Online monitoring tool suggests public think Guardian and Fairfax headlines are more biased than News Corp and ABC
Headline Worm: Vertical axis shows percentage of people voting a particular headline as biased. Above zero is a headline seen to lean towards Labor; below zero towards the Liberals
Headlines on news stories from the Fairfax Media stable are more biased than those of News Corp, a new online tool measuring public perception suggests.
The Headline Worm has been created by technologist Nic Hodges, who stresses the tool is experimental and only shows the perceptions of the readers of the headlines.
Hodges, who is also head of innovation at media agency Mediacom, created the metric on his personal blog earlier in the month. So far more than 2000 people have used the headline worm ranking more than 7,000 headlines, with The Guardian and Fairfax’s headlines assessed as pro-Labor while the ABC and News Corp trending toward neutral.
What about an assessment of bias against? The News Corp coverage has been demonstrably anti-Rudd, but semantically that doesn’t automatically fit into “Pro-Liberal”.
I love The Guardian but I go off them at election time as they become almost as screamy as News but on the other side.
I was about to say this tool is a total failure if it finds Fairfax biased and News Corp not. Total failure. BUT if it is just taking digital into account that may explain it, to some extent at least. The print version of the Tele always seems to be far more in-your-face partisan than the articles on their website.
Data for the sake of data. It’s a bit like the “debate” that asserts News is merely expression the view of its readers. Or that it’s merely a bit of “satire”.
Anyone who has worked anywhere near news media knows [perfectly well what is going on and it’s blatant.
The only thing that saves News in this is that the ALP is so badly served by its representation. Not just now, but harking back – to Keating, Richo, etc. All aligned with News.And the ALPO is on the nose.
As usual, Rupert has picjked the likely winner and is backing to the hilt to maximise the impression that “It’s The (Tele) Wot Won it”.
How does it feel to be a pawn of News now?
Why bother with this stuff unless you make it with some scientific rigour?
Hi KA,
The Australian and The Daily Telegraph have both run stories on Nic Hodges’s tool however, it is worth noting that both of these stories were run after ours. That’s their right.
I can’t speak for their coverage but our story makes clear that it is a limited sample and that the process was not scientific. That said as a blind test and a limited view of public perception is interesting and in our view newsworthy.
Cheers
Nic – Mumbrella
Re: http://www.theaustralian.com.a.....6704600506
^ I reckon you are spot on Useless. It seems that by picking a target (preferably one they know is vulnerable) and bullying the heck out of it, they can then claim a ‘win’ and make themselves (and their readers) feel empowered. It seems like that is the business model.
I also note that both The Australian and The Tele jumped on this story today. But as Crikey pointed out, any suggestion that these papers are neutral is laughable. Everybody is laughing.
Dads pretty pumped that Mumbrella is endorsing the data. He was saying something to Mum about how this sort of rigorous scientific research proves that he (nor any one else) at News Ltd is biased.
Mum thinks it’s all bullshit and all she cares about is how Tony promised her that he will gut the ABC. I think Tony is going to send in a crack team of Dad, Col Allen and Miranda Devine to “sort out those fucking communists”.
Nic, I’d be careful about chest beating. You don’t get points for being the first to promote an unscientific experiment. It doesn’t matter that Nic admits it’s unscientific or that it’s some clever application of technology. It just shows how un-newsworthy it is if it doesn’t add any value.
Please, don’t spread this crap.
Not statistically rigorous at all. Ever heard of selection bias? The people who respond to this sort of survey are self-selected. The results can’t be valid unless the selection is proper sample.
Just displays clearly the blind bias of those who used your tool!
Fairfax biased and Murdoch’s rat pack neutral! – what planet are your participant on?!
The main problems with this ‘experiment’ are:-
As noted in previous posts the sample is unknown, and may itself be biased
What were the stories posted for assessment, and what was the context of the reporting?
How ‘bias’ is defined and assigned is subjective – what exactly is meant by left and right?
I take issue with Mumbrella’s defence of publishing this flimsy exercise in research, as newsworthy, especially when admitting to realisation that it is flawed. Do you normally publish inaccurate material? If so then the credibility of your approach to journalism is questionable. Poorly designed research yields poor results, but many readers take the reporting of it seriously, just sk any Doctor who struggles to communicate against the self-diagnosis geniuses with access to the Internet!
If you can spot a serious flaw in research design and methodology then the results are invalidated. They may be interesting, but should not be promoted – that’s how confusion is spread.
2000 people responded to a personal blog, I think the writer of this column is the monitoring ‘tool’ in this instance.