Talk:Media bias in the United States/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Media Concentration as a conservative bias?

I dont think that media concentration ,at least the way it is described in this article, constitutes a striclty conservative bias. What is described is a bias of large corporate media outlets to downplay stories that may negatively impact the self interest of their parent companies. I think the assumption made, that all stories ciritcal of these corporations would by definition be liberal, isnt necasarily true. It seems just as probable to me that a corporate news outlet would silence a story about its parent company that would displease its conservative audience. Clearly this kind of bias has a paramount impact on our media; I think that it should be removed from "conservative bias" and given its own section, as its impact is broader than that of a pre-defined partisanship. Solidstatesurvivor (talk) 17:36, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

This is a naive statement, a majority of criticism of large corporations comes from liberals, while the defense of these large conglomerates comes almost entirely from the right. There is undoubtedly a pro corporate conservative bias in the media to say otherwise is naive. We need to remove the entire liberal bias section, it is entirely inaccurate and uses blogs as sources.

Racial Bias

The mainstream media is frequently criticized for a percieved racial bias. This is worth mentioning on the page. 98.20.175.216 (talk) 14:38, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Removed reference to black images in the white mind because it was a dead link.69.29.30.112 (talk) 06:40, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Infotainment

Why aren't The Daily Show and The Colbert Report mentioned? While they are admittedly not a news program, they are labeled as "infotainment," and both have a bias (The Daily Show with a liberal bias, and The Colbert Report with a (supposed) conservative bias). I think they should be added to this section. J DIGGITY SPEAKS 15:31, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

First, both Colbert and Stewart are liberals. Colbert is mocking conservatives, not pretending to be one. Second, they are remarkably unbiased. They have conservative guests on their show, and gleefully point out cases where liberals make fools of themselves. As Scott Adams, also a liberal, also sometimes accused of bias, points out in the title of one of the Dilbert books, "I'm not anti-business, I'm anti-stupid." Rick Norwood (talk) 15:38, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

First, I am fully aware of the fact that Colbert is mocking conservatives. That's why I said "supposed bias." Second, "remarkably unbiased"? Do you even watch those shows? I watch them all the time, and their main targets are conservatives. I mean, you just said it yourself! "Colbert is mocking conservatives..." I don't think bias is measured by the ideology of their guests, it is measured by the positions of their stories. That's like saying, "Oh, SNL made fun of Obama, they are obviously unbiased!" Not if they are making fun of him because he's not being liberal enough for them. Look, for instance, at the liberal guests they have. At least 75% of the time, they get no opposition from Stewart. Colbert is a little better at opposition, but he spends all his time making snide comments that are supposed to "sound" like a conservative's viewpoint. Every single conservative guest Stewart has is grilled to the best of his ability (and he is a pretty good questioner, especially for a comedian). Specifically, look at the episode where Stewart had Bill Maher on. His first sentence was, "Look at what our guy is doing," in reference to Obama. And Maher had free reign to say pretty much whatever he wanted. Conversely, when Mike Huckabee was on, he was grilled. Jim Cramer, grilled (While I don't think Cramer is a conservative leader, he is a free-market guy). John McCain, grilled. I have yet to see a liberal get grilled simply because they are a liberal, and not because they didn't do something that pissed Stewart and the liberal base off. No bias? You sure? J DIGGITY SPEAKS 16:07, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

No, I'm not sure. I think John Stewart is trying, first, to be funny, but second to be thoughtful. He lacks the knee-jerk Fox News reaction that everything the Democrats do is wrong -- even things Fox News said were right when Bush did them. And if conservatives tend to contradict themselves, then it isn't necessarily bias to point it out. John Stewart often runs pieces that show President Obama, Hillery Clinton, and Nancy Pelosi making fools of themselves. But John Stewart is a liberal, and I admit that it is a lot harder to see bias you agree with than it is to see bias you disagree with. Rick Norwood (talk) 16:25, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I know this probably doesn't add much to the discussion but the title of the Dilbert book in question is not "I'm not anti-business, I'm anti-stupid." it's actually "I'm Not Anti-Business, I'm Anti-Idiot". I'm just putting that out there. I Feel Tired (talk) 03:39, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:07, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

CNS and para about Fox News

Recent edits have removed and reinserted a subsubsection about Fox News using 1 ref, http://web.archive.org/web/20071225012733/http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCommentary.asp?Page=\Commentary\archive\200311\COM20031107b.html with debate in edit comments about whether Cybercast News Service (CNS) is a WP:Reliable Source. (I checked for discussion of this question at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard, but all I found was this inconclusive thread.)

As a general rule, I would rather not rely on CNS as the only source for claims. I have seen CNS articles that looked very reliable, but their more dramatic stories often seem hard to believe.

In this case, there is an extra complication: the quote we used is reported only in order to argue against it. That makes me very reluctant to treat the quote as a WP:RS. And there is no source at all for the last sentence, about Bill O'Reilly. So I think we should drop that subsubsection unless someone finds [a] much better source[s] for those claims. What do other contributors think? CWC 12:34, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

As the editor who removed the subsection, I obviously agree with you. If someone can find a more reliable source, then the material (at least part of it) can be re-added.--Drrll (talk) 13:18, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I've restored the paragraph, but provided the original source of the quote, in place of a secondary source. I have no idea where the sentence about Bill O'Reilly came from, and it should be either sourced or removed. Rick Norwood (talk) 14:08, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Looks fine to me now. Thanks everyone, CWC 05:17, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Outdated Links

Link 78 doesn't work DeltoidNoob (talk) 16:28, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Why the silence from The Post on Black Panther Party story?

"Why the Silence From The Post on Black Panther Party Story?," by Andrew Alexander, Ombudsman, The Washington Post, 18 July 2010, A17.

I thought some regular editors on this page may be interested in this article by the Washington Post's ombudsman.

