# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
So why is it time for another update to the Media Bias Chart? I'm a strong believer in changing one's mind based on new information. That's how we learn anyway, and I wish people would do it more often. I think it would lead to nicer online discussions and less polarization in our politics. Perhaps people don't "change their minds based on new information" as much as they should because it is often framed more negatively as "admitting you are wrong." I don't particularly mind admitting I'm wrong.

In any event, I'm making some minor updates to the Media Bias Chart, corrections, and improvements based on feedback I've gotten. I've been fortunate to hear from many of you thoughtful observers out there, and I'm so grateful that so many of you care about the subject of ranking quality and bias.

The Media Bias Chart Updates

Here are the changes for version 3.1. I'm calling it 3.1 because they are mostly minor changes. I got quite a bit of feedback on these topics in particular.

The middle column now says "Neutral: Minimal Partisan Bias OR Balance of Biases." I moved away from the term "Mainstream" because that term is so loaded as to be useless to some audiences. Also, there are some sources that are not really minimally biased or truly neutral; some have extreme stuff from both political sides.

The horizontal categories have been updated slightly in our Media Bias Chart. The "skew conservative" and "skew liberal" categories no longer have the parenthetical comment "(but still reputable)," mostly because the term "reputable" has more to do with quality on the vertical axis, and I'm doing my best not to conflate the two. The "hyper-partisan conservative" and "hyper-partisan liberal" categories no longer have the parenthetical comments "(expressly promotes views)," mostly because "promoting views" is not the only characteristic that makes something hyper-partisan. Finally, the outermost liberal and conservative "utter garbage/conspiracy theories" categories are now re-labeled "most extreme liberal/conservative." This is, again, because the terms "utter garbage" and "conspiracy theories," though often accurate for sources in those columns, has more to do with quality than partisanship.

What has moved?

I am writing a separate post that more specifically defines the horizontal axis and the criteria for ranking sources within them. It's a pretty complex topic, and I'll discuss many additional points frequently raised by those of you who have commented. I will likely have more revisions accompanying that post.

I have moved Natural News from the extreme left to slightly right. I know this may still cause some consternation among commentators that note correctly that they have a lot of extreme right wing political content. However, after categorizing dozens of articles over several sample days and counting how many fell in each category, the breakdown looked like this: About a third fell in the range of "skew liberal" to "extreme liberal" (in terms of promoting anti-corporate and popular liberal pseudo-science positions), another third were relatively politically neutral "health news," and about a third fell into the extreme conservative bucket. There wasn't much that fell into the "skew conservative" or "hyper-partisan conservative" categories. So even though the balance was 1/3, 1/3, 1/3, left, center, right, the 1/3 on the right was almost all "most extreme conservative," so that pushed the overall source rank to the right. For those who are still unhappy and think it should be moved further right, take consolation in the fact that it is still at the bottom vertically, and to an extent, it doesn't matter how partisan the junk news is as long as you still know it's junk.

I removed US Uncut, because as some of you correctly pointed out, that site is now defunct.

I removed Al-Jazeera from the top middle, but not because I don't think it's a mostly reputable news source. I removed it for two reasons.

Al-Jazeera Explained

1. First, many people are unclear on what I am referring to as Al-Jazeera. It is a very large international media organization based out of Qatar, (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Jazeera), but it is not a very popular source for news to Americans. Americans who are familiar with it could assume that I am referring to Al-Jazeera English (a sister channel), or Al-Jazeera America (a short-lived US organization (2013-2016) which arguably leaned left), or AJ+ (a channel that provides explanatory videos on Facebook and also arguably leans left). I do think these are worth including in the Media Bias Chart, but I will differentiate them before including them in future versions. What I meant originally was the main Al-Jazeera site that is in English, which covers mostly international news, and which I consider a generally high quality and reputable source.

2. Second , it is somewhat controversial because it is funded by the government of Qatar, and it has been accused of bias as it pertains to Middle East politics. This doesn't necessarily mean that it is disreputable, or that its ownership results in stories that are biased to the left or right on the US political spectrum. However, I have only two other non-US sources on the Media Bias Chart-the BBC and DailyMail-which both have significant enough coverage of US politics that you can discern bias on the US spectrum. I don't have any other internationally sources on the Media Bias Chart, and none that are primarily funded by a non-democratic government (the BBC is funded by the British public, NPR is publicly and privately funded in the US). Until I can specify which articles I have rated to form the basis for Al-Jazeerza's placement, I'm going to leave it off.

