Jump to content

Talk:Media bias/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Editorial on the Chomsky book.

I reverted the recent deletion of material on the Chomsky book and the editorial that replaced that deletion on two grounds: first, that it is generally not a good idea to replace referenced material with unreferenced material, and second, because the new material contained a large number of errors in grammar and usage. Rick Norwood 13:41, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Attribution bias

I removed the section on unattributed quotes and all that because, ironically, it had no attribution. I don't know what proof the author had that any journalists use "no comment" to not include points of view contrary to their own rather than using it to indicate that the person declined to comment or didn't return messages. Also, what proof is there that journalists use unattributed comments to push their agenda rather than to indicate that those sources didn't want to be named? Fianlly, were any of this true, it would be a tecnique of propagating bias rather than a type of bias. Stardog101 21:06, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

International Examples of bias

It seems that this article is too focused on US media, and international examples would be good.

In Australia, for example, the row over left-wing bias in the ABC (Australian Broadcasting Corporation, an entirely government funded network) would be good. See http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&q=abc+bias&btnG=Search&meta=cr%3DcountryAU Wmoisis 04:06, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

agreed, we could do with more international examples, Oz, NZ, UK and France particularly. France has a unique set of privacy laws which someone may want to explore. - omricon

No attributions

Holy crap, now that I look at this, much of this article is without attribution. The history of bias section, for example -- Carl Sagan once criticized the Flintstones? Is there a source for this, let alone the rest of the assertions in this article? These sections without attribution should be fixed or deleted. Stardog101 02:22, 28 November 2006 (UTC)stardog101

Experimenter bias and possible argumentative writing

Hi all. I like this article. I have noticed some argumentative writing though [1] and will collaborate with any editor on clearing any undue arguments up. If they are actual arguments from the literature then quotes can be added. Thanks AlanBarnet 04:41, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Several of us put in a few hours a month trying to keep this article encyclopedic. We are delighted to have you join us. Rick Norwood 13:47, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Great to hear - Rick. I'm also going to be doing some research on this one as it is an interesting subject. If you know of any core texts any pointers will be much appreciated. Looking forward to collaborate. AlanBarnet 02:18, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

There are a large number of sources. Sadly, conservative researchers tend to find liberal bias and liberal researchers tend to find conservative bias. Noam Chomsky finds middle of the road bias. There are also meta-studies of the studies, which tend to find all of the studies flawed.

The problem is that what is to the left and what is to the right is entirely dependent on where you stand. Rick Norwood 13:33, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Rick. Thats a helpful assessment. It looks like a great deal of care is needed and probably with reference to what is corroboratively considered to be the most reliable sources. I'll look into it. AlanBarnet 08:43, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Article Extremely POV

"Democrats are centrists (or even center right) in real world perspectives; that is -most counties outside of the USA."

Nope, not POV at all. The real world is every country outside of the US? This is just one particularly gross example, the whole article is a mess. I think it should be nominated for clean-up. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.170.202.142 (talk) 03:23, 10 January 2007 (UTC).

On an admittedly brief scan - I don't think the article is extremely POV. But I do think it can be made more neutral. I am happy to work with others on improving it. The NPOV tutorial is a good place to look for solutions (though I don't wish to patronize any experts here) [2]. So we may have to "negotiate neutrality" - reliable sources are needed for practical improvements. I do think the article has quite a lot of good information there already - so its probably just a matter of using it and refining it for NPOV. So this line from the tutorial is good to keep in mind "It is important that the various views and the subject as a whole are presented in a balanced manner and that each is summarized as if by its proponents to their best ability".
Judging by the article as it stands - I imagine some editors here have at least partially done what I have suggested so I'm fairly sure progress can be made. I'm not expecting major changes to make the article encyclopedic. Any suggestions are welcome. AlanBarnet 07:24, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

70.69.54.146 removed "This article or section is in need of attention from an expert on the subject." And said, "Anyone who contributes to Wikipedia is an expert in this area!"

I am not sure if 70.69.54.146 was being facetious or not, but just in case he was serious -- no, the area of "media bias" is one that has been studied objectively by serious experts and few if any writers for Wikipedia are experts in this field. Rick Norwood 13:29, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Based on education gap?

Hi there, I'm from Germany and to me it seems like the article pretty much entirely focusses on the situation in the USA. Also, the greater part of it deals with the so-called "liberal" (not: conservative etc.) media bias.

Now, if over 80% of journalism students consider themselves to be liberal (as was said before, some of your "liberal" is our "common sense" or "conservative"), the whole thing doesn't seem so miraculous. My thoughts about that: It's a matter of education. You'll probably find more liberals among college students and graduates overall.

Now without sounding too condescending or "elitist", this may explain why "media bias" is percieved in the USA stronger than in most other democracies. I'm not an expert as concerns the American education system, but judging by what my American friends tell me, there are relativley gross differences between the standards of education provided by ordinary high schools on the one hand, and highly acclaimed universities and colleges on the other hand. This indeed leads to a situation in which those people who constitute the (assumably) vast majority of at least TV jounalists represent an elite.

To me, and probably most Europeans, that result seems less than spectacular. Having achieved a university degree is a highly respected thing here, and whoever has one is likely to be percieved as a person who just knows a bit more than others, even as someone who "knows better" than you and I and Joe Sixpack do, so you'd better listen to them. Hence, those folks dominate political opinion-making.

Whether this may be the false or the right approach, I don't want to evaluate here, there are probably as many pros as there are cons none of which are accaptable to anyone but me (j/k). What I'd like to point out is that "media bias" surprisingly might just not be a media issue, but a social issue; particularly a phenomenon of the U.S. society. Accusations of "elitism" in politics, and thus in terms of political media, are strange to most Europeans I know. From "our" point of view, that American problem, if you want to call it a problem, is not subjective or unbalanced media, but it's based on a vast education gap, combined with a disproportionately (to other countries) strong political influence of citizens with lower education. The latter, by the way, makes me wonder whether the liberal "mainstream" media are really so mainstream, as they seem to have little influence on roughly half of the population. Thanks for your attention.

--Kräuter-Oliven (talk) 21:37, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Most US mass media are in business to make a profit, and so they dare not alienate any large portion of their viewers, listeners, or readers. This means they are written (very well written) for an eight year old mentality, and are careful to say something nice about every side of every question. Rick Norwood (talk) 00:44, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

pro-Western bias of mainstream media

About three weeks ago, I added some (sourced) information about how mainstream media often focuses more on Western disasters.

(For example, when the Virginia Tech massacre occured, many news sources presented detailed coverage of the incident. However, when Baghdad was bombed just two days later, there was very little coverage. In just a few days, there was no more mention of the April 18 bombings. Several months later, there is still sporadic coverage on the Virginia Tech shootings. Similarly, while numerous blog and forum posts offered condolences to Virginia Tech victims, very few posts offered condolences to victims of violence in Iraq.)

However, Rick Norwood (talk · contribs) reverted my edit, citing that it was "only of topical interest." However, this has become an important issue in recent times, since more and more people are becoming concerned about it. Thus, it should be mentioned in the article.

