![[OC] Overview of 700 posts (each) from /r/politics and /r/conservative](https://www.byteseu.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/vpnyalm2ps9f1-464x1536.png "[OC] Overview of 700 posts (each) from /r/politics and /r/conservative")
700 posts were collected from both r/politics and r/conservative on June 27, 2025. This is the first infographic I've ever created. Please feel free to rip me apart, provide suggestions, or ask about process if you'd like. This isn't meant to be pro-left or pro-right, just thought it would be interesting to break down each sub, and determine the main sources of content on each.
Posted by littergang
14 Comments
My favorite part about this is that r/politics (a name which connotes neither left nor right bias) is taken as an equal and opposite representation of r/conservative (which *unabashedly* advertises its bias).
Subsequent commenters can make of that what they will.
Good stuff. Facts and data are progressive.
Wouldn’t it be more fair to compaire /r/liberals to conservative?
I mean it’s how you gauge bias.
Good luck telling someone right of center that the guardian isn’t biased af.
Someone who knows a lot more about political science than I do mentioned this to me recently.
Both right-wing and left-wing ideological circles have a tendency to filter the information they receive based on source and bias. But there’s a small but growing number of right-wing individuals who have stopped consuming ordinary news altogether and are instead listening purely to the White House or to explicitly Trump-aligned sources. The heavy use of X could point to that.
This is fundamentally different. These people have turned their backs on the spirit of democracy.
(Also, don’t get me wrong: There’s nothing wrong with checking directly to see what the White House has to say. But unless you’re a genius, you need commentary from several perspectives to have anything near an informed view on anything. That’s why journalists exist.)
The pie charts really should be bar charts. Otherwise, nice infographic.
The infographic seems to be indicating that because a news source is popular, it is more trustworthy or of higher quality. I’d have to argue that many of the today’s most popular websites chase click engagement at the expense of adding bias and inaccuracy-but they are popular.
Popular does not always equal good.
Sample was collected on June 27th, but *how?*
Are we talking the 700 most recent? The 700 at the top of Hot? Some RNG picking stories from the past 3 months?
I can see this very much changing day to day with one particular news cycle moving each sub into a variety of directions.
I’m a liberal and I HATE that so many posts in /r/politics are from Newsweek, The Daily Beast and The New Republic. They’re all just shitty rage bait headlines that are as bad as any crap from the New York Post and Fox News.
I’m so tired of reading “maga meltdown” articles which simply distract from all the real shit going on in the administration.
I just came here to read the fight in the comments.
X is a source? Kick rocks OP
Good job. Please continue to make infographics.
How rich that the post about political bias, is itself biased. Why not compare r/conservative to r/liberal?
Reddit as a whole is left leaning, which likely explains how they thought this was accurate.
It’s encouraging to know that r/politics isn’t mostly outrageous ragebaiting newrepublic.com and salon.com like I tend to think they are based on my feed