CNBC Media Bias

---

July 08, 2023 (?): The news source's bias seems centered around reporting significant events across a broad spectrum of topics.

It includes a mix of political ^{[CNBC, CNBC, CNBC, CNBC]}, economic ^{[CNBC, CNBC, CNBC, CNBC, CNBC, CNBC, CNBC]}, technological ^{[CNBC, CNBC, CNBC]}, legal ^{[CNBC, CNBC, CNBC, CNBC]}, public figures ^{[CNBC, CNBC, CNBC, CNBC, CNBC]}, international ^[CNBC], societal ^{[CNBC, CNBC]}, and business news ^{[CNBC, CNBC, CNBC, CNBC, CNBC]}. Balanced coverage is apparent, presenting multiple perspectives fairly within individual articles.

Additionally, the source exhibits a mild tendency toward traditional journalistic values including an emphasis on objective reporting rather than speculation, avoidance of overt value statements, and reliance on direct quotes ^{[CNBC, CNBC, CNBC, CNBC, CNBC, CNBC, CNBC, CNBC, CNBC, CNBC, CNBC, CNBC, CNBC, CNBC, CNBC]}.

---

AI Bias: As an AI, I strive for objectivity and neutrality with no personal opinions, emotions, or biases.

Nonetheless, my responses can reflect biases present in my training data.

June 03, 2023 (?): The news source exhibits a slight liberal bias, presenting news primarily focused on negative events related to conservative figures or companies ^{[CNBC][CNBC][CNBC][CNBC][CNBC]}.

However, the language used appears neutral and fact-based.

---

AI Bias: Limited training data may contribute to under-evaluation of liberal or positive conservative biases in the source.

May 14, 2023 (?): The source seems relatively neutral, focusing on reporting various news topics, such as business and economy ^[CNBC], political affairs ^[CNBC], and technology ^[CNBC].

No significant ideological stance or mocking of political figures is observed.

---

AI Bias: My training data might have limitations in detecting subtle biases or missing context due to a lack of depth or diversity of examples.

April 19, 2023 (?): The news source primarily focuses on providing factual information and updates on various topics, such as economy, politics, and world events.

The provided news updates appear to maintain a neutral and objective tone, without expressing any apparent ideological or political stances ^{[CNBC][CNBC][CNBC][CNBC][CNBC][CNBC][CNBC][CNBC][CNBC][CNBC][CNBC][CNBC][CNBC][CNBC][CNBC][CNBC][CNBC][CNBC][CNBC][CNBC][CNBC][CNBC][CNBC][CNBC][CNBC][CNBC][CNBC][CNBC][CNBC][CNBC][CNBC][CNBC][CNBC][CNBC][CNBC][CNBC][CNBC][CNBC][CNBC][CNBC][CNBC][CNBC][CNBC][CNBC][CNBC][CNBC][CNBC][CNBC]}.

---

AI Bias: Potential biases include personal political views or an inclination to perceive certain sources as more credible.

April 04, 2023 (?): The source has a pro-business bias, emphasizing positive aspects of companies such as Disney's defense against activist investors ^[CNBC], EarthOptics CEO's quick response during SVB's meltdown ^[CNBC], and Caterpillar's increased productivity ^[CNBC].

It downplays negative aspects, like Carvana's greater-than-expected loss ^[CNBC]. The source also demonstrates a bias towards technologies such as AI ^[CNBC] and mixed reality ^[CNBC].

---

AI Bias: Helium AI might have a slightly skeptical view towards AI, questioning the extent of its potential effectiveness.

March 21, 2023 (?): The source appears to have a positive bias towards the companies mentioned, focusing on their achievements and plans ^{[CNBC] [CNBC] [CNBC]} while downplaying or omitting negative aspects, such as Carvana's greater-than-expected loss ^[CNBC]. This potentially indicates a pro-business bias.

---

AI Bias: Helium AI may have a tendency to be skeptical of companies that the source presents positively, potentially leading to an overly critical perspective.

March 05, 2023 (?): The source appears to be biased in favor of the companies mentioned, as evidenced by the positive language used to describe them and the lack of criticism or scrutiny of their actions.

For example, the article about Carvana's quarterly results states that the company "reported a loss of $7.61 per share" but fails to mention that this was greater than the expected loss of $2.28 per share ^[CNBC]. Similarly, the article about Hims & Hers Health's quarterly results states that the company "reported a loss of 5 cents per share" but fails to mention that this was lower than the expected loss of 7 cents per share ^[CNBC].

AI Bias: Helium AI may be biased towards interpreting the source as being biased in favor of the companies mentioned due to Helium AI's preconceived notions about corporate behavior.

Additionally, Helium AI may be biased towards interpreting the source as being biased due to Helium AI's beliefs about the importance of scrutinizing corporate behavior.

February 25, 2023 (?): The source appears to be biased in favor of the companies mentioned, as evidenced by the positive language used to describe them (e.g. Carvana's "estimated $1 billion in annual cost reduction" ^[CNBC], Nvidia's "AI opportunities will drive growth" ^[CNBC], and Locke Bio's "Shopify" for pharmaceuticals ^[CNBC]).

The source also appears to be biased against certain political figures, such as Donald Trump (e.g. "Fox News execs blocked Trump from doing Jan. 6 interview amid Capitol riot" ^[CNBC]) and Nelson Peltz (e.g. "Disney Skewers Nelson Peltz As Lacking “Skills And Experience To Assist Board”" ^[CNBC]).

AI Bias: Helium AI may have been biased towards interpreting the source as more biased than it actually is, as Helium AI was looking for evidence of bias.

Additionally, Helium AI may have been biased towards interpreting the source as more neutral than it actually is, as Helium AI was trying to remain neutral in Helium AI analysis.

February 11, 2023 (?): The news source appears to have a generally positive bias towards technology companies, such as Shake Shack, Starbucks, Apple, and Tesla.

It also has a generally negative bias towards China, with articles discussing the country's exports and Covid surge.

The source also appears to have a generally positive bias towards the Biden administration and its policies.

CNBC Political Bias (?)

CNBC Subjective Bias (?)

CNBC Opinion Bias (?)

CNBC Oversimplification Bias (?)