Thanks for the comments so far, and please keep them coming. I appreciate your suggestions for how to make this work better and your requests for what you want to see in the future.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Media Bias Chart, 3.1 Minor Updates Based on Constructive Feedback - All Generalizations are False

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
We have updated the Media Bias Chart to version 3.1 and in this most recent post we describe the changes and what you need to know for you to get up to speed on what we've done and where we are going. We hope you enjoy this recent version as we are getting a lot of great...

# data[].attributes.body
Hypophora
http://rhetoric.byu.edu/Figures/H/hypophora.htm
Litotes
http://rhetoric.byu.edu/Figures/L/litotes.htm

# data[].attributes.body
http://rhetoric.byu.edu/Figures/S/sermocinatio.htm
+http://rhetoric.byu.edu/Figures/S/sarcasmus.ht
http://rhetoric.byu.edu/Figures/V/verborum%20bombus.htm

# data[].attributes.body
Macrologia- Seeming longwinded due to using more word than necessary in an attempt to be eloquent.

# data[].attributes.body
Anesis: http://rhetoric.byu.edu/Figures/A/anesis.htm
Epitasis: http://rhetoric.byu.edu/Figures/E/epitasis.htm

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Search
This site is optimally viewed using a frames-capable browser (MSIE 3 or above; Netscape 3 or above).

T his online rhetoric, provided by Dr. Gideon Burton of Brigham Young University, is a guide to the terms of classical and renaissance rhetoric. Sometimes it is difficult to see the forest (the big picture) of rhetoric because of the trees (the hundreds of Greek and Latin terms naming figures of speech, etc.) within rhetoric.

This site is intended to help beginners, as well as experts, make sense of rhetoric, both on the small scale (definitions and examples of specific terms) and on the large scale (the purposes of rhetoric, the patterns into which it has fallen historically as it has been taught and practiced for 2000+ years).

If you'd like an overview of the entire "forest" of rhetoric, consult the "trees" (major categories) in the left frame.

If you'd like to look up specific terms of rhetoric, either scroll through the list of figures of speech (or "flowers" of rhetoric) on the right, or Search the Forest (above or here).

Cross-references throughout the website will help you see the relationship between, for example, a topic of invention, such as "comparison" and its related figures of speech, " metaphor," etc.

For students of rhetoric, literature, or communication, don't forget to look at the examples of Rhetorical Analysis (at the bottom of the "trees").

A forest is the metaphor for this site. Like a forest, rhetoric provides tremendous resources for many purposes. However, one can easily become lost in a large, complex habitat (whether it be one of wood or of wit). The organization of this central page and the hyperlinks within individual pages should provide a map, a discernible trail, to lay hold of the utility and beauty of this language discipline.

Don't be scared of the intimidating detail suggested by the odd Greek and Latin terms. After all, you can enjoy the simple beauty of a birch tree without knowing it is betula alba and make use of the shade of a weeping willow tree without knowing it is in fact salix babylonica. The same is possible with rhetoric. The names aid categorization and are more or less conventional, but I encourage you to get past the sesquipedalian labels and observe the examples and the sample criticism (rhetoric in practice). It is beyond the definitions that the power of rhetoric is made apparent.

Your input (contributions of examples, explanations, links, and bibliography, or your clarifications and corrections) is heartily welcomed.
If you are not viewing this document inside of a frame, you should be! Please click here.
This site was awarded the
Wise Owl Site of the Month for September, 1997 "in recognition of exemplary design and educational excellence."

Featured in the Scout Report, January 2, 1998

© 1996-2002, Gideon O. Burton, Brigham Young University
Please cite "Silva Rhetoricae"(http://humanities.byu.edu/rhetoric/silva.htm)

Trees | S ILVA RHETORICAE | Flowers

Search the Forest

Trees | S ILVA RHETORICAE | Flowers

Search the Forest

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Search This site is optimally viewed using a frames-capable browser (MSIE 3 or above; Netscape 3 or above). T his online rhetoric, provided by Dr. Gideon Burton of Brigham Young University, is a guide to the terms of classical and renaissance rhetoric.