(Perceived) political biases and leanings of media outlets by country

[Phony Moderate]

Let's start off with my own country:

Newspapers:

The Guardian - Left-of-centre in a metropolitan middle-class kind of way. Very socially liberal.

The Daily Mail - Right-wing populist with the occasional hint of outright fascism.

The Daily Telegraph - Essentially the thoughts and feelings of those on the mainstream Tory right.

The Independent - Centrist liberalism.

The Daily Express - Conspiratorially right-wing. Rambles on about the EU too often for even Nigel Farage.

The Daily Mirror - The paper of the Labour Party mainstream (well, the little news that's written in it anyway).

The Times - Mainstream right-of centre with (I think) some mild Euroscepticism thrown in.

The Sun - Populist in an even more stupid way than the Mail. Usually backs whichever party is leading in the polls at election time.

Financial Times - Pro-European right-of-centre (though probably would be considered centre or centre-left in the U.S. as it endorsed Obama twice).

Television/Internet:

BBC - It's often fiercely debated as to whether it's impartial or not and if not where it does stand, but it's probably fair to say that it's (to echo Andrew Marr) culturally liberal.

ITV - Pretty impartial with perhaps a rightward tilt in recent years.

Sky News - Often labeled as our answer to Fox News, but really it's more our centre-right answer to CNN.


Feel free to list the outlets (and their respective biases) of other countries.

[Tayya]

Newspapers:

Aftonbladet - Run-of-the-mill non-third way Social Democratic, socially liberal.

Expressen - Mainstream right-wing.

Dagens Nyheter - Metropolitan center-right liberalism.

Svenska Dagbladet - Conservative-leaning center-right to right-wing,

Television/Radio:

SVT (public TV) - Neutral to mild left-wing.
SR (public radio) - Neutral to left-wing depending on the program.
UR (public educational media) - Somewhat left-wing.
TV4 - unknown/none (no one cares about their news)

[Leftbehind]

The Sun - Populist in an even more stupid way than the Mail. Usually backs whichever party is leading in the polls at election time.

Makes it sound like it's aimless populism?! It's the better analogue to Fox News than Sky News is. Its support for New Labour wouldn't have been apparent to anyone reading the daily right-wing bile that went with it, and was rather a testament to how little they feared a New Labour government (and of course hoping to hold influence with the clear victor, but much less so), than a sign that they're some political weathervane.

[DC Al Fine]

English Canada

Newspapers:

National Post: Paper of the mainstream right. Very Torie (heh) on economics, op-eds have a variety of stances on social issues

Globe & Mail: Centrist & socially liberal. Paper of respectable centrism.

Toronto Star: Left-liberal. Likes to push for extensive welfare state but doesn't seek nationalizations. Usually endorses the Liberals, but has a solid NDP contingent on staff.

Sun Chain: Like it's UK counterpart, populist right. Lots of social conservatives and anti immigration types. Doesn't always toe the conservative line on fiscal issues.

TV

CBC: Centre left, although not as much as some in my party think it is.

CTV: Centre right. Caused controversy for airing clips of Stephane Dion's inability to understand an interviewer's questions days before the 2008 election.

Global News: Centrist.

Sun News: Populist right.

I'll leave the French Canadian stuff for someone more familiar with it.

[freefair]

The Independent - Centrist liberalism.

The Daily Mirror - The paper of the Labour Party mainstream (well, the little news that's written in it anyway).

The Sun - Populist in an even more stupid way than the Mail. Usually backs whichever party is leading in the polls at election time.

Television/Internet:

BBC - It's often fiercely debated as to whether it's impartial or not and if not where it does stand, but it's probably fair to say that it's (to echo Andrew Marr) culturally liberal.

Sky News - Often labeled as our answer to Fox News, but really it's more our centre-right answer to CNN.


Feel free to list the outlets (and their respective biases) of other countries.

I think the Indipendent has moved to the left of the Guardian in the last decade or more, I'd call it centre-left and Social Democratic with Green politics thrown in there for good measure

The Sun and Mirror are each right and left on economics but with both their social issue stances very based on populism (eg libertarian stances on poen, sex, drugs and rock'n'roll , conservative ones on justice, law, immigration)

Also, with  the BBC, a lot (maybe 40%) of it's output has overt leftwing-liberal biases, including some of its news reporting, QT audiences embarrassingly so (they are nothing like a fair representation of the UK electorate) and almost all comedy and drama, though there are also obvious conterbalances-Nick Robinson's role as cheif editor has evened out Political reportage somewhat recently- and people like Andrew Neill, Michael Portillo, UKIP QT/AQ guests, Melanie Phillips, Peter Hitchens, most of Top Gear, and arguably Ian Hislop (though he's hardly friendly to the Tories as an institution).
So i think it is now pretty neutral.
Honestly don't see Sky's bias.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

CNN: Moderate Heroish.