Does anyone else agree with me? --Ixfd64 03:57, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I certainly agree with your point that Western media are most apt to report events close to home. Whether this should be called 'bias', or whether it simply reflects the fact that most people are more interested in local news, is open to debate. How much coverage did Baghdad newspapers give to the Virginia Tech shootings?
I do think this is an important topic, but I think that there are better examples than bombings in Baghdad, which occur almost daily, and which are reported in the Western press. I think a good paragraph could be written on how, in reporting an event, the Western media usually give only the Western interpretation of the event. Rick Norwood 15:12, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
I agree. Thanks for your input. :) --Ixfd64 21:04, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Possibly because the Iraq War has already endured a heavy and long saturation into Western media. Stations aren't talking about it because people are just sick of hearing it. You may find that offensive or anti-Eastern, but that is a personal judgment call. This.machinery (talk) 05:00, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
It is not a "pro-western" bias, it is a pro-target audience bias, combined with heavy cut'n'paste bias. The later means something heavily reported in one country is likely to be overreported in nearby countries as well. Take a look at the hurricanes that hit the US here in August and September 2008, despite being relatively small (category 2-3) they were covered intensely. The very same hurricanes all also hit Haiti, but at category 5. This was hardly reported until several weeks later. Carewolf (talk) 11:29, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
This "pro-western" bias in media is a well known and discussed problem. For example, see New World Information and Communication Order. Offliner (talk) 19:49, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

A lack of discrimination in the terminology of media coverage and bias

I typed in the words "Liberal media" into the search box and it brought me here. To equate liberal media with media bias is a grave, unsubtle mistake. There are both conservative and liberal media institutions in America as well as many other countries, and by equating the acknowledgment of metaphysical facts to NPOV or bias itself is both ignorant and sad. Liberal media should take me to a page with a picture of Keith Olbermann and conservative media a picture of Sean Hannity. This ain't rocket surgery, people. This.machinery (talk) 04:55, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. When people use the term 'liberal media' it is almost always used with negative connotations implying media bias. The same is true of the term 'conservative media'. The aim of using both those two terms is to deride their sources by implying they are more liberal/conservative than the objective 'truth'. Strathglen (talk) 00:26, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Also, just because this page is a major discussion of "liberal media" does not mean that the page does not also discuss "conservative media" -- it does. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:26, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

What constitutes bias

Bias is not the same as disagreement. If I say a person is lying because I dislike that person, or because I dislike what that person is saying, that is bias. If I say a person is lying because that person is, in fact, lying, that is reporting the truth, not bias.

It is often hard to tell when a person is lying, but when a person writes a book and says, "I lied," that is pretty good evidence.

While we were being lied to, anyone who did not believe the lies was accused of liberal bias. Now that yet another major Republican admits to lying, we are told that anyone who accepts that admission does so out of bias. This shows a misunderstanding of the meaning of the word "bias".

Rick Norwood (talk) 01:36, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Making the claim "We now know that Halperin was right, not biased" based on the assertions in McClellans book is problematic (not to mention a perfect example of plain old overly simplistic conclusion-jumping). The problems with basing this conclusion on the assertions made in the book are multi-fold:
1.) There is no way to verify the assertions in the book. The best you can do to support it is to say "when a person writes a book and says they lied, thats pretty good evidence". HOW is that good evidence? The book was obviously written in an effort to discredit the Bush administration, and it was written by somebody who is:
A.) Reportedly a disgruntled employee of that administration.
B.) Funded (ie paid to say these things) by George Soros, who is known to have a long history of anti-Republican (and CERTAINLY anti-Bush activity, like his website moveon.org directly comparing George Bush to Hitler in 2004).
Those facts are enough to raise reasonable doubt about what is said in the book.
2.) Even IF every single thing written by McClellan were 100% true, it STILL does not allow the conclusion "Halperin was right, not biased", because the two have nothing to do with each other. McClellans book is irrelevant to the question "was Halperin being biased when he released that memo?". It's like saying "well, this special forces guy came out and said Clinton refused to give him the okay to take out Bin Laden when he could have, so that proves Clinton was pro terrorist!!!" It proves no such thing. It's all incidental.
Drawing conclusions from un-provable assertions by questionable sources is the kind of thing we need to avoid. It's exactly the kind of thing that fuels the fire of "media bias" assertions, and rightfully so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Manderson71 (talk • contribs) 16:30, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Tell ya what, Rick. If you want to mention McClellan's book in reference to Halperin's situation, I would accept it in this format:

"With the release of the 2008 book by George W. Bush's press secretary Scott McClellan, there are some who contend that this is evidence of Mark Halperin being correct instead of biased. In his book, McClellan admits to lying to the media, and describes the contempt he felt for reporters who so easily believed his lies, and were cowed by the fear that if they exposed the lies, they would be accused of "liberal bias".[1]"

THAT is a statement of FACT. The way you have it written with the words "we now know that Halperin was right", you are stating an opinion as fact. Lets be intellectually honest.

I haven't read McClellan's book. Here's a question, though. Did McClellan say in the book that he lied about the stuff that Halperin said he/they were lying about? If McClellan was talking about different lies, then the two aren't connected closely enough to use this way. Cretog8 (talk) 00:54, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Is there a page number, or page numbers to look for these statements in McClellan's book? Cretog8 (talk) 17:32, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the unsigned version above, beginning "With the release..." is better and should replace the current version in the article. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:11, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Misperceptions about the Iraq War

What does the study on Fox News Viewership have to do with Media Bias? Let me guess. Republicans are big fat liars, and Fox News is full of Republicans, so people believe their lies? Seems a lot less to me to be about "Media bias" and more about attacking an instituition. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.30.66.15 (talk) 06:20, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

One form of bias is misrepresenting the facts. And I recently reverted a deletion of the reference to this study, because the study is referenced and deletion unexplained.
On the other hand, as a teacher of Probability and Statistics, I have my doubts about this study: there may be a confounding variable. Fox viewers tend to be younger than those who get their news elsewhere, and young people may have less basic knowledge than older people, just because they've had less time to learn. The study shows that Fox viewers tend to be less well informed about Iraq, but it does not show that they are less well informed because they watch Fox news. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:40, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Obviously, the gatekeeper of this article, is himself biased. Using Framing devices, Norwood evokes his authority in such matters being a teacher (academic) in an attempt to disarm any criticism on that basis alone and to prove his authority he cites that "Fox viewers tend to be younger" a piece of information not in evidence in either the reference nor Norwood’s statement but designed to strengthen his position by suggesting that the older one is the wiser and smarter one becomes which is elitist on its face and is just wrong.
This authoritarian pronouncement by norwood is a deflection from his other two statements otherwise innocuous having been heard read before but in reality are indications of the ideological and economic conditions under which he operates
"One form of bias is misrepresenting the facts." The only facts in evidence is that a study was performed and the 8000+ people were surveyed. The reference does not provide the method needed to double check the conclusions by posing the question on the survey data namely "Frequency of correct perceptions versus network" Without this analysis the conclusion can only be one sided ie biased. So the facts Norwood must be referring to his belief that "misconceptions" are extent and FOX is to blame (the finding of the study) as he being an authority he can find no fault in the study not posing the counter question on the data, which is itself blatant bias.
Norwood then further attempted to reinforce his position "The study shows that Fox viewers tend to be less well informed" Using this circular logic Norwood is convinced that the reference must be included as its results are irrefutable based purely on them being published by academia of which he counts himself as an authoritarian member.
Allow me to reiterate for the gatekeeper, the self anointed authority on statistics, the news service is an independent variable as no survey question was asked the respondents as to the source of their so called misperceptions. So Fox News was also the source of respondents having the highest Frequency of correct perceptions. and well Duh! Fox News had the highest viewer ship and the ratios of primary source of news data points is exactly the same ratios shown in Frequency of Misperceptions bar graph. Put that in your liberal bias pipe and smoke it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.41.138.70 (talk) 16:18, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

First, let me point out to 216.41.138.70 that most Wikipedians read the comment at the bottom of the discussion page first, and so new comments should generally be posted at the bottom of the pages, with references to material higher up as necessary. Second, you should sign your posts with four tildes, so that SineBot doesn't have to do it for you.

