The categorization problem seems secondary & unrelated to the AI routine, and likely much easier. As long as your ideological measure is one-dimensional left/right, libertarians will be a problem. (Aren't they always?) Steve's two-dimensional model would improve this. But better still, I'd recommend a 3D categorization based on Arnold Kling's "Three languages of politics," which I think would align best with text-cat routines. To summarize: if your rhetoric stresses oppressor/oppressed differentials of power & influence, you're a "liberal." (Scare quotes here because IMO this is more "progressive.") If you stress civilization vs. barbarism , you're "conservative." (Perhaps amend as: stability around a set of rules vs. disorder?) If you stress freedom vs. coercion, you're "libertarian" (aka "liberal" IMO). I prefer how such categorization is more rooted in the fundamental language you use than how you fall on specific issues (as Tom suggests), which often invert based on transient partisan concerns. E.g., if you're anti-illegal-immigration, you're likely "conservative." Except if it's an influx of Cubans, in which case you're "liberal." Or if you're agitated about too many/few members of ethnicity X being admitted to elite universities, the rhetoric you use can help predict if X is Black/Hispanic or Asian/Jewish.
This seems like a GREAT idea. Less bias, from more honest evaluation OF bias, should help.
But: " It also evaluates political bias on a seven-point scale from Extreme Left to Extreme Right."
Get rid of "left - right" and label the actual positions. Pro-choice vs pro-life. Border control vs open border (where limited acceptable illegal immigration is "center"). One part, probably significant, is the lazy news/ pundit labeling of positions as L - R, to avoid saying Dem or Rep, while not honestly identifying the extremes of the issue. Or the reasonable extremes?
High tax - moderate tax - low tax - no tax. Far right is no-tax, but few argue that, seldom even those claim to be anarchists or anarcho-capitalists; often an extreme Libertarian.
'Responsibility of Rep Voters" - how is that responsibility different from Dem voters?
"SC must kick Trump off" -- nobody's been indicted, much less convicted, of insurrection.
"Founders against Mar-A-Lago Exec Branch" -- what about Delaware vacations?
Biden's been President 3 years, where is the actual news, NEW FACTS, about what the current government has done. There are no "facts", today, about the future. Only about the past, recent or far back. Yeah Trump looks unstoppable, but Biden & Dems are in power now -- what is the government actually doing? In FACT?
News stories should be rated to a large extent on the facts they present, if any are new.
Again, this seems like a great start. Related to the Fantasy Intellectual Teams idea of Arnold Kling, which I've long supported.
A more inclusive approach to representing political ideologies, especially for incorporating libertarian perspectives, could involve transitioning from a traditional left-right continuum to a two-dimensional x/y scatter plot. This model plots beliefs about the government's role in both economic and social freedoms. The vertical axis represents the degree of support for social freedoms, like free speech and gay marriage, while the horizontal axis gauges belief in economic freedom, encompassing aspects like property rights and tax policies. In this framework, editorial positions in the upper left quadrant would be categorized as 'liberal,' signifying strong social freedoms but more economic regulation. Conversely, the lower right quadrant represents 'conservative' views, favoring economic freedom but more social regulation. Significantly, the upper right quadrant highlights 'libertarian' stances, advocating high degrees of both economic and social freedoms."
This revision aims to make the explanation more concise and clear, emphasizing the distinctiveness of each quadrant in relation to libertarianism.
The categorization problem seems secondary & unrelated to the AI routine, and likely much easier. As long as your ideological measure is one-dimensional left/right, libertarians will be a problem. (Aren't they always?) Steve's two-dimensional model would improve this. But better still, I'd recommend a 3D categorization based on Arnold Kling's "Three languages of politics," which I think would align best with text-cat routines. To summarize: if your rhetoric stresses oppressor/oppressed differentials of power & influence, you're a "liberal." (Scare quotes here because IMO this is more "progressive.") If you stress civilization vs. barbarism , you're "conservative." (Perhaps amend as: stability around a set of rules vs. disorder?) If you stress freedom vs. coercion, you're "libertarian" (aka "liberal" IMO). I prefer how such categorization is more rooted in the fundamental language you use than how you fall on specific issues (as Tom suggests), which often invert based on transient partisan concerns. E.g., if you're anti-illegal-immigration, you're likely "conservative." Except if it's an influx of Cubans, in which case you're "liberal." Or if you're agitated about too many/few members of ethnicity X being admitted to elite universities, the rhetoric you use can help predict if X is Black/Hispanic or Asian/Jewish.
This seems like a GREAT idea. Less bias, from more honest evaluation OF bias, should help.
But: " It also evaluates political bias on a seven-point scale from Extreme Left to Extreme Right."
Get rid of "left - right" and label the actual positions. Pro-choice vs pro-life. Border control vs open border (where limited acceptable illegal immigration is "center"). One part, probably significant, is the lazy news/ pundit labeling of positions as L - R, to avoid saying Dem or Rep, while not honestly identifying the extremes of the issue. Or the reasonable extremes?
High tax - moderate tax - low tax - no tax. Far right is no-tax, but few argue that, seldom even those claim to be anarchists or anarcho-capitalists; often an extreme Libertarian.
'Responsibility of Rep Voters" - how is that responsibility different from Dem voters?
"SC must kick Trump off" -- nobody's been indicted, much less convicted, of insurrection.
"Founders against Mar-A-Lago Exec Branch" -- what about Delaware vacations?
Biden's been President 3 years, where is the actual news, NEW FACTS, about what the current government has done. There are no "facts", today, about the future. Only about the past, recent or far back. Yeah Trump looks unstoppable, but Biden & Dems are in power now -- what is the government actually doing? In FACT?
News stories should be rated to a large extent on the facts they present, if any are new.
Again, this seems like a great start. Related to the Fantasy Intellectual Teams idea of Arnold Kling, which I've long supported.
A more inclusive approach to representing political ideologies, especially for incorporating libertarian perspectives, could involve transitioning from a traditional left-right continuum to a two-dimensional x/y scatter plot. This model plots beliefs about the government's role in both economic and social freedoms. The vertical axis represents the degree of support for social freedoms, like free speech and gay marriage, while the horizontal axis gauges belief in economic freedom, encompassing aspects like property rights and tax policies. In this framework, editorial positions in the upper left quadrant would be categorized as 'liberal,' signifying strong social freedoms but more economic regulation. Conversely, the lower right quadrant represents 'conservative' views, favoring economic freedom but more social regulation. Significantly, the upper right quadrant highlights 'libertarian' stances, advocating high degrees of both economic and social freedoms."
This revision aims to make the explanation more concise and clear, emphasizing the distinctiveness of each quadrant in relation to libertarianism.