outlet can be all things to everyone across the spectrum.

Check the Political Bias of Any Media Site in This Massive Database media site political bias chart

Image Credit: Imgur

Media Bias/Fact Check claims to be The Most Comprehensive Media Bias Resource and categorises many media:

  • Left Bias
    These media sources are moderately to strongly biased toward liberal causes through story selection and/or political affiliation.  They may utilize strong loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes), publish misleading reports and omit reporting of information that may damage liberal causes. Some sources in this category may be untrustworthy.
  • Left-Center Bias
    These media sources are moderately to strongly biased toward liberal causes through story selection and/or political affiliation.  They may utilize strong loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes), publish misleading reports and omit reporting of information that may damage liberal causes. Some sources in this category may be untrustworthy.
  • Least Biased
    These sources have minimal bias and use very few loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes).  The reporting is factual and usually sourced.  These are the most credible media sources.
  • Right-Center Bias
    These media sources are slightly to moderately conservative in bias. They often publish factual information that utilizes loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes) to favor conservative causes. These sources are generally trustworthy for information, but may require further investigation.
  • Right Bias
    These media sources are moderately to strongly biased toward conservative causes through story selection and/or political affiliation. They may utilize strong loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes), publish misleading reports and omit reporting of information that may damage conservative causes. Some sources in this category may be untrustworthy.
  • Pro-Science
    These sources consist of legitimate science or are evidence based through the use of credible scientific sourcing.  Legitimate science follows the scientific method, is unbiased and does not use emotional words.  These sources also respect the consensus of experts in the given scientific field and strive to publish peer reviewed science. Some sources in this category may have a slight political bias, but adhere to scientific principles.
  • Conspiracy-Pseudoscience
    Sources in the Conspiracy-Pseudoscience category may publish unverifiable information that is not always supported by evidence. These sources may be untrustworthy for credible/verifiable information, therefore fact checking and further investigation is recommended on a per article basis when obtaining information from these sources.
  • Questionable Sources
    A questionable source exhibits one or more of the following: extreme bias, overt propaganda, poor or no sourcing to credible information and/or is fake news. Fake News is the deliberate attempt to publish hoaxes and/or disinformation for the purpose of profit or influence (Learn More). Sources listed in the Questionable Category may be very untrustworthy and should be fact checked on a per article basis. Please note sources on this list are not considered fake newsunless specifically written in the notes section for that source.
  • Satire
    These sources exclusively use humor, irony, exaggeration, or ridicule to expose and criticize people’s stupidity or vices, particularly in the context of contemporary politics and other topical issues. Primarily these sources are clear that they are satire and do not attempt to deceive.

The database is US-centric but includes many international media, including a number of Australian, but I can’t see any New Zealand sources. UPDATE: Stuff is included under ‘Left-Center bias’.

Surplus production a flaw of capitalism

Food for thought from this quote, posted by Blazer a couple of days ago.

“We must agree that we need to produce as of our requirement and not for corporate profit. Surplus production does not serve any purpose of human welfare other than creating surplus value for capitalists. We must reduce the eight-hour work-day according to our needs.”

Prem Mathrani is based in Dubai (UAE). He has written more than 50 articles in Sindhi on “Economic Dictatorship and Exploitation in Capitalist Business Organisations”.

There’s little doubt that variations of capitalist systems over the last couple of centuries have driven huge technological innovations and have lifted the standard of living and life expectancy of billions of people.

But the modern application of capitalism has a major flaw – to keep expanding business and making profits when many people have plenty of everything they need, corporations in particular have turned to pushing people through sophisticated marketing to buy and consume more and more of what they don’t need.

This creates two major problems. It puts increasing strains on limited resources, exacerbated by a growing world population and the shift by a bigger proportion of that population into higher standards of living and higher consumption.

And it has resulted in overconsumption that is unhealthy for individuals who succumb to the temptations and the marketing.

Two much food and two much drink are obvious examples. Heart disease and diabetes and other afflictions of the over-imbibing are a growing problem. Tools for a sedentary lifestyle is another example – it is perverse that so many people drive their cars to a gym to try to maintain their fitness. But far more people are encouraged to buy cars, to drive to malls to buy more things they don’t need.