Now, to the substance of your comments. I am not in any sense a "gatekeeper". You will notice that another editor reverted your post while I was offline. I'm just trying to keep the article encyclopedic. But I do thank you for expanding on your views here in Talk. I did not suggest that older people were wiser, just that they were better informed. If people continue to learn new things throughout their lifetime, they know more as they get older. But a fool is still a fool. On the other hand, I was wrong when I said most Fox News viewers were young. I based that on comments by my students, most of whom are young and most of whom who watch the news at all watch Fox. Here is the data I found when I looked it up. Yes, more young people watch Fox than any other news channel. But more than half of the viewers of Fox News are over 65.

If you read my comments above, you will notice that I raised some of the same questions about that study that you raise. The way to respond to this is not to insert a long editorial into the article. Instead, find a source that agrees that the study is biased. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:22, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

The study clearly shows that networks accused of liberal bias is more informative and their opinions more in sync with reality, than networks accused of conservative bias. This demonstrates that reality has a clearly liberal bias. Carewolf (talk) 11:24, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
The study shows no such thing. It examines one specific issue. More recent surveys show that those who watch Fox News or listen to conservative talk radio were more likely than those who cited CNN/MSNBC/etc. as their primary news sources to know things like which party controlled Congress, the name of the Speaker of the House, etc. Heck, in a Zogby poll, only 48% of CNN viewers knew that Democrats controlled Congress at the time, and they could have guessed that 50/50! Glynth (talk) 20:23, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Honestly, the transparency of the study's bias is astounding. The manner in which the study assumes...yes assumes...FOX News is the origin and cause of people's misperception is academically and intellectually dishonest. Furthermore, to not research even one alleged misconception from the opposite side of the political aisle was disingenuous, at best. The study was political theater at its most partisan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Analytical (talk • contribs) 03:10, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

The presence and defense of the aforementioned study as a legitimate study in bias rather than an example of bias points to the problem with Wikipedia, spare time often trumps integrity. This ironically mirrors the mainstream media; sheer volume is the obstacle and opposition of the truth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.171.37.63 (talk) 00:11, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Random Wikipedia editors' thoughts about a peer-reviewed study are not in themselves peer review. If you think the study was biased or inaccurate you (or a qualified expert) should attempt to replicate the results or otherwise do the research necessary to show the study is flawed. Then publish those results and go through the peer-review process yourself, and then this information should find its way into Wikipedia through the normal channels. But random complaints about bias really don't belong in the article. csloat (talk) 05:00, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

This Article

The impression I get after reading this (long, painfully disorganized) article is that there is no liberal bias at all; the mass media is really suffering from a conservative bias! Silly me, all this time I thought that there was a liberal bias. I guess "left-wing" really does mean "centrist". I know there are more liberals than conservatives on Wikipedia, but seriously, friends, the tone and overall sense of this article takes credibility away from all of us. InFairness (talk) 04:36, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not for personal opinions or research. This merely a collection of references to what documented 3rd-parties thinks. Which is why both points of view are represented Carewolf (talk) 12:04, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

The direction of the bias depends on where you are standing. The media are more liberal than the average citizen because the media are more cosmopolitan than the average citizen, but the media also bend over backwards to please the conservatives because the conservatives are customers of the media who need to be kept happy. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:36, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Carewolf and In Fairness' discussion is a perfect snapshot of the problem with this article. If I were of a conservative bent, this would be my take. InFairness is a political moderate or maybe even conservative who thinks the article is liberal in its bias. Carewolf is liberal and likes this, as such is representing the article as representing both sides. If I were liberal I might chime in and say something like "InFairness not only ar you wrong, but I think this article has a conservative bias!", and go on to sight spots in the article and so on and so forth. So long as this article contains as much content as it does, this will always be a massive problem. I think the article would be better served by trimming much of the discussion of what is contained within studies and books regarding media bias. I'm speaking about all of it, the studies and books from both sides of any particular type of bias. Better to reference examples where media bias was blatantly exposed as being media slant. Reference organizations that study media bias, being sure to note the general perception of that organization's political leanings as well. Avoid detailed descriptions of their studies, as many Wikipedia readers taking the time to look at this article probably already have strongly formed opinion about these organizations. By detailing too much the contents of the studies it only makes readers think the article is biased itself. People will think that one particular side (normally not theirs) didn't get as much article space as the other. I think a better way to summarize the various studies and books regarding media bias would be a brief paragraph describing their methods and findings, as well as criticisms of said studies or books. Don't think that there are any definitive studies, as an axiom that will always hold true is that there will one day be a better study that comes out and shows something contrary to the results of the study you're citing. I also think that it might be best to remove the Chomsky quote. He's too polarizing as many people not of a liberal bent already seem to think he comes across as a bit pompous, to put it mildly. There are people who may be able to swallow the section regarding his work if the quote were removed, that otherwise, upon seeing a Chomsky quote, would navigate away in disgust. If it would get more people to read the section all the way through, it might be better to remove it, as it just rehashes what is said anyways. Musing Sojourner (talk) 16:19, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Other Thoughts On Media Bias

Some have reported bias in the media. This has been attributed to presumptuous news reporting, in other countries as well as the United States. This has been a controversial issue for a number of reasons. Measures are currently being taken to develop a better understanding of what constitutes "media bias." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.22.81.124 (talk) 20:25, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

VP debate moderator wrote pro-Obama book which is being released on January 20, 2009

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
closed because identical post / edit / discussion taking place at Talk:United States presidential election debates, 2008 - Wikidemon (talk) 15:30, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Gwen Ifill, the scheduled moderator of the October 2, 2008 vice presidential debate, wrote a pro-Obama book called "The Breakthrough: Politics and Race in the Age of Obama," which is being released on January 20, 2009. [2] [3] [4]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Internet bias redirect

This article redirects from Internet bias but doesn't seem to discuss it. The only occurence of "internet" is at the top in the redirect statement. 203.129.142.40 (talk) 21:36, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Redundant section taken out

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Media_bias&diff=prev&oldid=244115525

I felt that it did not bring anything to the article, resembled a "how to" guide and asserted certain values without sourcing them. forestPIG(grunt) 12:31, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Admitted bias

"[http://abcnews.go.com/Business/Story?id=6099188&page=1 Media's Presidential Bias and Decline; Columnist Michael Malone Looks at Slanted Election Coverage and the Reasons Why]": In my opinion, this article is entirely relevant to this wiki page. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 13:19, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

And The Washington Post just admitted bias. And recall in the past The New York Times admitted it is biased. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 19:09, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Media Matters

Media Matters is identified in the article as a progressive (that is, liberal) organization. Thus, the article presents first the conservative point of view, then the liberal point of view, each identified as such. Rick Norwood (talk) 18:38, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Anglophone bias

I removed User:Katana0182 's addition to this section. I have two reasons: firstly, it seems to talk about a different thing than the first part. The first part is about "anglophone bias in the world media", which means "bias towards english-speaking countries." The part added by Katana0182 talks about use of the english language in general; it is not really about media bias. Secondly, I couldn't find support for its claims in the sources given. For example:

Some have suggested that any "anglophone bias" results from the fact that English is the one of the world's most widely spoken languages (by number of first and second language speakers) and one of the few languages, aside from French (Agence France-Press), Arabic (Al Jazeera, Al Arabiya), and Spanish to be commonly spoken in multiple countries and regions throughout the world.[38]

Who have suggested? I couldn't find this suggestion in the sources given. For this claim I also could find no support in the sources: "Anglophone bias, such as it is, could also be described as a product of distrust, as news sources published in non-international languages are often products of governmental media agencies, some of whom do not have a firewall between governmental propaganda and news."

