(05-18-2018 09:05 AM)flash3200 Wrote:  

(05-18-2018 02:05 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-17-2018 10:00 PM)flash3200 Wrote:  IBD is pretty annoyingly biased. Not that they spew fake news like others, but you can be assured that you will only hear a filtered set of facts.

It would be great to see someone involved in the Hillary debacle get prosecuted, but as always with the Clintons it will be the bagman that gets the punishment and not the original perpetrators.

They have the same level and direction of bias as WSJ. But for some that is alt-right territory.

Interesting...I have WSJ in the middle. They appear to be the only outlet interested in sorting facts by relevance and not by congruence to a given ideology. I gave up on IBD a year or two ago with their overt pandering to failed big government republicans.

My stable of sources.
From -10 (liberal) to +10 (conservative)

NYTimes (-7)
Washington Post (-7)
Austin American Statesman (-8)
MSNBC (-10)
CNN (-5)
Fox News (news only, no 'analysis') (+2)
Fox (w analysis) (+9) (Ingraham and Carlson are the only two there that I can stomach these days)
WSJ (+4)
IBD (+5)
Daily Caller (+22) (kind of a National Enquirer for the right...)
National Review Online (+7) (read this mainly for Goldberg and Andrew McCarthy)
Reason (imaginary number of some sort, read it mainly for the Volokh Conspiracy)

You are somewhat correct about the slant of IBD being more than WSJ, but not noticeably more imo. Goes back to that for each, the core reader is reading these for business and financial issues --- accordingly each publication is 90 per cent+ financial issues. The politics they hit runs in the vein that big bad business and capitalism fans tend to run more conservative than the 'tax the evil scum suckers to purgatory' Bernista-types.