An alarming modern marketing malaise is the advertising of products as healthy that are the opposite. Things like anti-bacterial soaps, wipes, sprays etc have legitimate uses, like in hospitals, but over cleaning homes is unhealthy as well as expensive.

Drug pushers are particularly insidious capitalists supplying a market that destroys lives. Worse, they often actively seek to hook victims in order to replace their imprisoned or dying clientèle. Pushing to many legal drugs to supposedly overcome illnesses are ethically suspect.

Surplus production – producing things we don’t need, straining finite resources, is a problem that is growing with the population.

This is something ‘the market’ won’t fix, because the market is the problem.

Capitalism has helped the human race make a lot of progress, but it has always had it’s flaws. And one of those flaws is in promoting an increasingly urgent problem – over consumption.

This is why some governments, including New Zealand’s, of looking to incorporating more of a social conscience into our capitalist system.

If marketed well modest consumption could become popular, but who would make money out of that?

Earth overshoots available resources for the year

According to how much resources the Global Footprint Network calculates are available for us to use on Earth each year to ensure sustainablility we are in the red already, and eveything used now makes it hardert for us to continue to survive.

Christian Science Monitor reports in Resource overdraft: Planet Earth crosses into ecological red:

Thursday marked Earth Overshoot Day – the day when the world’s population officially exhausts all the natural resources the Earth can generate in a single year, as defined by the sustainability think tank, Global Footprint Network.

Overshoot depletes the Earth of its natural capital and catalyzes a buildup of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, environmentalists say.

That buildup drastically harms the environment through deforestation, drought, fresh-water scarcity, soil erosion, and biodiversity loss, according to GFN.

All of these degenerative conditions lead to excessive ecological spending, and Overshoot Day serves as a reminder that the global population needs to implement greener solutions before natural resources drop to dangerous levels.

The UN provided the first reliable statistics on the matter in 1961. Since then, humanity’s demand for resources has quickly exceeded the amount nature could provide, with the planet reaching global overshoot in the early 1970s.

In 2000, Earth Overshoot Day landed in October. It’s occurrence in August this year reflects the rapidly expanding demands placed on the planet’s natural resources.

Of course you can argue about the calculations. But it’s harder to argue about the likelihood that humans use more resources than we generate or that Earth can replace naturally.

We continue to consume more per capita and that looks like getting worse as third world countries improve standfards of living. This cetiry there have been and will continue to be big changes in consumptiom i heavily populated countries like China and India.

And the world population continues to grow. Currently a world population calculator is at 7,360,175,026.

Population milestones:

  • 1 billion: 1804
  • 2 billion: 1927
  • 3 billion: 1960
  • 4 billion: 1974
  • 5 billion: 1987
  • 6 billion: 1999
  • 7 billion: 2012
  • 8 billion: 2024 (predicted)

So the population has more than doubled in my lifetime. While the rate of growth is predicted to slow down it is still increasing substantially. More graphically:

WorldPopulation

Source: Worldometers

So it is quite feasible that we are using more than we or Earth can produce, and we are polluting more than we can clean up.

And the overshooting ill effects are accumulative.

According to people like the Greens as a world we are already stuffed unless we take drastic action immediately.

That may or may or may not be a reaslitc assessment.

But there should be no doubt that humankind faces huge challenges, now and in the future. It may not get too bad in the rest of my lifetime, or for a few generations.

But at some stage it’s certain that Earth and it’s human population will suffer badly.

It might be a gradual deterioration.

Or it could be a sudden impact. An asteroid collision is claimed to have ended the age of dinosaurs, so something similar for humans can’t be ruled out.

More likely is a major volcanic eruption – a sudden reduction in sunlight and food production for a year or two could easily precipitate drastic widespread hardship.

The risks per lifetime probably aren’t high. But the risks are significantly invcreased of we are already accumulatively overshooting Earth’s resources.

What are we going to do about it? Most people will probably ignore it and hope that it won’t happen or will go away or that someone will invent something that will fix everything.

But what if someone invents something that doubles human lifespans?