No offense to the contributor at all, but to me this addition seemed both badly sourced and irrelevant, so I decided to remove it. Offliner (talk) 20:42, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Nonpartisan media bias monitoring

Isn't it just sad that under the section Organizations monitoring media bias, there is only a list of partisan groups? mcornelius (talk) 09:24, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Good point. I'll add factcheck.com.Rick Norwood (talk) 14:12, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

"Media Cheer Obama's Golf Outings; Criticized Republicans' Trips to Course"

link I think this is a good source for the article. Grundle2600 (talk) 15:28, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

CNS News is not really a good source for any article. csloat (talk) 18:50, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

If this article reported every trivial, topical example of bias, it would quickly become longer than the whole rest of Wikipedia put together. The article needs to focus on examples of bias that will be remembered ten years from now. Rick Norwood (talk) 11:45, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Cato sources

Hilarious that someone's using the Cato Institute as sources on an article about media bias. This article has no hope of being unbiased if the sources are from the people who create the bias in the first place. You might as well also cite 'studies' by the Socialist Worker to balance them out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.83.6.63 (talk) 01:48, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

In my experience Cato is no more biased and has similiar quality of aggregated statistics to MediaMatter.org which is heavily referenced here as well. The reality is that most sources for this article will have a heavy bent one way or another. Denying this is quite silly. Musing Sojourner (talk) 15:37, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Deleted material

Types of bias

  • Political bias, including bias in favor of or against a particular political party, candidate, or policy.
  • Advertising bias, corporate media depends on advertising revenue for funding. This relationship promotes a bias to please the advertisers.
  • Ethnic or racial bias, including racism, nationalism.
  • Corporate bias, coverage' of political campaigns in such a way as to favor or oppose corporate interests, and the reporting of issues to favor the interests of the owners of the news media or its advertisers. Some critics view the financing of news outlets through advertisers as an inherent bias.
  • Class bias, including bias favoring one social class and bias ignoring (or exaggerating) social or class divisions.
  • Mainstream bias, a tendency to report what everyone else is reporting, and to gather news from a relatively small number of easily available sources.
  • Religious and cultural bias, including bias in which one religious or nonreligious viewpoint is given preference over others.
  • Bias based on sex, age, background, education, language, among others. (For instance woman's issues are rarely featured in mainstream news, and a poorly written letter won't make it into the Letters to the Editor section.)
  • Sensationalism, bias in favor of the exceptional over the ordinary. This includes the practice whereby exceptional news may be overemphasized, distorted or fabricated to boost commercial ratings; entertainment news is often subjected to sensationalism.
  • Exaggerated influence of minority views.
  • Bias toward ease or expediency: This can be a tendency to present information which is already widely reported in other news media, i.e. "jumping on the bandwagon" or "following the leader", presentation of "fluff pieces" which are of questionable journalistic merit (such as coverage in news media of the personal lives of celebrities, or "news you can use"-style reporting which offers consumer advice which is widely viewed as common sense), and over representation of crime reporting, particularly street crime. This type of bias is largely attributed to the relatively low cost of presenting these stories (compared to investigative journalism which tends to require more time and research, and thus more money, to produce), competition between commercial news media for consumers, ratings and ad revenue, and a 24-hour news cycle which demands constant output.
  • "Accidental bias" which could include errors and misinformation (re: expediency) or editors accidentally reinterpreting a reporter's work.

Discussion

The material above was just deleted by an anon. Since it's been tagged since 2007 I'm not going to restore it. If sources can be found it would be worthwhile to include.   Will Beback  talk  00:38, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the deleted material should be restored, except for accidental bias -- accidents happen, but are not bias, unless what is intended is "unconscious bias", in which case it should say that. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:34, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
I restored the list, but greatly shortened it. The examples given now seem so obvious as not to need references -- everybody knows about these kinds of bias. I would like to remove the flag, but will wait on comments. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:57, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Interesting quote

I'm not sure this is the right place to put this, but its an interesting quote in a Reuters article showing a clear bias in reporting on environmental issues: "An increase of up to 4 degrees Celsius has been felt across the Arctic in the past 30 years. While some scientists put it down to fluctuating weather patterns, environmentalist groups say it is caused by global warming due to human activity." I sourced it from here: http://au.news.yahoo.com/a/-/world/7129137/russian-pm-putin-orders-arctic-cleanup/ I figure, it could be used as an example of media bias regarding global warming, given the scientific consensus is that mankind caused global warming and this article is cleverly worded to make people think it is the other way around.--Senor Freebie (talk) 14:51, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Experimenter bias

This was in the experimenter bias section but does not seem to me to be experimenter bias so I moved it to talk. RJFJR (talk) 17:42, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Another source of bias is the fact that some studies are reported by the media, and other stories are not. The case study "A Measure of Media Bias" discussed above was widely reported in the United States. George Orwell pointed out that in the UK during the last century businesses did not undermine their own interests by reporting leftist (anti-business or pro-labor) information. In the United States Ben Bagdikian, [5] documents a long history of advertisers pulling out support when media content becomes too controversial.

Bush/Iraq/FOX News centric

The number of times George W. Bush, Fox News, and Iraq are mentioned in this artcile is painfully awkward. This article suffers majorly from recency bias (in addition to a general Bush and Fox News are bad slant). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 15.170.158.120 (talk) 20:03, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

All I did for now is reorganize them, but some of them need to be used as sources for specific assertions in the article, and the ones that violate Wikipedia:External links need to be removed. 67.100.125.140 (talk) 07:56, 10 May 2009 (UTC).

There are far, far too many external links, and one problem is the inclusion of amateur blogs or self-published sites attacking a particular media outlet. They don't educate the reader about the phenomenon of media bias in the way that scholarly reliable sources do. They merely allege that some particular publication or broadcaster is biased. Hence I suggest the deletion of the subsection "Websites/blogs focused on specific media organizations". MartinPoulter (talk) 17:05, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Any comments? MartinPoulter (talk) 18:52, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
It seems reasonable to prune out the blogs. aprock (talk) 21:23, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

JournaList

Does the existance of a private discussion group of center/left journalist coes not "prove" that these journalists were, as a group, presenting biased news. Rick Norwood (talk) 15:09, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

The following post has been restored to the article:

"Some bias is not conjecture, and can be designed and coordinated. In February 2007, Washington Post blogger Erza Klein created a private organization called "JournoList" in order to facillitate the efforts of left-to-center journalists. Journalists with conservative leanings were not allowed membership.[3] Leaks of the private group discussions include coordinated efforts and tactics used to shield candidate Obama from politically damaging associations in his past, and also to silence his critics by launching random charges of racism.[4] Membership in JournoList is believed to have been 400 strong before being disbanded in the summer of 2010. Membership in JournoList eventually grew to include select members of universities, television news, foundations, and workers within the Democrat party.[http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=184597] A new group, "Cabalist", composed largely of the members of Journolist, has since formed. [5]

First, I have no idea what "coordianted" means in this context. Second, the claim that bias is "not a conjecture" is not established in the cited sources. The sources show that some of the people on JournaList thought it wise not to report attempts to attack Obama using guilt by association. One person on JournaList thought such attempts were racist. Neither of these facts supports a claim that they were trying to "shield candidate Obama", only that they realize (as all educated people do) that guilt by association is wrong. Even the one person who called such attacks racist was answering the critics of Obama, not trying to silence the critics of Obama. In short, the paragraph claims that conjecture is not conjecture. Rick Norwood (talk) 14:10, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

The paragraph seems not to illuminate the nature of media bias but merely level an accusation of it, using circumstantial evidence. it doesn't belong in this article. There are private organisations or community groups for all sorts. WND.com and dailycaller.com seem to have a clear agenda, and they aren't organisations which study the hysterical political media: rather, they seem examples of it. It's dubious at least to use them as sources for this article. MartinPoulter (talk) 14:32, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Odd. Those sources you mention are rejected as having a "clear agenda", but attempted removals throughout WP of citations to the Daily KOS are promptly restored. Is there an explanation why a far-left blogging site is considered legitimate source? (I already know the answer, but would love to hear the excuse regardless)--216.114.194.20 (talk) 01:18, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Other influences section