And if this page does not already discuss how the MSM does not report stories it does not want the public to hear, this might be a good example. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 06:33, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Hmmmm, I was initially prepared to dismiss this one, as it was just a singular event, but the fact that they felt the need to address the concerns through a column might actually make it inclusion worthy. I will, however, wait for others to weigh in. Personally I would still say no, not significant enough, but that's just me. Soxwon (talk) 17:02, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Good idea. Know, however, this is not the first paper to say substantially the same thing. Perhaps a number of such comments from different ombudsman in different media may be of interest. Think about it. Why are there ombudsmen at media outlets in the first place? --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 07:02, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Interesting. This may be relevant: http://www.ajr.org/article.asp?id=3824 --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 07:05, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

"News organizations have '"blind spots," those areas that have achieved popularity in American society but have gained almost no foothold among journalists,' Needs wrote in a column last year. 'Newspeople do not hunt, in much the same way they generally don't go to gun shows, don't play video games and don't watch auto racing.' He called on the Beacon Journal to cover these areas more thoroughly."

You can say that again. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 07:11, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

This might be called "middle class bias", or even "old people" bias. There seems to be a vicious cycle -- young people don't read newspapers, so newspapers do not report on things young people are interested in, so young people don't read newspapers. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:29, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Removed Fred Barnes quote from Liberal Bias section

I was initially struck by the quote from Fred Barnes ("yes, there's liberal bias in the media, but there's no conspiracy") on three grounds: first, who is Fred Barnes; second, what is the quote's source; and third, what does this lend to the discussion? On the first count, Barnes, who was originally described as "a journalist himself," is not just a journalist commenting on his profession, but an editor for a neoconservative publication. Since that seemed to be a relevant - in fact, important to note - I substituted his specific title for the vague, misleading identifier. On the second count, the source of the quote is an opinion column Barnes wrote. While Barnes may be notable in other realms, on the issues of bias and objectivity, his opinions would have to be regarded as less than objective. On the third count, in light of everything else, this quote might fit into a section entitled "Conservative Viewpoints on Media Bias," but it does not belong in a description of the nature of liberal bias. In fact, academic studies and historical accounts aside, most of this article amounts to a patchwork of subjective charges that appear to be aimed at proving the case that mainstream media has a liberal bias, as opposed to defining the subject in an objective manner. Since the quote from Barnes is one of the more obvious examples of that, I subsequently removed the quote entirely. I also plan to add a NPOV template to the article, but would appreciate feedback from other editors. Thank you. Allreet (talk) 19:43, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I think the reason the Barnes quote is often considered significant is that it is a case of a conservative taking a moderate point of view -- that there is no conspiracy. Coming from a conservative, the statement has more weight. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:52, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

I've been away from this page for a while, so I apologize for not responding sooner. Looking at the quote again, there's probably a place for it somewhere, because it is interesting. But I don't think its interest is based on a conservative taking a moderate point of view. Barnes was being ironic, and the humor in that depends on the reader. My broader plaint regarding NPOV (on both sides) continues, and from what I've seen here and in similar articles - health care reform, government spending, Fox News - the problem is inevitable. Few people other than certain professionals, for example, political scientists and opinion pollsters, have a neutral interest in politics, so most people drawn to such pages are likely to bring their politics with them. I'll make one notable exception: WP editors who have a stronger interest in accuracy, getting it right, than in proving their "side" right. My POV is that more liberals than conservatives are likely to be so liberal and that the same holds true in journalism. Allreet (talk) 22:43, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Pro-government bias

I moved the following section here. No doubt, much of what it says is true. But it reads like an editorial and contains no references. The author should provide references before returning it to the article. Rick Norwood (talk) 22:06, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

"====Examples==== Examples of this bias include the failure of the media to question the legality of the Vietnam War (while greatly emphasizing the Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan as an act of aggression). Other biases include a propensity to emphasize violent acts "genocide" more in enemy or unfriendly countries such as Kosovo while de-emphasizing greater genocide in allied countries such as the Indonesian occupation of East Timor. This bias also carries into elections, giving favorable media coverage to fraudulent elections in allied countries such as El Salvador and Guatemala, while unfavorable coverage is given to legitimate elections in enemy countries such as Nicaragua.

Other biases are based on only reporting scandals which benefit a section of power, while ignoring scandals that impact the powerless. The biggest example of this is how the media greatly covered the Watergate Scandal, but ignored coverage of the COINTELPRO exposures. While Watergate helped Democrats, and only harmed people politically, COINTELPRO harmed average citizens and went as far as political assassination. Other examples include the Iran-Contra Scandal which only focused people in power such as Oliver North but omitted coverage of the civilians killed in Nicaragua as the result of aid to the contras."

This has nothing to do with pro government bias, its a pro corporate bias. The military industrial complex keeps us at war more then our government. Corporations also control the media.99.38.230.227 (talk) 14:18, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Fox News

Two editors have removed the following quote, one on the grounds that it is "contemporary", one while removing the information that many of the quotes in the article are by self-identified conservatives. I don't want to get into an edit war, but it seems to me that this quote is both accurate and informative, and that Fox News is the most striking example of media bias in the United States today. Comments?

"According to the December 18, 2010 issue of The Atlantic, "One alleged news network fed its audience a diet of lies, while contributing financially to the party that benefited from those lies. Those who work for Fox News are not working for a journalistic enterprise. They are working for the communications department of a political party." "

Rick Norwood (talk) 12:47, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Out of the thousands of commentaries on media bias, why is that one by Andrew Sullivan noteworthy? If we include this, shouldn't we include the commentary by the likes of Brent Bozell, who actually runs an organization devoted to pointing out media bias? Fox News is actually the most striking example of a prominent news organization that doesn't follow the standard template of liberal bias by the other prominent news organizations. Drrll (talk) 02:07, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Skipping the liberal bias part, I agree with Drrll. What sets this quote apart and makes it so necessary for inclusion? Soxwon (talk) 05:14, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

This is the old claim that 100% conservative news is "fair and balanced" and 90% conservative news shows liberal bias. The article does quote many conservative views. It should also quote liberal views. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:14, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I am not making any claims of bias, I am simply asking why this quote is picked above all others that have to do with the subject. Soxwon (talk) 14:30, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I chose the quote because it is backed up with statistical evidence and appeared in a major publication, which is at least as good a reason as the reason for the many conservative quotes that appear in the article.

