The whole idea of investigating "spread of misinformation" in the current politicized climate is unscientific at best and agenda-driven at worse. You've got to take a political stand to declare something "misinformation".
I don't think so. If you openly and intentially select creditable data-driven academic researchers from both sides of political spectrum (or having an established record of being politically neutral), you can run a research study close to politically neutral.
Let's say I grant you this generalization (it seems like it could be true to me). Then it's not really the NYT vs Fox, is it? Doesn't sheer quantity matter? What fraction of the media (say, the stuff you're likely to see on Google News) is "left" vs "right"?
In other words, the suggestion is that the right lies outright, whereas the left lies via omission and cherry-picking to concoct stories. OK -- doesn't it matter that the left has, I don't know, 85% of the market share (that's what the tech giants endlessly blast out)?
I think the debate here was merely on misinformation, so to be honest I'd say market share doesn't necessarily apply here.
You might rightfully say that weaving a biased narrative out of truths could also be labeled misinformation, but in my own personal opinion I'd rather try and unravel that narrative than try to unravel a narrative based on straight up lies.
Also, some of the narrative weaving can be done in good faith or unknowingly (e.g. baively being somones interpretation for which they knoe of no alternative) but lying is never in good faith or accidental.
> OK -- doesn't it matter that the left has, I don't know, 85% of the market share (that's what the tech giants endlessly blast out)?
This isn't true. Fox News has been rated the most watched network many times including in July. According to a previous post here on HN, a lot of highest trending stuff spread on FB is right-wing.
Also almost all US media is to the right of almost all European media (notable exceptions including Poland and Hungary.)
Well, I grant it's hard to quantify. It was recently reported that Fox had more viewers than CNN and MSNBC combined, but that's TV.
On the internet, it's a very different story. If you block left-leaning news outlets on Apple News, your front page may contain nothing at all. Google News has a permanent section devoted to leftist "fact checkers". Their "beyond the headlines" section currently displays the NYT, BBC, Vox, Guardian, Atlantic, WSJ, Slate, Verge, and AP.
WSJ is owned by Murdoch and is pretty far right-wing even for the US, but like I said, all of that is considered right-wing or "centrist" to be very charitable (although obviously not conservative except the WSJ) in Europe and to anyone who actually calls themselves a leftists (or a political sciensit.)
I don’t think this is true. It also misses the point I was making.
The NYT is hopelessly left leaning, but they don’t generally report straight up falsehoods. Rather they construct biased narratives out of true facts.
Contrast that with fox.