This all seems a bit woolly and sourceless to me. Someone with more Wiki know how than me should take a look.LastDodo (talk) 17:10, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Article Needs Re-written

As is, wikipedia is not a serious encyclopedia. It is left-leaning, at least in regards to the issue of it's media bias coverage. The term "liberal bias" definitely exists in our culture, and to NOT have an article on it amounts to leftist propaganda, albeit on a small scale. Someone here was mentioning that Galileo was so bold and revolutionary for stating plainly what he believed about heavenly bodies even though it wasn't popular at the time. We see that the pursuit of intelligence sometimes means admitting to the existence of things that we ourselves disagree with. It may be unpopular in academia to believe that a liberal bias exists in our media but it is obvious that it either a) exists-or that b) a significant number of people believe it exists. In either case, the concept deserves a page on wikipedia. The validity of its existence is something that should be discussed on the page itself. The idea of having a page simply on media bias is an obvious cop out and left leaning. The term "liberal bias" is common in our culture. There are pages dedicated to all sorts of other cultural beliefs (in a serious encyclopedia I would hope that ALL cultural beliefs would be covered), so why is there no article dedicated to the concept of a liberal bias in the media? At the end of the day, wikipedia needs to admit that the concept of a liberal bias exists, even if it simply perceived to exist. (CaptainNicodemus (talk) 15:25, 26 November 2009 (UTC))

The article is way too "americentric". I am not an American, and to me this article seems downright crazy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.85.91.56 (talk) 22:54, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

While trying to read through this article, it looks to me like there are many examples of studies that are then questioned at every point, with no real facts being presented anywhere. Looks like an arguing ground for conservative vs. liberal instead of a factual article. I think this entire article should be re-written, and just give an overview of what media bias is instead of disputing and debating various studies. None of this is factual informative information, instead it is argumentative and unecessasary comment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.68.102.230 (talk) 14:33, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

First, let me mention that experienced Wikipedians put their comments at the bottom of the page, because that is where people go to read new comments.
But to address your point, CaptainNicodemus: If there is a subject that you think needs an article, write one. That's how Wikipedia articles are created. Somebody writes an article, with careful references and, as nearly as possible, a neutral tone. It's a lot of hard work, but well worth it.
I've already written one on liberal bias, and it was erased. The liberal bias of wikipedia is pretty obvious, and I'm pretty familiar with how articles are written. There is already an article on the "Fox News Scandals" and Fox News is called out for having a conservative bias, but there is no individual article written on the liberal media, and all of its scandals. The Liberal Media through NewsWeek one time reported the story that soldiers were flushing the Koran down the toilet during the War on Terror, and Muslims started rioting and killed 16 people. The Koran flushing never happened, though, and the liberal reporter retracted his story. Also, liberal Dutch papers printed pictures of Muhammad, and the backlash got people killed. The liberal media also smeared the Duke Lacrosse players for rape, when no rape occurred. The New York Times has undergone two of the most high profile cases of having reporters lie in recent years, yet there is no article on the Liberal Media and it scandals? The presence of a liberal media has been proven again and again in scientific studies, yet there is no article dedicated to its existence? Its existence or debated existence is certainly a concept, yet it is whitewashed and censored from the pages of wikipedia. Clearly, lumping together all kinds of media bias is a cover for the fact that wikipedia editors don't want to legitimize its existence. This is censorship. There are pages dedicated to the most specific, trivial concepts in existence, but not the Liberal Media? Why is that? Talking about the Liberal Media is taboo on wikipedia, and it is censorship to expunge all records of it. CaptainNicodemus (talk) 17:15, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
CaptainNicodemus, you really should not change the title of a section to which many people have already contributed. If you want a section with a different title, you should start one below. Rick Norwood (talk) 19:26, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
As for (unsigned)'s post, I would certainly like this article to say: here is what the biased reporting says, but here is the truth. Wikipedia does that in cases where the truth is on a really solid basis: man did evolve, global warming is caused by humans, President Obama was born in the United States. But on other questions we may be too close to the subject to be able to report objective truth, in which case all we can do is give both sides of the story.
Finally, on the subject of "liberal bias", all major modern reporting has liberal bias. You will not find any major source saying good things about slavery, the Ku Klux Klan, or Adolph Hitler. That is because America is a nation founded on liberal principles, and these principles are now accepted throughout the civilized world. Rick Norwood (talk) 21:05, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Regarding telling the above poster to "write one", you are exposing the blatant leftist bias WP is known for. Any time someone tries to "write one" or to balance the spectrum or remove propaganda, the liberal WP gatekeepers delete it, and more often than not, they even delete the *discussion* of such changes.

So how can you tell someone to "write it", when putting anything other than liberal propaganda in WP is not allowed?

So for those that call for a Liberal Bias article, should we not also have a Conservative Bias article then? And since Liberal/Conservative is not the only split (there is a world outside of the US you know), perhaps we should have an article on every kind of media bias? 100 or so separate articles should do it.

No, of course not, it makes sense to have one article covering the whole subject. And just because you perceive liberal bias does not mean everyone does. The US is a right wing country relative to most places, thus as a Brit, there seems to me to be a conservative bias in the US media. It all depends on your perspective.LastDodo (talk) 17:19, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not intending to personally attack here, but perhaps having a Brit trying to sort this out is not the correct choice? Much of Europe's Left/Right is *far* different from the USA's Left/right, and it may be hard for a Brit to comprehend our culture. The left/right in Britain would both be considered solidly within the American LEFT. Right-wingers in Britain would be considered moderate Democrats in the USA. In a (too-small) nutshell The American Right means a restoration/preservation of the founding principles and documents, with very minimal government interference. The American Left pushes for larger government oversight, entitlement programs and government services.--216.114.194.20 (talk) 23:57, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

--216.114.194.20 (talk) 03:04, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Liberal bias is a myth perpetrated by the far right in this country. All major reporting, films, and radio have a conservative bias. The removal of the fairness doctrine destroyed sensible debate on politics in this country. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.38.230.227 (talk) 06:16, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Nonsense. Polls clearly show that journalists are far to the left of the general public, if you believe in a simple left-right spectrum. As for the fairness doctrine, it's clearly unconstitutional except as applied to broadcast media, and (IMHO) when it was in effect, it severely limited political discussion. (It also essentially prevented any discussion of minor political parties in those media, as the doctrine was interpreted to require inclusion of all political parties if any other than major parties were included.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:40, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I find it ironic that a WP article about media bias is so left-wing biased. Liberal bias in the media has *always* been the norm, yet this entire article skips all of this evidence, and instead only has a few cherry-picked (and extrmely poorly-sourced) Fox news slams by left-wing moonbats in this area. In recent months, keith Olbermann from MSNBC was suspended for donating to the Democratic party, and wikileaks has revealed that other journalists, namely Wolf Blitzer with CNN were actively discussing with White House officials which stories to cover up. Yet nary a peep on WP. Ridiculous. I hope someone is telling our next generationo not to use this WP tripe for their studies. --216.114.194.20 (talk) 23:12, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Media bias caught on tape should be added

Media bias has been caught on tape. Will people please review the following then someone add something appropriate to this Wiki page:

Sample quote: "Employees at a CBS affiliate in Anchorage left an accidental voicemail for an aide to GOP Senate candidate Joe Miller in which they discussed and laughed about the possibility of reporting on the appearance of sex offenders at a Miller rally. And they chatted about responding with a Twitter alert to “any sort of chaos whatsoever” including the candidate being punched.'"