Rick Norwood (talk) 18:46, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

FIne, good enough for me. Soxwon (talk) 20:46, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Electoral coverage

The 2004 MIT study in the section on electoral politics is being cited incorrectly to give an impression that runs contrary to the findings. The study found that since the 1940's there has been a dramatic shift in newspaper endorsements of political candidates from partisanship-based to incumbency-based, a four-fold change. Where endorsements once heavily favored Republicans, they now run heavily in favor of incumbents, regardless of party affiliation. That was the main finding of the study, not a shift in ideological focus, which is the impression given by the paragraph. Yes, endorsements now slightly favor Democrats, but as stated this is made to sound as a negative trend toward media bias. The study's authors emphasize they found nothing to indicate bias (except regarding incumbency), and they emphasize this throughout. Furthermore, the words "continuously eroded" are not theirs but an editor's. Someone with less of a bias should read the study carefully and re-write the paragraph to give a more accurate synopsis. Allreet (talk) 21:56, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Entire liberal bias section needs to be removed

There is no liberal bias, the section uses blogs as sources, uses polls from the 1980's that don't show anything, makes claims that the sources provided do not support, and is NPOV. Media in the US is owned by 6 corporations all of whom have conservative economic agendas. That is undeniable.99.38.230.227 (talk) 14:33, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

You will do well to calm down and make edits one at a time. I tend to agree with you, but you can't rewrite the entire article in a day. If you discuss edits here first, they are much more likely to be incorporated into the article. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:16, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I can understand the editors frustration. I added a bit on the role the fairness doctrine plays in media bias to the conservative bias section, repeal of the fairness doctrine has had major effects on what and how stories are reported. It should be mentioned in some way.McGlockin (talk) 05:08, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

You need better sourcing than wikipedia I'm afraid. Soxwon (talk) 05:44, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

I added a different source which specifically lists the groups that fought for the repeal of the fairness doctrine, they are all conservative.McGlockin (talk) 02:37, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Norwood, if you have a criticism of my edits please post them here before you delete. Thank you.McGlockin (talk) 20:13, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

The Republican Noise Machine? Can we PLEASE get some better sourcing! Preferably something acadamic... Soxwon (talk) 20:27, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

So your reason for removing the content is the name? You are going to need a better reason then that. The liberal bias section uses conservative think tanks as sources... Also the campaign contribution amounts use the same source as in the liberal media section. Why are you deleting that? If you continue doing so I will delete the campaign donation part from the liberal media section as that is only fair.McGlockin (talk) 23:41, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)First of all, that was not scholarly work, it was written by David Brock, founder of Media Matters for America. You need to source the criticism to Brock instead of stating it as fact. Second of all, the contribution came from News Corp. not Rupert Murdoch. I will stick that in. Soxwon (talk) 23:51, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

I never said it was, the liberal media bias section is full of non scholarly sources, why don't you hold that section to your same rigorous standards?McGlockin (talk) 00:05, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I have added a qualifier for the statement I felt needed it, I am now satisfied. Soxwon (talk) 00:22, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Some sources say it was Murdoch directly who donated the 1 million, regardless, the donation was not made my Fox News. If the donation was made by News Corp, it was undoubtedly under instruction of Rupert Murdoch. I have moved it back and added a source for this claim.McGlockin (talk) 00:55, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

New editor tries to "settle" the bias question with claims that liberal bias is so obvious that claims of liberal bias do not need evidence.

Dear anonymous: You are fighting a battle that has been fought here many times before. Conservatives claim the media shows liberal bias. Liberals claim the media shows conservative bias. This article remains neutral, presenting both points of view. Rick Norwood (talk) 18:24, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Ongoing attempt to support conservative claims with a conservative source.

According to Reality Check, "Leaders of America's conservative movement have long believed that within the national news media a strident liberal bias existed that influenced the public's understanding of critical issues." This only shows, however, that conservatives believe that conservatives are correct and liberals are wrong, and cannot be used to settle the issue. A mainstream source would be neither avowedly liberal nor avowedly conservative. Examples include snopes.com and factcheck.org, both of which give plenty of examples of both liberal bias and conservative bias. Rick Norwood 14:08, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

example about yugoslavia

Can we add that as well? http://web.archive.org/web/20080418041227/www.michaelparenti.org/yugoslavia.html 188.2.166.155 (talk) 11:18, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

o.k. guys, here's a nice relevant reference: http://ejc.sagepub.com/content/15/3/383.short

and another one: http://ics.leeds.ac.uk/papers/pmt/exhibits/2556/Dixon.pdf

I'll be writing a draft paragraph on the issue.

188.2.166.155 (talk) 14:07, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Serious NPOV problems with the section on pro vs. anti-Israel bias

The section on "pro" vs. "anti"-Israel bias has major POV problems. Both sections basically assert, quoting leftist and/or far-left writers, that US media is highly pro-Israel. The only difference is the "pro" section simply says "US media is pro-Israel" while the "anti" section basically says "Highly pro-Israel commentators who are waging a propaganda war on behalf of the evil Jewish lobby think the US media is anti-Israel". Obviously someone who has a strong POV on this issue has written this section. Note that every single assertion in the "anti-Israel" section is accompanied by sniggering rebuttals about how all these anti-Israel claims are nothing but smears of the "Jewish lobby", a "myopic and vindictive special interest group trying to muscle its views into media coverage" fighting an "emotional" "hasbara [propaganda] war" on behalf of Israel; on the other hand, not a single one in the "pro-Israel" section has any rebuttal at all. Nearly every quote comes from stridently anti-Israel commentators -- Walt and Mearsheimer actually appear directly on nearly directly as authorities on both sides of the issue. I'm tempted to delete the entire "anti-Israel" side because it is completely disingenuous, full of poisoning the well attacks, and borderline antisemitic in its references to the "Jewish lobby".