MSNBC: Openly Democratic.

Fox: Openly Republican.

ABC: Pretty fair.

CBS: Pretty fair.

NBC (minus MSNBC and CNBC): Pretty fair, with a slight Democratic lean, but that is more from my own Republican persecution complex then an actual bias.

[RogueBeaver]

Quebec

La Presse/Power Corp.: Establishment, federalist centre-right.

Le Devoir: Sovereigntist, social democratic, pro-PQ.

Journal de Montreal/Quebecor: Sovereigntist, Right-wing populist.

Radio-Canada: Centre-left, not a few prominent journalists with sovereigntist sympathies.

L'actualite: quite fair & balanced, diversity of opinions.

[Leftbehind]

The Independent - Centrist liberalism.

The Daily Mirror - The paper of the Labour Party mainstream (well, the little news that's written in it anyway).

The Sun - Populist in an even more stupid way than the Mail. Usually backs whichever party is leading in the polls at election time.

Television/Internet:

BBC - It's often fiercely debated as to whether it's impartial or not and if not where it does stand, but it's probably fair to say that it's (to echo Andrew Marr) culturally liberal.

Sky News - Often labeled as our answer to Fox News, but really it's more our centre-right answer to CNN.


Feel free to list the outlets (and their respective biases) of other countries.

I think the Indipendent has moved to the left of the Guardian in the last decade or more, I'd call it centre-left and Social Democratic with Green politics thrown in there for good measure

The Sun and Mirror are each right and left on economics but with both their social issue stances very based on populism (eg libertarian stances on poen, sex, drugs and rock'n'roll , conservative ones on justice, law, immigration)

Also, with  the BBC, a lot (maybe 40%) of it's output has overt leftwing-liberal biases, including some of its news reporting, QT audiences embarrassingly so (they are nothing like a fair representation of the UK electorate) and almost all comedy and drama, though there are also obvious conterbalances-Nick Robinson's role as cheif editor has evened out Political reportage somewhat recently- and people like Andrew Neill, Michael Portillo, UKIP QT/AQ guests, Melanie Phillips, Peter Hitchens, most of Top Gear, and arguably Ian Hislop (though he's hardly friendly to the Tories as an institution).
So i think it is now pretty neutral.
Honestly don't see Sky's bias.

Question Time is so biased it's had far more businessman, and right-wing journalists /commentators on its panels than any leftist counterpart. But wait, the crowds clap at left-wing opinions so thus it must be biased. The BBC argues for immigration, EU, foreign aid, social liberalism, and is pro-market, public sector 'reforms', anti-union, cuts and, generally, supports an interventionist foreign policy. I don't think those stances in any shape or form make it liberal-left; ignoring they increasingly have their agenda set by the right-wing press and even government pressure.

[Hash]

France - I don't actually read all of them or their op-ed pieces, of course.

Newspapers

Le Monde - centre-left/social democratic, most of its readers vote PS. Until 1949, it was fairly close to the Christian democratic MRP (as such fairly centrist), but it moved in a more leftist direction than the MRP in the 1950s (neutralism, mendésisme) which culminated in strong support for the left and Mitterrand in the 1970s/1981. Since then, it has become less partisan and become a left-of-centre, social liberal and pro-European daily which denounces corruption and may be critical of the left at times. I sometimes compare it to The Guardian.

Le Figaro - right-wing/parliamentary right (UMP), most of its readers vote UMP with not many of them voting PS or FN. Since 1945, it has more or less represented the views of the right-wing bourgeoisie/upper middle-classes: anticommunism, pro-European, fairly pro-NATO and above all economic liberalism. Since 2004 the paper is owned by the wealthy industrialist/UMP senator/criminal Serge Dassault. Often mocked as the rich people's newspaper or the UMP's mouthpiece by the left.

