The Daily Breeze, a newspaper catering to the South Bay region of Los Angeles County, has recently been the subject of controversy involving local government officials. City officials from Carson and Lomita have expressed dissatisfaction with the publication, leading to significant actions such as a “blackout” by Lomita and a potential boycott in Carson. Furthermore, Torrance Mayor Furey is reportedly also boycotting the Daily Breeze, although his specific reasons have not been disclosed publicly.
Amid these controversies, the reliability of the Daily Breeze has come into question. However, a closer examination suggests these claims may lack merit, indicating potential political motives or personal grievances rather than true journalistic failures. This situation underscores the complexities of assessing media credibility amidst local political conflicts. At Biasly, we endeavor to evaluate the accuracy and dependability of all media outlets. Let us investigate the reliability and accuracy of Daily Breeze.
Does Reliability Matter?
Reliability, in general, refers to how trustworthy or accurate information, or in this case, a news source is. If we consider this definition, it quickly becomes clear why reliability is important in media sources. If we can’t trust the things we read then there isn’t much of a point in continuing to consume content from that source, after all. So how exactly can we gauge the reliability of a news source anyways?
There are several potential measures of reliability to look out for when trying to determine whether a media source is reliable or not. Red flags for an unreliable article can include the presence of wild unsubstantiated claims, facts dependent on other unreliable sources, heavy use of opinionated language, and more. Some indicators of a reliable news source, on the other hand, include things like:
- Absence of subjective/opinionated language in articles
- Credible sources cited (e.g., neutral sources, .gov, .edu websites)
- Facts and statistics backed by multiple relevant outside sources
- Use of primary sources when possible (e.g., interviews, quotes)
- Information that remains consistent across news sources
So How Does Daily Breeze Fare in its Reliability?
The political reliability index developed by Biasly objectively assessed news organizations’ accuracy and trustworthiness. Daily Breeze’s overall Reliability Score has been rated as ‘Fair’ by Biasly. This rating is a weighted average of two distinct scores: the Fact Analysis Score and the Source Analysis Score, each evaluating separate components of Daily Breeze’s Reliability. When computing the Average Reliability of the article the Fact Analysis score is more heavily weighted. Daily Breeze’s Fact Analysis Score does not exist as the analysts haven’t rated the source yet. The rating is as follows in the next paragraph:
Daily Breeze’s Source Analysis Score is ‘Fair’, which suggests readers can trust some of the sources, links, and quotes provided by the news source. This score, which is based on A.I., focuses on assessing the quality of sources and quotes used including their number, lengths, uniqueness, and diversity.
However, since these scores are based on percentages and averages, individual articles could be more or less trustworthy depending on the context, author, and other factors. Our findings show that Daily Breeze’s reliability is mostly but not all factual because they have retracted several stories in the past or had pieces that were not factual.
Daily Breeze Accuracy and Reliability
The credibility of news organizations is significantly impacted by bias and political orientation. Like numerous other media organizations, Daily Breeze has occasionally been accused of prioritizing the liberal agenda above facts. We can evaluate the integrity of Daily Breeze’s news stories and deduce how well the publication supports assertions with evidence, and see whether this is indeed the case. We will check for selection and omission bias as we assess the articles’ correctness and factuality.
Selection bias is when stories and facts are selected or deselected, often on ideological grounds, to create a narrative in support of the new sources’ ideology. Omission bias, on the other hand, is when different opinions and political views regarding a situation are left out so that the reader is only exposed to the ideological perspective supported by the author. It’s important to keep in mind these two types of biases when trying to assess an article’s level of accuracy.
Biasly assigns a percentage score to accuracy, with one being the least accurate and 100 being the most. Ratings are calculated by weighing assertions with supporting evidence, the number of reliable internal sources, and the number of reliable external sources employed. A full page at Biasly’s website includes dependability and accuracy ratings for newly released Buzzfeed news stories. As we previously stated, according to the reports analytics have assessed, Buzzfeed has a Good reliability score. This score can vary from article to article, though, and the most extreme variations in dependability are caused by bias, notably omission, and selection bias.
Take “AP News” as an example, it has a “Somewhat Liberal” bias rating and a “Good” reliability rating according to Biasly. However, like most media outlets, each individual article can vary in terms of biases and reliability. For example, according to Biasly, an article titled, “Trump Escalates Attacks on Harris’ Mental Fitness and Suggests She Should Be Prosecuted” had a “Medium Conservative” bias rating and a “Fair” reliability rating. On the other hand, an article titled “Singleton, Allen Score TDs as No. 9 Penn State Beats No. 19 Illinois 21-7” had a “Center” bias rating but a “Poor” reliability rating.
In the article titled “Fani Willis Taking Stand to Testify in Hearing That Could Disqualify Her from Trump Election Case“, the bias leans somewhat conservative, primarily through the framing of the narrative around District Attorney Fani Willis and the potential conflicts of interest due to her relationship with Nathan Wade. An example that illustrates this bias is the focus on the discrepancies in the timeline of their relationship, which is used to question the integrity of the prosecution team. For instance, the article details:
“During personal and uncomfortable testimony that spanned hours, Wade admitted to having sex with Willis during his separation from his estranged wife.”