On top of this, there was a long section giving info like "only 4% of articles said that Israel is occupied". I delete it because by itself it says nothing, and thinking it does is a violation of WP:SYNTH (synthesizing ideas not present in the sources). To include this, you need to find an explicit assertion claiming that this shows bias, and source it to who said it.

The "anti-Israel" side needs to quote pro-Israel commentators making genuine arguments, just like the "pro-Israel" side is quoting anti-Israel commentators. It should not quote anti-Israel commentators; nor should it impugn the motives of the commentators, unless something similar is done on the other side; nor should it quote pro-Israel watchdog organizations like CAMERA unless similar quoting of pro-Palestinian watchdog organizations happens on the other side. There are plenty of ideological opposites who can be cited to complement Zunes, Walt, Mearsheimer and the like, e.g. Alan Dershowitz and Daniel Pipes. Benwing (talk) 07:40, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Since this comment has been sitting without others' comment for more than three months, it is apparent that, despite this particular condemnation of it, the remaining prose has not elicited similar or opposing views sufficient to cause editorial change. So to a point, it has established editorial consensus for the existing content to remain. Having just come across the comment but being familiar with the content, some background on it might be helpful for all.

The current foreign policy prose was initially inserted in the lede [1] more than a year ago, because article content was concentrating overly on domestic liberal and/or conservative ideologies of politics or economics, and insufficiently weighted (in this case foreign policy) toward specific subject areas in which media bias is evident or purported. Given the many other foreign policy instances already included in the article, it was appropriate to make mention in the lede; it still is. In good faith this content was later moved from the lede to a specific foreign policy section.[2]

As performed however, that move struck all mention of foreign policy subjects from the lede, which seems like a too thorough lede-cleaning, given the ref'd quote's significant notability "about media objectivity", "the [specific] news subject", and other foreign-policy instances covered in the article's 'History' and 'Iraq War' sections. Based on that, I'll work on rephrasing it, seriously considering the edit comment when it was removed from the lede and providing better separation between foreign policy generally and the one aspect presently included. I also note an apparent inconsistency between where the NPOV-tag was placed, in the broader foreign policy section, and where these complaints were specifically voiced, in the sections currently titled 'Claims of a Pro-Israel media' and 'Claims of an Anti-Israel media'.

That seems likewise inaccurate and should likely require the tag's move to where those specific comments have been directed, but inserting it twice seems overkill. A simpler and more on-topic approach would be to merge and re-title the two current sections into something like Claims of pro-Israel and anti-Israel bias. Such an approach also should provide some context for other RS'd views from those not so closely associated with such simplistic, black-and-white phrases. The current phrases, I will note, are both phrased only in Israel's terms and there are others. What happened to those views which might be phrased in 'pro-Palestine' or 'anti-Palestine' terms, which seem quite different and distinct. Does pro-Israel automatically indicate anti-Palestine and vice versa; are they mutually exclusive and zero-sum? Who says so and who does not? Where is the otherwise dominant inclusion of liberal vs conservative ideologies in the Isr/Pal section; these are easily ref'd but remain unmentioned. Where are the views of American experts and scholars of journalism, who see points on both sides and have reported on the journalism produced? Where are the views of American experts and scholars of foreign and public policy, who also see points on both sides and have reported on the stated policy and its implementation? Wikipedia's encyclopedic intent demands more varied views of media bias in this regard; it certainly should not allow a presentation which provides two sides of the topic defined by only one involved side. Then again as currently presented, this section seems quite POV'd on its face, so maybe the tag should remain where it is. Comments? Regards, CasualObserver'48 (talk) 13:12, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Conservative Bias - Scott McClellan

This content isn't actually about conservative bias. It should be removed. Lionel (talk) 19:12, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

I understand your point, but the introduction to this section defines "conservative bias" as follows: "Conservative bias in the media occurs when conservative ideas have undue influence on the coverage or selection of news stories." This is clearly an example of conservative ideas having "undue influence", even though in this case the origin of that influence was the government. Rick Norwood (talk) 14:22, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

The content in question talks about undue influence by or deference to the White House. During the Bush presidency that would lead to a conservative bias. But in some other presidency, it might lead to a liberal bias. Seems like the content should be kept, but in some other section of the article. Jeff Ogden (talk) 15:47, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Maybe there should be a section on bias due to the willingness of the press to allow itself to be managed by the government? Rick Norwood (talk) 18:12, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

An Omission to be corrected.

Under the 'liberal bias' section, is the following line: "Conservative critics of the media say some bias exists within a wide variety of media channels."

While I have no problem with the general idea of criticism, I just think it needs to be pointed out that those on the right who are claiming a liberal bias tend to do so from their own, conservatively bias televison shows and radio shows. Its omission creates a wholly fictional account of the situation; I understand that it might seem hostile to point all this out in the article, but it is what it is and their motivations notwithstanding, those on conservative media networks DO make claims of bias from the left, while ignoring their own contribution to the bias on the right. 74.132.249.206 (talk) 21:27, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Claims of liberal bias; correction of material reflecting Gallup poll source

A paragraph discussing a Gallup poll of public perception began with the sentence:

Gallup Polls of public perception have repeatedly shown that most claim a liberal bias in the media.

In fact, the source cited only covered 2011 and 2010, and showed that significantly less than a majority perceived a liberal bias in the media.

Additionally, a later sentence read:

These results are consistant with historical values.

However, the article said nothing about whether the perceptions of liberal vs. conservative bias were "consistent with historical values". Rather, it said that the percentage of people perceiving no bias in the media found in the 2010-11 poll results were consistent with past results.