Libération - left-wing, its readers are even more solidly PS (or PCF/FG in smaller numbers) than those of Le Monde. New Left/Maoist/anarcho-syndicalist at the outset (1970s), nowadays social democratic and close to the PS. It is more partisan and biased (in favour of the PS) than Le Monde is. Got into hot water for its recent 'Casse-toi riche con' (f-- off rich asshole) cover when Bernard Arnault threatened to move to Belgium to protest Flanby's 75% tax.

L'Humanité - official newspaper and property of the PCF until 1994 (newspaper of the SFIO prior to the Tours Congress split), dropped ties/references to the PCF by 1999 but still fairly close to the PCF. Most of its (declining) readership still vote PCF/FG (62% Mélenchon 2012)

Le Parisien/Aujourd'hui en France - fairly neutral overall, with its readers splitting their votes in line with the national mood although I think their readers tend to be more populaire (working-class/lower income) than average. Not a newspaper of great quality, though; I don't read it but I think they like dead cats and lots of pictures.

La Croix - founded by Assumptionists, it is well known as the "Catholic newspaper". Its readers largely vote for the right, split between the UMP and the UDF/MoDem.

Les Échos - daily newspaper focused on economic issues, so it unsurprisingly economically liberal and its readership is very heavily right-wing/UMP.

Ouest-France - a regional newspaper serving Brittany, "Pays de la Loire" and Basse-Normandie, but it has the largest readership of any daily in France. Like its pre-war (collabo) predecessor, Ouest-France, founded in 1944, traditionally it had a Catholic/Christian democratic line and was fairly close to the MRP throughout the 40s/50s. One of its cofounders, Paul Hutin-Desgrées, was MRP deputy for Morbihan from 1946 to 1956. Today, it is still rather Christian democratic with a localist/regionalist tint, the usual pro-Europeanism, some degree of social conservatism and concerned by charity/social justice issues.

Le Canard enchaîné - satirical newspaper which actually goes beyond humour and has very serious investigative journalism (one of the last remaining newspapers to do so) revealing corruption cases both left and right. Generally leans to the left ideologically, but has no/little partisan bias in favour of the PS/PCF.

Magazines:

Paris Match - a famous mix of news, sensationalism, political gossip and lots of celebs gossip (they have a love affair with the Grimaldi family in Monaco, so sometimes a few people call it 'Grimaldi Magazine'; they also love Johnny, the Sarkos, the Windsors). It is owned by the Lagardère family, a close friend of Sarko; who intervened numerous times to censor stuff inconvenient to Sarko. Flanby's horrible gf, Valérie Trierweiler, is still a journalist there. Its readers vote in large numbers for the UMP with substantial FN support.

Le Point - right-wing magazine popular with upper middle-classes and the like. It is known for headlines critical of the left (they called Flanby 'Inspecteur Gadget' recently), Islam (recently) or a weird obsession with real estate and other stuff rich people like. Heavily UMP readership.

Nouvel Observateur: - main left-wing magazine, although it was accused of being too nice with Sarko and Mélenchon accused it of favouring Panzergirl over him in 2012. Its director, Laurent Joffrin, had a famous altercation with Sarko once.

L'Express - centre-right magazine. Under JJSS and Françoise Giroud it was liberal, anticommunist, critical of the SFIO but also of Gaullism; it was behind the famous 'Monsieur X' campaign prior to the 1965 presidential election. Nowadays, it leans to the centre or centre-right; fairly liberal and pro-European. Its readers lean UMP.

Marianne - newer left-wing magazine. Very critical of Sarko/the right, opposed to neoliberalism but pro-Israel. Its cofounder, Jean-François Kahn (JFK), endorsed Bayrou in 2007 and was elected as a MoDem MEP in 2009 but didn't take his seat.

Valeurs actuelles - very right-wing magazine; its readers back the UMP by huge margins. It has recently made headlines with Roma baiting (Roms: L'overdose).

TV

TF1 - Private TV channel, known for its bias towards the right. The newscaster for the 13h news, Jean Pierre Pernaut, is often mocked for focusing his newscast on weird stuff nobody cares and a weird obsession with crafts and local trades in small villages or local events like some "sauerkraut festival" in rural Alsace (pop. 20). The news also plays a lot on immigration/security issues, and it has a lot of trash buzz/celeb/American TV shows/Most of those who watch TF1 vote UMP or FN.