Thank you. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 02:08, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

There are a bunch of problems with this story. First, the only source for this is a Republican blog. Second, the people talking are not identified, nor is it explained why they would leave this on the voicemail of someone working for Joe Miller's campaign. Third, much of the conversation is inaudible (according to the only source for the story). And finally, while the source spins it as a conspiracy to slant the news, it sounds to me like a couple of people kidding around. Rick Norwood (talk) 14:48, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
FYI: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2618497/posts?page=30#30   Will Beback  talk  02:01, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
I followed your link. At first, I thought these people were kidding. Walter Cronkite is a communist? But I read a little more and they're dead serious. (I remember when the John Birch Society said Dwight D. Eisenhower was a communist!) Apparently, there are still a lot of people who think accusation is proof of guilt. Rick Norwood (talk) 14:12, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Leftists do this

It's funny how I read how leftists do this. They start several accounts in their moms basements and then attack anyone who wants Wikipedia to be fair. But there are several articles from respected news sources discussing he Essjay affair and other Wiki scandals. The editors think they're protecting the gates of a new leftist revolution but they're just making themselves look like hacks by suppressing the creation of a leftist/"liberal" bias. Why not make a conservative bias page and a leftist/"liberal" bias page? Because the other people are exactly right, if you keep it as one page you can hide one of your main advantages as leftists: the leftist dominated media. I mean come on guys you make yourselves look so utterly foolish and contemptible when you act like you're children and we're dumb children who will believe you if you just lie and obfuscate enough. But sorry we're going to tell you what incompetent hacks you are as long as you leave up these monuments to your childish attempts at sabotaging the truth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.119.35.93 (talk) 12:16, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Consequences of Media Bias

There are the obvious consequences, like misleading the public, and many examples of this, but that has already been touched upon in the article. But the consequences within a news organization have not really been discussed.

All news organizations have their own stance on Media bias. Whether or not they are honest about it is irrelevant, but some are much more strict than others. Fox news for example seems to have a loose standard for enforcing neutrality. It is generally accepted that they are a right leaning organization. If the fox anchors appear to be biased, no consequences are really brought against them. That is the case with many American news organizations because there are no restrictions set regarding bias. A news organization can be as bias as they want, without any consequences from the organization itself.

News organizations in Canada however have more restrictions, so it is up to that company to enforce neutrality. CBC for example is very careful about what they say, and whether or not it comes across as neutral. If an anchor says something that's biased, they could be suspended, depending of course on the severity. But there is a long editing process before anything is stated on air, so usually a biased statement doesn't make it very far.

Consequences are hard to enforce because bias is fairly subjective. In most cases it is debatable as to whether or not something is biased or not. That is why bias is such a recognizable problem, but remains difficult to fix. 216.46.14.58 (talk) 13:53, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Revamping and cleaning up the article

I would like to help improve this article. There are several items in this article that need work, starting with how media bias is defined in the first sentence, to the addition of scholarly research.

The introductory sentence sees problematic to me. Here is what it says now: Media bias refers to the bias of journalists and news producers within the mass media in the selection of which events and stories are reported and how they are covered. The term "media bias" implies a pervasive or widespread bias contravening the standards of journalism, rather than the perspective of an individual journalist or article. The direction and degree of media bias in various countries is widely disputed.

Example problem: "the bias of journalists and news producers within the mass media" is ok-ish, but "in the selection of which events and stories are reported and how they are covered" is actually not a bias, it is gatekeeping. Gatekeeping can be a factor in media bias, but is a completely separate topic.

A better start (with scholarly sources): The term "media bias" can have varied interpretations, but is often seen by news consumers as the opposite of accuracy, fairness, and balance in reporting, or the perception of favoritism towards one side of an issue over another. (Lee, 2005; Rouner, Slater, & Buddenbaum, 1999).

Another problem I'm seeing is the insistence that because many journalists are left-leaning (true), their reporting is therefore inherently left-leaning (not true). This statement is not supported by any sources, it is just an assumption.

There is a lot of POV in this article, which is expected, as this topic can (in the words of Grandpa Simpson) "angry up the blood". I will post potential changes on the talk page first. ScamperCat (meow) 02:27, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Your suggestions sound good to me, though I think "varied Interpretations" gets off on the wrong foot. How about: Media bias exists when media show favoritism toward one side of an issue and ignore or attack all other views. It is the opposite of objectivity, fairness, and accuracy, the widely accepted standards of factual journalism. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:24, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
This gets closer to a definition of bias, but does not precisely reflect what the academic sources say. I do agree that "varied interpretations" is not ideal phrasing, but is a huge factor in the study of news media bias. In general, news media bias is not a concrete concept. It is fluid and tends to change with the times.
I intentionally did not mention "standards of journalism" as there are actually several theories of journalism, which each have different standards. The one that makes the most sense to me is the "social responsibility theory of the press" which has several pillars, one of which is that good news is "a truthful, comprehensive and intelligent account of the day’s events in a context which gives them meaning." I was concerned that bringing up standards of journalism would open a can of worms. But I am thinking now that leaving it out would do more harm than good for the article.
Also (nitpickingly), I am not sure about claiming that "media bias exists when..." as I'm sure examples can be found where these criteria are present, but bias is not. And I think that using the word "attack" sets a negative tone. The idea of the news media attacking a particular "side" of an issue can be explored further in the article, but I don't think it should be used in the introduction.
Finally, I think that we should explicitly refer to "media bias" as "news media bias" at least in the introduction, as that is what is generally meant. "Media" includes all types of media, from music to fiction to movies to television.
I'll try to work up an introductory paragraph with your suggestions in mind. Thanks for your input. ScamperCat (meow) 19:26, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Many accusations of media bias refer to entertainment media, for example what's-his=name's attack on the tv series about the unwed mother (how soon we forget).

True, however, this is criticism as opposed to bias. ScamperCat (meow) 15:16, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
Also, (depending on which "unwed mother" you're talking about) this is criticism by the news media of television. Entertainment news is still part of the news media. Bias in television could possibly include claims that TV shows such as The Simpsons has a liberal bias, however, I don't think this is the context in which media bias is commonly used. Bias in other types of media could make a good subsection, though. ScamperCat (meow) 15:26, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Actually, it was a politician criticising entertainment television for liberal bias. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:38, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I had a general and a specific comment. The general comment is that I certainly agree that the section entitled "Scholarly treatment of media bias in the United States and United Kingdom" is far too long. The entire section deals almost exclusively with a tiny part of media bias; namely, political bias in contemporary US politics. That should perhaps be the name of an article where most of this section should reside. We could shorten it substantially, in my opinion, by simply listing the various scholarly enquiries that are most often cited along wih their general conclusions and skip the criticisms of those conclusions by others.

My specific comment. In the section "Experimenter's Bias," it states: "Research into studies of media bias in the United States shows that liberal experimenters tend to get results that say the media has a conservative bias, while conservatives experimenters tend to get results that say the media has a liberal bias, and those who do not identify themselves as either liberal or conservative get results indicating little bias, or mixed bias.[29][30][31]" In fact references 29, 30 and 31 do not refer to this ostensible research. I could not find, in those references, any mention of a study finding that liberal expermineters see a conservatvie bias and vice versa. As a matter of fact I could find no evidence of any such study being conducted anywhere. This statement--though it strikes me as intuitively true--should be supported by accurate references or removed.

--Mindfingers (talk) 05:13, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Really, Really?