Overall, the effect of these two sentences was to imply that the majority of Americans have historically perceived a liberal bias in the media. This was a drastic misrepresentation of the source. I corrected the first inaccurate sentence and deleted the second. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 01:08, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Not sure where you are getting only 2010 and 2011. The second chart clearly shows that there has been little if any statistical change since 2002. Gallup does state that the results are not statistically different than 2010, however the wording didn't make any statistical claims which misrepresent the source. According to Gallup, and this is quite clear from the source, there has been a majority of the population that has seen media bias since at least 2002, and by a three to one margin those people have seen a liberal bias. I thought the wording was quite consistant with the source and our differences aside, Gamaliel's edit appropriate as well. Arzel (talk) 02:43, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

The source discusses only comparisons of the bias data between 2010 and 2011. We report conclusions that sources make; we don't re-analyze their data for ourselves to come up with our own conclusions. The source says nothing about a trend going back to 2002, and even if it did, referring to it in the way you did ("polls have repeatedly shown...") would give the misleading impression that the source said this has been a long-standing trend; the source does not say that. Yes, obviously as I said the article does clearly talk about a majority of Americans perceiving bias in the media, and that of these people, a majority see the bias as a liberal one; but again, as I just explained, this is quite different from saying that a majority of Americans perceive a liberal bias, which is what the highly objectionable text which you just edit-warringly re-inserted says.

So in sum, every objection I raised to the text is accurate, and every defense to those objections you just raised is misguided or outright false. Thus I am undoing your reversion to the bad text. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 16:02, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I assume you can view the graphs that are included in the source which clearly go back before 2010 and clearly show the trend to be consistent. You may not like it, but reflects the source correctly. Arzel (talk) 15:30, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Of course I can see the graphs. But, I assume you understand English well enough to realize that even if we were allowed to pick through sources and re-interpret their data to yield our own conclusions (which we're not), the text you inserted still badly misrepresents the data presented.

You keep inserting the claim "Gallup Polls of public perception have repeatedly shown that most claim a liberal bias in the media." In fact, the data do NOT show that "most" claim a liberal bias in the media. Both the original article you cited and the new one you have added repeatedly make this clear. I don't see how you can keep inserting POV-pushing claims that are clearly and directly contradicted by the sources they cite. This seems to be the very picture of dishonest, agenda-driven editing.

Further, Gallup is careful only to state conclusions about the past two years. If their data says the trend actually goes back 10+ years, why don't they say that? It's not our place to put words in the mouth of sources. Finally, even if we just look to the data Gallup is basing its statements on, we see it only goes back just over a decade, whereas you keep insisting on re-inserting text that generalizes this into saying that the polls "have repeatedly shown", thus giving the misleading impression that they claim to be talking about a long-standing historical trend.. which they don't, or that they are citing data which would substantiate such a trend... which they aren't..

Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 16:59, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Another source, one which makes the distinction you seem to not want to admit, and which clearly states the claim I made. FYI, Most Americans which percieve media bias percieve that bias to be Liberal, by a roughly 4-1 margin. Arzel (talk) 03:59, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Jesus Christ. This is still not the same as saying that a majority of Americans perceive a liberal media bias, which is what your text said. And in discussing perceptions of media bias, this new source simply cites the same Gallup poll we have already been discussing. It does not seem to add anything new or to add any support to claims you previously tried to insert.

(Once again, by all means, feel free to cite actual article text instead of simply declaring, contrary to reality, that the sources support your claims. So, for example, when you say the article "clearly states the claim I made", you should feel free to identify the specific text you're talking about, so perhaps others could know both what the claim is and why you think the article supports it.)

I'm not even sure where you get this "four to one margin" business; it seems to be yet another claim not advanced by the sources that you are manufacturing yourself, as explicitly prohibited by WP:NOR. I suspect you are simply taking the poll numbers from the Gallup poll and dividing 47 by 13 to yield 3.6, and then rounding that number up for added dramatic effect?

Finally, please don't lecture me that I "don't seem to want to admit" the claims you're making—which have yet to be substantiated by any of the sources you're presenting. I already put forth the effort to re-write the material to accurately reflect the sources; it's completely bizarre and inexplicable that you are insisting on a version that I have already shown to be badly inaccurate. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 13:42, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

History did not begin in 2002. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:50, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Not saying it did. The source made the historical statement, I simply repeated the wording of the source. Arzel (talk) 14:33, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

As was just clearly explained to you, no the source did not make that historical statement; instead, you distorted what the source was saying. Please pay more careful attention to comments on the talk page, and please be more careful when you are paraphrasing a source in order to add material to an article. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 15:50, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Please read the source clearly before making false statements. I am not paraphrasing anything, and the source clearly made those statements. Arzel (talk) 15:29, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Again: the source did not make that statement; nor does the second one you've added. Listen, pal, since I can't cite the non-existent text that doesn't support what you're saying, why don't you do us all a favor and cite the text which you think does support what you're saying? Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 17:01, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I added in the previous years report as well (which is linked in the current report, but whatever) which does a better job of stating the obvious. Arzel (talk) 15:36, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Looking at the current summary, it is indeed incorrect. The first sentence isn't supported by the source, neither in data, nor in synthesis. I'll be synching the content to the source presently. aprock (talk) 16:44, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I've synched the source, handling the historic wording in a parallel manner as the Gallup press release. aprock (talk) 16:58, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm a little partial to the wording I had given it before, but don't see a problem with your write-up. :) What's coming into focus now, though, is that when accurately worded, the picture painted by the source is one of distrust of the media and perceptions of bias in general, and so it seems a bit out of place in the "liberal bias" section (and would be equally out of place in the "conservative bias") section. (The same is true of the way I had previously worded the material.) I wonder if it might be couched in more general terms, with a possible reference to both the liberal and conservative bias claims? Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 17:07, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree with moving it. The poll is discussing conservative/liberal bias, not just liberal bias. A section on ideological bias should be added, with both the liberal and conservative bias sections being subsections of that. aprock (talk) 17:14, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Reverting edit attributed to WP:RS

The recent revert seems to relate to Gamaliel's personal opinion of the worth of Kristol and seems to believe his opinion supersedes the fact that Kristol is notable in this regard, and that the book cited is a reliable source. If liking the guy or adopting his views were a requisite, there would be many more edits reverted. But who's opinion should prevail, I suggest Wikipedia's and follow WP:RS and WP:V. By all means not Gamaliel's opinion. My76Strat (talk) 06:04, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Please mention/discuss the "Journolist", Gary Hart, John Edwards, etc.

in addition to the polls that showed that ~75% of MSM reporters were liberals, i find it silly that there is no mention in this article of the "Journolist", which was an actual leftist conspiracy by reporters to influence the news in the U.S. and then you can look back at the past of lets just say infidelities of the political candidates:

  1) why did it take the National Enquirer to find out about Gary Hart in 1988 when he actually
     challenged the MSM to prove his cheating?? did the MSM actually even try to find anything on him,
     did they spend a nickel?