France2 - main public TV channel, which is generally tame with whoever is in government (the longtime presenter 20h, David Pujadas, is an idiot who whores himself to the President), but still leans to the left overall.

France3 - public TV channel with a more regional/local orientation than FR2. Not sure which way it leans, if it does.

M6 - private TV channel, lots of trash shows and gossip and sensationalism. Split fairly evenly between the UMP, PS and FN.

Canal+ - private TV channel. Its most popular news/talk show, Le Grand Journal, generally leans to the left and is criticized by the right and the FN for being a bit 'bobo'. The popular and excellent satirical puppet show Les Guignols de l'info is critical of politicians as a whole, but has a slight left-wing ideological orientation (very critical of US imperialism and neoliberalism, also critical of the Catholic Church) and generally hits the right a bit 'harder' than the left (calling Chirac 'super-liar') and is anti-FN.

I could also do radio but this is already tldr. Basically, France Inter is on the left, RTL and Europe1 on the right. Others a bit more divided.

[Velasco]

Spain.

Newspapers:

El País (Madrid): Left-of-the-centre with an accused tendency to moderate heroism. Socially liberal. In times it was like The Bible for some people; nowadays it's just a mainstream paper, still best written than the competence.

El Mundo (Madrid): Nowadays is the mainstream paper for those who are in the right-of the-centre and conservatives. PP friendly but not always aligned with the party's direction. A mixture of some quality stuff with sensationalism and an accused tendency to spread conspiracy theories. Main example: a sickening campaign to make believe that ETA was behind the 2004 Madrid train bombings. Columnists between eccentric and reactionary. The editor is clever and Machiavellian and has an accused tendency to play as a king maker.

ABC (Madrid): Conservative and "respectable" monarchist paper. Ousted by El Mundo as the main paper in the right. In times it had good Culture supplement. Nowadays it's just an organ of governmental propaganda.

La Razón (Madrid): Reactionary. Right-wing hackishness. PP propaganda.

La Vanguardia (Barcelona): CiU-oriented. More or less in the centre. Some quality stuff, but nothing spectacular.

El Periódico de Catalunya (Barcelona): Traditionally it was PSC-leaning (center left), but nobody loves Catalan socialists in these days.

Television:

TVE: Traditionally the public TV broadcaster has been accused of lack of neutrality (government-oriented). Under the Zapatero administration TVE improved a bit. Nowadays governmental influence is not as obvious as it was under Aznar, but it's not neutral.

Tele 5: Owned by Mediaset (Berlusconi). Reality shows galore. Its bias is hard to describe, cause the news programmes are irrelevant. Under the Aznar conservative government it was the harbour of some progressive journalists, but they went to other media.

Antena 3: Leaning right of the centre. I believe it's not too hackish (I rarely watch that channel).

Cuatro: It was owned by PRISA (El País), but now it's part of the Mediaset Group and totally oriented to realities and all that stuff. A 'juvenile' version of Tele 5.

La Sexta: The most progressive TV channel.

Digital channels: Intereconomía and 13 TV (Catholic) are the main examples of right-wing hackishness. The Spanish version of Fox News.

Radio: SER (PRISA) is left-of-the-centre. Onda Cero (Antena 3) is right-of-the-centre. COPE is owned by the Spanish Church and right-wing. Some hard right COPE journalists, lead by Federico Jiménez Losantos and the revisionist 'historian' César Vidal, are now in esRadio. Jiménez Losantos runs Libertad Digital, an online paper which is very hard right

[freefair]

[quote author=Acting like I'm Morrissey w/o the wit l
Question Time is so biased it's had far more businessman, and right-wing journalists /commentators on its panels than any leftist counterpart. But wait, the crowds clap at left-wing opinions so thus it must be biased.
[/quote]
I wouldn't argue the selection of panelists is biased- it's neutral- it's the often weird audiences they have, who boo policies that poll well amongst the general public

[Leftbehind]

I wouldn't argue the selection of panelists is biased- it's neutral- it's the often weird audiences they have, who boo policies that poll well amongst the general public

Of course you wouldn't - because as studies show it's biased to the right and therefore right and proper(!). Can't say I've seen many cases of applause at unpopular points, but has it ever occurred to you that a passionate orator can win support that a dry polling question (usually commissioned by a right-wing paper at an unfavourable time when it's in the news) couldn't? Or that a 30% of the audience clapping doesn't sound a great deal different than 50%+?