Mentions of Fox as having a left/liberal bias left me gasping for breath. I assume Roger Ailes would be similarly surprised. Deconstructo (talk) 23:33, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Wow. I concur. If Fox has a liberal bias, I wonder what media outlets would be described as having a conservative bias.
Perhaps the whole Scholarly treatment of media bias in the United States and United Kingdom section violates NPOV. --Andrewaskew (talk) 02:04, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Here is the question. On the one hand, the study that found that Fox News had a liberal bias is an academic study. On the other hand, it is not a reproducible result, and other academics have strongly criticized the study's methodology. So, does Wikipedia follow the standard that, to be significant, a result must be reproducible? If the answer is "yes", then that whole section should go.Rick Norwood (talk) 12:07, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree, to a point. My suspicion is that this study is given undue weight, because it is a questionable source. That is, it has one of more of the following:
  • a poor reputation among the experts in the field
  • a lack of meaningful editorial oversight
  • an apparent conflict of interest.
Reproducability is important to a study's academic reputation. Also, if other studies can not reproduce the results, this can imply a conflict of interest. But reproducibility is not our deciding factor, there may be cases where a study is difficult to reproduce, but has a positive reputation.
If, as you say, this study has attracted strong criticism, then I think it is fairly clear that the page is giving it undue weight. --Andrewaskew (talk) 01:11, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Premise?

Media bias is an argument that an imaginary collective "media" favors one side in political debates and therefore twists facts to suit an agenda; the concept is as broad and amorphous as "corporate bias," "religious bias" or "human bias."

This article makes no acknowledgment of the fact that "media bias" is a construct of pundits, politicians and ideologues who want to sound scholarly when proclaiming their point of view as the only truth; alleging media bias should be considered a form of prejudice, a pseudo-objective attack on mass communication in the same way "intelligent design" adherents attack science.

The article has no substance unless it documents the rise of "media bias" as an argument promoting a political point of view -- and nearly always alleged by right-wing politicians against journalism itself. 72.148.152.214 (talk) 19:39, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Media bias does not necessarily refer to bias of the entire media, but often refers to bias in one particular medium or one particular individual. If, for example, the anchorman for World News thinks New Yorkers are better than Californians, and slants stories to show how great New Yorkers are and what fools Californians are, that's an example of media bias.
There is considerable evidence that everybody is biased, and that media bias is impossible to overcome, but at least we should be aware of the problem.

Rick Norwood (talk) 14:17, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

You guys never explain why Obama's "corpse man" didn't make him as dumb as Palin (who you all know by one name because you most certainly do use your websites to coordinate attacks against conservatives--see Journolist which still exists just with new names). No one asked how Obama got into Harvard without even having command of common English pronunciations. This is the essence of bias. When an "anchor" gets tingles over Ibama, that's bias. Everyone has bias sure. So make a general bias page. Then let the 75-85% of people who believe in MSM leftist bias make another page. It can't be any worse than the pathetic attempt at propaganda you have up right now! This party won't go on forever my teen leftist friends. Eventually someone's going to make a better online encyclopedia if you guys keep messing this one up! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.119.35.93 (talk) 12:48, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

While I thank you for the complement of calling me a 'teen' (I'll be 70 this August) I have to point out that this page isn't a blog. Rick Norwood (talk) 14:54, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

FYI, some quotes on media total-support of Democrat president Obama: “Obama’s ongoing project is to stay above responsibility and appeal to low-information voters.” ... “There's not a Republican who can pull that off because to pull this kind of thing off as Obama is, you need a totally compliant and slavish media, totally on your side and willing to carry your water and your message and your talking points each and every day. And then you need no conscience.” [EIB quotes] — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 14:55, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Does EIB mean Rush Limbaugh? If so, you need to find a conservative blog to post to. Reading us "liberal liars" will only upset you. Besides, Rush wouldn't like it. Rick Norwood (talk) 15:26, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Speaking to the PREMISE of the article, media bias is liberal bias that is bigger than media. Here is an example of media propping up Liberal views of AGW: [6] "... Just this week, 35,000 activists marched in Washington D.C. to protest Keystone for its contrived environmental impact and its alleged effect on global warming (never mind the fact that 31,000 scientists have signed a public petition saying there is no scientific basis for human gas emissions causing catastrophic global warming)."

The article is entitled, "Obama Killing Jobs For Fake Science" and postulates that media bias props up Obama and the Liberal view of manmade global warming. Carrie Lynnette Sims Shipp (talk) 15:42, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
And again, while it isn't entirely clear what your point is, this is not a blog. Rick Norwood (talk) 20:25, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

The point is media bias (and improving this article.) Here is another. "Juan Williams on Lib Media..." [7]. The first sentence of this thread ("Premise?") asked. Carrie Lynnette Sims Shipp (talk) 23:45, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Media widely viewed as biased is not an authoritative sourse for a statement that everybody else but them is biased. Flying saucer watchers are convinced the media is baised against flying saucers; psychics are convinced the media is biased against psychics. It isn't easy, but somehow Wikipedia has to sort out all the special claims of subcultures and find authoritative sources, which are usually academic. Of course, Fox News reports that all academics are biased. Nevertheless, Wikipedia has made a choice to go with the academics. You will probably be happier reading Conservapedia. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:02, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the tip. Here's their article on Media Bias [8] Hope it helps. — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 04:05, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the link, a good example that you can get any facts you want, if you just go to the right web page. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:11, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

This excellent column [9] explains the liberal bias and its effect. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 01:06, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Great article! When any of my liberal friends says that W. Bush is stupid, I tell them, "He arranged to give almost a trillion dollars in free money to his Wall Street buddies and left you paying the bill, and you think he's stupid?" Rick Norwood (talk) 12:13, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Americans get what they deserve — same w/Obama. At least 'W' protected us for a decade. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 23:03, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

What you mean "us", white man?  :) Rick Norwood (talk) 13:33, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Really?

Mentions of CNN and FOX but not a single one for MSNBC, the most biased network on the air? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.65.96.248 (talk) 16:13, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Are you surprised? You're talking to Wikipedia users, who are some of the most liberal cretins on earth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.76.46.132 (talk) 04:29, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Because it is impossible to report everything, selectivity is inevitable.

The section on selectivity in the media contains the sentence "Because it is impossible to report everything, selectivity is inevitable." An editor objects to and has removed that sentence. My thinking is that the sentence is important to distinguish between selectivity, which is necessary, and bias, which is the subject of this article. This sentence makes it clear that not all selectivity is evidence of bias, as several editors of this article have asserted. Thus the importance of noting that it proves no such thing. But the sentence is obvious, even though the person who deleted it first claimed it was nonsense. Comments? Rick Norwood (talk) 18:40, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Here's a good expose on bias in media [10] — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 20:29, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Intentional distraction

All the bullshit about the media having a "liberal bias" is an intentional distraction from the fact that the media is run by large corporations representing fiscally-conservative interests. There is and never has been a "liberal media" in the US. A cursory glance at the US media shows that it supports and promotes the establishment POV, a POV that is decidedly conservative and risk-averse. Viriditas (talk) 01:16, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Yeah like (MS)NBC right? Regardless, this is not a forum, so unless this somehow relates to editing the article, what is your point? MidnightRequestLine (talk) 06:17, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Language metric?

Does anyone know of any accepted technical metric for measuring bias in prose?

I've seen some metrics concerning readability for educational & promulagtion purposes; it seems a disinterested measure of bias ought to be possible.

At the moment all we seem to have to go on is a to-and-fro of "authoritative opinion", and psychological assessments (which could themselves be biased).

Or have I missed something? One is one and one is one (talk) 00:24, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

scholarly treatment

The section scholarly treatment in the United States and the United Kingdom repeatedly asserts that the media has a liberal bias. Whether or not this is true, I believe the point of the article should be about what media bias is, not whether media has a bias.--ATMJR (talk) 04:02, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Great work!