  2) Jon Edwards - again it takes the Nat'l Enquirer to find this cheater while the MSM
      diddled.   were they outspent by NI?? hard to believe when you consider that the MSM
      had the funds to send a reporter to interview John McCain's captors in Vietnam.

  3)  on the subject of McCain, the NYT ran acticles supporting him then a few months
      later ran front page with a false story about McCain having affair with his
      secretary(??).....reminds of the Dan Rather story where he was so bent on getting
      rid of GW Bush that he ruined his career on false documents.....and we had Politico
      running the story on Herman Cain - they went so far as to quote "an anonymous friend
      of an anonymous source"  (LOL)

      and on the other side we had who was it, the Washington Post(?) sitting on
      the Bill Clinton x Monica Lewinsky scandal for 2 MONTHS!!! until it finally took
      Drudge to break that story....and we were supposed to believe everything 
      Anita Hill said but in the 20+ years since that episode there hasn't been
      any other person at all step forward with more "evidence" vs Clarence Thomas
      when we know these kind of people(harassers/abusers) tend repeat their 
      behaviours over and over again....and then in the case of Bill Clinton the
      media went to extreme lengths to investigate and attempt to disprove his
      accusers and of course it turned out that they were all correct...

  there is a well-documented history of liberal bias in the MSM in this country(US)
  and if you can't admit that you're basically a LIAR...

 one more for the road for those with their head in the sand - how is it that
  the main MSM (NBC, ABC, CBS) didn't even mention obama's connections to 
  bill ayers during the democrat primaries on their evening newscasts?????

   and another thing, when was the last conservative anchor at NBC, ABC, or CBS??  
   we know rather, brokaw, jennings, and couric were all liberals - who else is/was?
   Brian Williams is prob a lefty. and how about all the rest. how about we make
   a list and just see the patterns...  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.43.55.216 (talk) 18:17, 10 December 2011 (UTC) 

This is not a chat room. Rick Norwood (talk) 18:45, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

2008 Presidential Election

The new material added on the 2008 US presidential election is disproportionately large. Imagine if a similar amount of material were added about every US presidential election! I think the author of the material is probably the best person to cut it down to a few well-chosen sentences that reflect on larger issues rather than just on current personalities, who will be forgotten in a few years. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:35, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Definition

Is it bias when media report "a particular point of view"? If, for example, media report the point of view that (to take an extreme example) murder is bad, is that "bias". It seems to me clearly not. It's a difficult issue, but I don't think the current lead captures the fundamental idea of what bias is. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:59, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Onging thoughts on bias. The current issue of Time magazine has an article on what is and is not bias, and expresses the view that the media often bends over backwards to avoid accusations of bias, and it is time the media grew a backbone, and reported the truth, without fear or furvor. At the same time come reports that conservatives are greatly increasing the amount of money they spend to convince people that any media that reports the truth is biased.

As a tentative definition of bias: media bias occurs when the media adopt a particular point of view due to mis-information, irrational belief, or self-interest. This isn't quite it. And we need a source. But it is closer than "a particular point of view". Rick Norwood (talk) 13:01, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Whitehouse and Media Matters connected . . .

Here are two articles breaking and making news today:

• http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/02/13/dershowitz-warns-democrats-to-drop-media-matters/
• http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/02/13/reports-media-matters-head-coordinates-with-white-house-builds-super-pac/?test=latestnews

It is said that some news outlets (like msNBC) just take the Media Matters bias and report it as their own. Another point is that Media Matters and the White House have talked weekly, (getting talking points?). —— Hope this helps the article, Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 05:39, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Completely untrue statement . . .

A good example of why Wiki fails so often - the following statement is 100% false yet because a "source" can be listed it is accepted. The truth is it the statement is accpeted because it fits a popular percpetion, a perception that is equally poor

"During the civil rights movement in the 1960s, some White Southerners[who?] stated that television was biased against White Southerners and in favor of mixing of the races. In some cases, Southern television stations refused to air programs such as I Spy and Star Trek, because of their racially mixed casts."

Fact is, in the 1960's to this day the Southern States are far more culturally diverse. Texas, which makes up a large portion of the south was once part of Mexico and does not even have any British heritage, it is easily the most diverse state in the United States — Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.203.42.50 (talk) 14:45, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Good points. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 15:50, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Of course, Nichelle Nichols's published remarks carry more weight than my personal memory, but I grew up in the South under segregation and was a big Star Trek fan. I remember my disappointment when WWL, the New Orleans TV station, decided not to carry Star Trek. I don't know the background for the decission, but Louisiana was strongly pro-segregation in the fifties and sixties. Also, I don't see what Texas having a large Hispanic population and being "culturally diverse" has to do with opposition to civil rights for Negroes. Texas was very strong in its opposition to civil rights. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:23, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Completely untrue statement . . .

A good example of why Wiki fails so often - the following statement is 100% false yet because a "source" can be listed it is accepted. The truth is it the statement is accpeted because it fits a popular percpetion, a perception that is equally poor

"During the civil rights movement in the 1960s, some White Southerners[who?] stated that television was biased against White Southerners and in favor of mixing of the races. In some cases, Southern television stations refused to air programs such as I Spy and Star Trek, because of their racially mixed casts."