This quote highlights the personal and potentially scandalous elements of the story, which could be seen as an attempt to undermine the credibility of the prosecutors involved in a high-profile case against a conservative figure like Donald Trump. By emphasizing these personal details, the article might appeal more to conservative readers who are skeptical of the prosecution’s motivations and integrity. The selection of this particular quote and its detailed exposure in the narrative serves to cast doubt on the professionalism of Willis and her team, aligning with a somewhat conservative viewpoint that may prioritize scrutinizing the conduct of officials in a case critical of a conservative leader.
We will take a closer look at more examples like this below, providing a further investigation into the reliability of Daily Breeze’s articles. This will include its use of selection bias, omission bias, and the quality of its sources and facts used.
Analysis of Reliability in Daily Breeze’s Online News Articles
Daily Breeze’s online news articles, while typically adopting a more casual and interactive approach compared to traditional news outlets, aim at providing standard, objective reporting. While they may occasionally lean towards a particular ideology, it’s essential to distinguish their regular online news content from their opinion pieces. It’s when these lines blur that the credibility of information can come into question.
A notable instance that scrutinized the Daily Breeze’s reporting was its coverage of local government disputes. The article, “Appeals Court Judge Rejects Last-minute Bid to Halt Donald Trump’s Hush Money Trial” was presented as an online news article with standard reporting but came under scrutiny due to its argumentative tone and perceived conservative bias. This can be deduced from how the article frames the judicial proceedings and the portrayal of the involved parties. This incident raised questions about the balance between delivering accurate news and appealing to a predominantly conservative audience. It underscores the ongoing challenge in digital journalism to maintain credibility while engaging diverse reader bases with differing political views. Typical online news articles are devoid of opinion and leanings from the author, but occasionally, and depending on the news source, they may exist.
Quality of Sources and Facts Used
The Daily Breeze’s article, “What Next for Homeless? Long Beach, South Bay Officials Assess Newsom’s Unexpected Encampment Order,” provides a comprehensive look at the reactions to Governor Newsom’s directive aimed at clearing problematic homeless encampments. In this article, they only used ten quotes. Of those ten quotes, six of them are short, two of them are medium-length, and two are long quotes. Longer quotes can indicate higher reliability if the source is reputable.
The sources cited in the article include:
- Statements from Long Beach city officials and a detailed account of the city’s ongoing and planned efforts to address homelessness (Liberal-leaning)
- Comments from Long Beach Mayor Rex Richardson and his perspective on the Supreme Court ruling (Liberal-leaning)
- A local physician assistant provides a ground-level view of the challenges faced by the homeless.
- Input from a Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority Commission member, offering insights into regional efforts and criticisms of the governor’s order (Liberal-leaning)
- A representative from Torrance discussed local concerns and the impact of the state’s decisions on smaller jurisdictions.
While the Daily Breeze utilizes a diverse array of sources, its inclusion of government officials and medical professionals predominantly reflects authoritative, often institutional perspectives. This selection suggests a leaning towards viewpoints that may support or explain government actions rather than challenge them. Furthermore, the choice to primarily feature liberal viewpoints, while either omitting or presenting conservative perspectives less favorably, could signal a potential bias in framing. Including voices from the homeless community directly, alongside a more balanced representation of political perspectives, would provide necessary counterpoints. This would enrich the dialogue with firsthand impacts and diverse political insights, offering a fuller picture of personal realities and broader societal implications.
Moreover, the article seems balanced in presenting the facts and various viewpoints without overt bias, as Biasly gave it a “Center” for its bias rating, leaning neither too conservatively or liberally. It focuses on the actions and reactions within the communities affected, rather than opening on the governor’s policies. This objective stance helps maintain journalistic integrity, though some readers might seek more in-depth analysis of the potential efficacy and ethical considerations of the policies discussed.
Selection and Omission Bias
In the article titled “Harris Swoops through LA, Las Vegas to Rally, Raise Funds“, it quotes Vice President Harris and includes comments from her critics, particularly former President Donald Trump, who is depicted using highly critical and personal language against Harris. While it does balance the perspectives between the two political figures, there is a noticeable emphasis on the drama and personal attacks rather than policy discussions or the impact of the campaign efforts on voters. The article quotes Vice President Harris and includes comments from her critics, particularly former President Donald Trump, who is depicted using highly critical and personal language against Harris. While it does balance the perspectives between the two political figures, there is a noticeable emphasis on the drama and personal attacks rather than policy discussions or the impact of the campaign efforts on voters.
In addition, the article mentions Harris’s plans and promises, such as restoring Roe v. Wade, but it doesn’t provide much context or critique about how these goals might be achieved or the challenges involved. The focus remains on her campaign’s narrative without a deeper analysis or contrasting viewpoints that might provide a fuller picture. Moreover, the piece lacks input from independent analysts, varied political figures, or deeper insights into the campaign’s strategy or broader political implications, which could have offered a more balanced and comprehensive view. This approach may lead readers to a sensationalized understanding of events, emphasizing personal conflicts and celebrity over nuanced political discourse.
So Is Daily Breeze Reliable?
It can be argued that Daily Breeze exhibits a level of reliability that can be considered “Fair” with an adequate reputation for journalistic integrity and some lone exceptions, therefore the degree of truth in its publications fluctuates. The more you research media reliability and accuracy, the simpler it will be for you to spot problems with sources, selection, omission, and factuality. To help with this, you can use Biasly’s News Bias Checker to uncover reliability problems and assist you in finding the most accurate and dependable news.