Good job to everyone who helped write this page, you have created a perfect example of media bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.74.216.214 (talk) 22:18, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Ironic, isn't it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.135.167.146 (talk) 07:13, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Media Bias Article Critique

Critiquing the Efforts to correct bias: One thing about this section of the article is that they start off this section almost blindly. There is no introduction or anything really to lead into how to correct bias. This part of the article had tons of relative information to the media bias topic, but in this specific part it gave more examples of how media bias occurs than how to correct it. It supplies examples of things that need to be fixed in order to correct media bias, but doesn't give full answers on how we are supposed to correct it as a whole. While it does give some ways to correct bias, I feel as though there could be more. It talks mainly about just news organizations and how they can correct bias, but not all media outlets. It may not include all media outlets that can be bias, such as social media and things as the like, but they may be because a lot of the information is outdated in this section. The information provided dates back to 2005 and 1991. There are no examples of how to correct media bias that is dated within the last 10 years. It also only brings up other country's media bias briefly. I feel as though this section could have a lot more up to date information. Other than the downsides of this article that I have stated, there is a substantial amount of useful and reliable information with good sources and direct quotes from organizations and people. There are just some aspects that could make this article better. BriSprague (talk) 00:59, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

In its effort to be neutral, the article posts an image that leaves the impression that media is uniformly biased between liberal and conservative in US (the PEW research image), but in fact more recent source from same research organization paints a different image - the bias is real. [11] In itself, since this is an encyclopedia with a long term view, this is not a major concern. A second point: US is not the only place that has media; this article could use input from sources that reflect other countries, and I'm wondering if this article should not be linked to Freedom of the press article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.225.64.47 (talk) 15:04, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Media bias. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:26, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Media bias. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:13, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Metropolitan bias. It involves a topic which has been suggested to merge here. --Netoholic @ 18:37, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

@Netoholic: Hi, I am quite new, from Switzerland and interested in media bias and populistic parties. Seen that the article you are referring to is archived. Interested to pick up again this topic here? --0e7s (talk) 18:47, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Outside USA

Article as of now is mainly covering USA. What about adding a new section covering countries outside USA. Comming from Switzerland I could provide input on Europe. Interested?--0e7s (talk) 18:51, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

I have found on AfD talk [12] the following study:

General rather than specific bias

I believe this article focuses too strongly on whether there is political or other type of bias in the media rather than the way it is biased. For example in the British Newspapers, particularly the tabloids bias and outright lies are introducable as fact and opinion are mixed without any notice. For example a paper might proclaim 'Child molester on trial' and if he were shown to be innocent might proclaim: 'child molester freed' rather than sperating the facts about a man on trial and their opinion of whether he did it in a later editorial.

Regardless of politics I think it is clear (from the below) that the media is biased, following the definition that their own journalistic standards are not followed (eg fact checking). This is shown to be the case (UK) in that most libel trials go against (British) newspapers (If this were added I would find the source but for a period in the 80's the paper 'The Sun' was infamous for never having won a libel trial in its history). In my own sphere of work also which is very specialised the papers usually get their facts wrong when reporting it which results on various 'calls' being made by them to fix issues which dont exist. - omricon posted 2 January 2007.

In the US, newspapers are generally pure real but biased typical news, Vs. the crappy gossip, UFO, 3-headed baby supermarket tabloids. My understanding is, in the UK the demarcation is not so clear, as if the respected papers carry much junk food news. True? That seems like a topic...why the difference? Cheers!
--2602:306:CFCE:1EE0:3044:A2C3:2683:987B (talk) 20:05, 4 November 2018 (UTC)Doug Bashford

Kuypers

If the quality or lack thereof of the argument and footnoting in this book by Professor Kuypers is about equal to those in the portion of the book "Partisan Journalism" I was able to read, that would show how he was able to "show" such a thing. Schissel | Sound the Note! 00:30, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Silverman

The conclusions of the study by Silverman must not be presented as statements of fact but at most as Silverman's opinion. It is clear that Silverman's article is basically a long op-ed that says as much about Silverman as about Reuters. For example, the phrase "the harm the blockade is doing to the 1.5 million Palestinians in Gaza" is judged to be "(a) an assertion, (b) exaggeration, (c) card stacking; and 4) atrocity propaganda". How can someone with such partisan opinions be held up as an objective judge of media bias? If Silverman is kept, I suggest this example be included so the readers can see what the study was really about. Zerotalk 05:35, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Silverman's study is a scholarly article published in a peer-reviewed (refereed) academic journal. It is presented and included in this section as such. It is not an "op-ed". The final sentence describing the academic study makes clear that Silverman has drawn conclusions ("inferred") based on the data in the study. This is the way all academic studies are structured. 2600:1700:C530:6420:51DC:A076:EDBF:905F (talk) 15:24, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

"Scholarly treatment..." section too long

Scholarly treatment in the United States and United Kingdom not useful, too long, then I noticed this: -- "This section may be in need of reorganization..."

So Make useful by adding a table of contents? Example, paragraph: "American Enterprise Institute study the coverage of economic news by looking at a panel of 389 U.S. newspapers...." to: American Enterprise Institute on economics — looks at 389 U.S. newspapers.

Or, just add that bold to the start of each paragraph for skimming? Cheers!
--2602:306:CFCE:1EE0:3044:A2C3:2683:987B (talk) 19:47, 4 November 2018 (UTC)Doug Bashford

I have added a banner to this section, to draw the attention of people just visiting the article but not the talk page. This section is definitely too long to be inclusive of the average person visiting the page.
Rowrowrow64 (talk) 00:22, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Article editing 15.09.21

I wrote a paragraph about the position of researchers who advocate for social media. Without this information, the subtitle "Social media bias" was incomplete and seemed excessively one-sided. In addition, I provided a link to a source of information for 2021 (while the paragraph cited older sources)

Sources I used:

- https://morningconsult.com/opinions/the-facts-on-social-media-bias/

- https://www.internetlivestats.com/twitter-statistics/

- https://www.digitaltrends.com/social-media/according-to-facebook-there-are-350-million-photos-uploaded-on-the-social-network-daily-and-thats-just-crazy /

My edits are not related to the part of the article that the arbitral award identified as related to the Arab-Israeli conflict, and for which editing requires special powers. --Persecuted editors (talk) 16:37, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Edited September 21, 2021

I've added new links (from trusted sources) and corrected the citation method from the previous source so that I don't feel like I'm infringing someone else's copyright. --Persecuted editors (talk) 11:00, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Alissalarocca.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 03:44, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 9 September 2020 and 18 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Qiuyan Zuo, Jbuch055.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 00:47, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 2 September 2020 and 11 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): N sanford.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 00:47, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 25 August 2020 and 18 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: HunterWWW, Blacksalmon23.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 00:47, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

English

As a writer of an information essay why does bias information considered a bane in your write up 175.176.68.178 (talk) 02:05, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

The goal of Wikipedia is to present reliable information. Bias causes people to believe things that are not true. Rick Norwood (talk) 11:41, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Technical and Scientific Communication

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 22 August 2022 and 9 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Agomezgarcia (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Agomezgarcia (talk) 02:01, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

  1. ^ Scott McClellan, "What Happened: Inside the Bush White House and Washington's Culture of Deception", PublicAffairs, 2008, ISBN 978-1586485566.
  2. ^ The Breakthrough: Politics and Race in the Age of Obama (Hardcover), amazon.com
  3. ^ PBS Debate Moderator Writes 'Breakthrough' Book About 'Upstanding' Obama, Black Democrats, newsbusters.com, October 1, 2008
  4. ^ VP Debate Moderator Pens Pro-Obama Book, Fox News, October 1, 2008
  5. ^ Ben Bagdikian - The New Media Monopoly
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Media_bias/Archive_2&oldid=1187714769"