Fact is, in the 1960's to this day the Southern States are far more culturally diverse. Texas, which makes up a large portion of the south was once part of Mexico and does not even have any British heritage, it is easily the most diverse state in the United States — Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.203.42.50 (talk) 14:45, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Good points. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 15:50, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Of course, Nichelle Nichols's published remarks carry more weight than my personal memory, but I grew up in the South under segregation and was a big Star Trek fan. I remember my disappointment when WWL, the New Orleans TV station, decided not to carry Star Trek. I don't know the background for the decission, but Louisiana was strongly pro-segregation in the fifties and sixties. Also, I don't see what Texas having a large Hispanic population and being "culturally diverse" has to do with opposition to civil rights for Negroes. Texas was very strong in its opposition to civil rights. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:23, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

No mention of Wikipedia's Pro-Israel bias?

Gotta love the hypocrisy — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.212.173.134 (talk) 00:45, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

I dont know...

Wikipedia has a huge article that condemns Israel, but you're right, wikipedia is full of hypocrisy140.198.45.63 (talk) 01:12, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

To declare Wikipedia hypocritical implies that it intentionally mis-states the truth, when in fact it is completely up front on the issue. From the introduction to WP:Truth:

"Truth is not the criterion for inclusion of any idea or statement in a Wikipedia article, even if it is on a scientific topic...The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether the material is factually correct."

All that Wikipedia can do, then, is reflect a world that is maddeningly diverse, contradictory, ambiguous. Considering this, bias is not necessarily a bad thing, because without POV everything would be mush, an anarchy of "facts" without context or perspective. But if you object to how a given article plays out, then find the sources to offset it. Don't presume to hold "the truth" and do nothing other than pass judgment. Allreet (talk) 15:33, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Biased source?

I think it's ironic that the very first source in this article is a "news" organization whose contributors include talk show hosts Rush Limbaugh and Michael Savage and whose current line-up of "news stories" offers these gems:

• Hawaii Official Now Swears: No Obama Birth Certrificate
• Wikileaks Reveals Democrat 2008 Election Crimes
• Breitbart's Last Investigation? Obama
• Was Breitbart Assassinated?
• Rush Limbaugh Unloads on Fleeing Advertisers

Given the above, is there anyone who's not from the fringes of the far right who thinks that this is an acceptable - that is, reliable - source on the subject of media bias? Allreet (talk) 15:42, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree. Wikipedia relies on objective, academic sources. This source should be removed. Rick Norwood (talk) 18:15, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Rick. Not to get on my high horse, but an article of this nature demands higher-level sources, those that are able to rise at times above the daily fray. Since there are some people who see the New York Times or ABC as extremely biased and The American Spectator or Fox as absolutely not, ours becomes a difficult job. But clearly when a source's POV is entirely one-sided, meaning it never presents any other perspective, then their only place in the article is as an example of the subject at hand. Allreet (talk) 07:03, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

2 cites deleted

In addition to the good points made above, that article is reporting on a dated poll by Scott Rasmussen, conducted in 2002 (before he founded Rasmussen Reports). The article links to http://www.scottpolls.com/mediabias.html but that link is long dead, and the internet archive does not have a copy. We only cite the article once, in the lede para, in the second sentence:

Claims of media bias in the United States include claims of liberal bias, conservative bias, mainstream bias,<ref name="Dougherty2002">Dougherty, Jon (December 7, 2002). [http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=29906 "Most deny conservativemedia bias"]. WorldNetDaily.com. Retrieved 2007-03-28. {{cite web}}: Check |url= value (help)</ref> and corporate bias.<ref name="Ref_">Introduction: Project Censored 25th Anniversary</ref>

That projectcensorted.org link is an article by Noam Chomsky, another hyper-partisan source.

I don't think either of those cites belongs in the article, certainly not in the lede. So I'm going to remove them, per WP:BRD. Any comments? Cheers, CWC 11:19, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Claims of a conservative bias

These two publications are not disputing the fact that they are conservative leaning. Just because it looks like a news website doesn't mean they are trying to deceive people. I can turn my blog into a "news website format" if i wanted to, but that doesn't mean i'm trying to deceive anyone. This isn't a personal bias because i'm honestly indifferent to the right-left wing argument, but reviewing this i don't agree. Thehuffingtonpost would have to go on the liberal side but honestly i say we just delete it, it's not going to hurt you in the political tugowar, promise. "Conservative Media Organizations: Certain conservative media outlets such as NewsMax and WorldNetDaily describe themselves as news organizations, but are generally seen as promoting a conservative agenda" Hillstead22 (talk) 22:54, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Media bias claimed in the Virgin Island: (Ron Paul win?)

Of course there is media bias. Can it be documented for Wikipedia for the ages? Some Wikipedia editors think so, in the recent election in the Virgin Islands (a US territory). You may be interested in reading here Talk:United_States_Virgin_Islands_Republican_caucuses,_2012#Controversy? and also the many referenced news article reports. I am not the editor on either side—just an observer and commenting editor there. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 13:17, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Bias in the entertainment media.

Do you mean "discrimination of conservatives" or "discrimination against conservatives"? Rick Norwood (talk) 12:00, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

"against" may be better. Acadēmica Orientālis (talk) 19:04, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Acadēmica Orientālis edit

While by and large Acadēmica Orientālis's edit seems good to me, he has eliminated a couple of referenced quotes that strike me as making important points not mentioned elsewhere in the article, especially the Silverstein quote that was near the beginning of the article, about how "balance" is often inappropriate, as in the case where one side is clearly false and the other side clearly true (for example denial that George Washington owned slaves). Acadēmica Orientālis sees that quote as representing one side of the debate. It seems to me it is equally applicable to both sides.

Also, the following cited material was deleted:

"Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR), a self-described progressive media watch group, has argued that accusations of liberal media bias are part of a conservative strategy, noting article in the August 20, 1992 Washington Post, in which Republican party chair Rich Bond compared journalists to referees in a sporting match. "If you watch any great coach, what they try to do is 'work the refs.' Maybe the ref will cut you a little slack next time." A 1998 study from FAIR found that journalists are "mostly centrist in their political orientation"; 30% considered themselves to the left on social issues compared to 9% on the right, while 11% considered themselves to the left on economic issues compared to 19% on the right. The report explained that since journalists considered themselves to be centrists, "perhaps this is why an earlier survey found that they tended to vote for Bill Clinton in large numbers." FAIR uses this study to support the claim that media bias is propagated down from the management, and that individual journalists are relatively neutral in their work."

I do think the quote could be shortened, but the quotation by Rich Bond seems important enough to include. Maybe we could put back just the first sentence and the reference.

Finally, I don't know when it happened, but the section about anti-science bias has disappeared. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:48, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

There is a quote section at the end of the article where the quote could be. Starting the article with a long quote is not encyclopedic. Especially by a strong proponent of one side. There is also Wikiquote for quotes. If it should be in the article body, it should not be at the start of the history section, but maybe in a section arguing whether news should be biased or not. It should also be presented as an argued view using the same format as all other views and not presented as some sort of higher wisdom deserving to be especially prominent.

The cited material has not been deleted, just moved to another section.

Anything about anti-science bias I cannot remember editing. Acadēmica Orientālis (talk) 13:14, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

No, I knew it wasn't you who removed the anti-science bias section. That was just an afterthought as I campared the old version with the new.

But please explain to me how reporting that tells the truth is strongly supportive of one side. Or are you saying that the author of the quote is strongly supportive of one side, rather than the quote itself?

I'll restore the quote, but at the end of the article. And I see that the Rich Bond quote is in the article now. Maybe I just missed it before.

Rick Norwood (talk) 14:39, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Deleted content said to be an anti-semitic and controversial trope from a biased and unreliable source

The following content was deleted by 76.99.54.147 at 13:03 on 10 April 2012‎ with the edit summary, "power of jewish lobby is an anti-semitic and controversial trope...deleted reference to it; walt and mearsheimer biased on this subject, not a reliable source".

A former spokesman for the Israeli Consulate in New York said that as a result of this lobbying of the media: “Of course, a lot of self-censorship goes on. Journalists, editors, and politicians are going to think twice about criticizing Israel if they know they are going to get thousands of angry calls in a matter of hours. The Jewish lobby is good at orchestrating pressure.”^[1]

1. Mearsheimer and Walt (2007), p172

My question is, how do we know that Mearsheimer and Walt are biased and why isn't their book a reliable source? I'm just asking. I don't know anything about Mearsheimer and Walt one way or another. -Jeff Ogden (W163) (talk) 18:23, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I have restored this since no concrete reasons have been given for removal. That is a source is seen by some as having a certain POV is not in itself a reason for removal. Wikipedia includes significant POVs from all sides. Acadēmica Orientālis (talk) 22:17, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Possible Change to "Claims of anti-Israel bias"

I mostly have issue with the sentence in the first paragraph on David & Goliath that reads "The 500-page book is sourced with over 2,000 footnotes and includes statistical studies." How many pages the book consists of or how many footnotes it has seems irrelevant to it's legitimacy. No actual content from the book is described, aside from the fact that the book argues that anti-Israel bias exists. I can't see any reason why this book is distinguished from other books that make the same argument, so would it be fair to scrap the paragraph? In it's entirety, it reads as follows: In 2012, journalist Shraga Simmons released David & Goliath, a study of Western media bias in reporting the Israeli-Arab conflict. The 500-page book is sourced with over 2,000 footnotes and includes statistical studies. It argued that there is a pervasive pro-Palestinian slant in the New York Times, CNN, and much of the British media. [3]] 76.103.138.118 (talk) 07:52, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Lack of specific arguments from the book may be a reason to add argument from the book but is not a reason for deleting all mention of it A sample chapter with arguments that could be added is here: [3]. Academica Orientalis (talk) 08:22, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm just wondering why the book is considered significant enough to mention as opposed to a book like Clinton Versus Israel, or the Deadliest Lie. The writer suggests it's because "the 500-page book is sourced with over 2,000 footnotes and includes statistical studies," and I think contains simplistic faulty reasoning that should be discouraged, such as the larger a book is, the better a book is or the number of footnotes are more important than the content of the book. 76.103.138.118 (talk) 06:48, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

If there are important sources missing, then please add them. If you are just disagreeing with the footnotes and page number description, then that can be removed. I agree that there is no need to mention it since we do not do so for the other books so I will remove that part. Academica Orientalis (talk) 09:24, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Why were these removed?

• Media Avoid Climate Context In Wildfire Coverage July 3, 2012 Media Matters for America

and Media coverage of climate change

99.181.154.33 (talk) 02:39, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

See 2012 Colorado wildfires mentioned in article. 108.195.136.157 (talk) 07:07, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

2012 Election

Where, if anywhere, do the following references best used, and how?

• Barnes, Fred (2013). "The Four-Year Honeymoon". The Weekly Standard. 18 (17). The Weekly Standard LLC. Retrieved 8 January 2013.
• Elizabeth Flock (19 November 2012). "Report: Obama Coverage Turned More Favorable In Final Week Of Election". U.S. News & World Report. Retrieved 8 January 2013.
• "Both Candidates Received More Negative Than Positive Coverage In Mainstream News, but Social Media Was Even Harsher". Journalism.org. Pew Research Center. 2 November 2013. Retrieved 8 January 2013.

I get that the first cite is commentary, however the other two cites show that Romney received more negative coverage than Obama overall. Would this best be used to build a new section on the 2012 United States Presidential Election, or integrated into that article? I will leave a link in that article consistent with WP:CANVASS#Appropriate notification at that article.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 15:24, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

This sounds like original research to me. Negative coverage is not the same thing as bias. The third source is even explicit about this: The study of the tone in news coverage is not an examination of media bias. The second source is not a news column ("a fun, insider's view of Washington") and does not mention bias at all. aprock (talk) 21:41, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

The second source summarizes this report produced by the Pew Research Center, the same source of the third source. That being said, only using the Pew Research Center data, it shows that more negative stories were written about Romney, and more positive stories were written about Obama, additionally more coverage of Obama occurred.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:29, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

The Pew Research Center report doesn't mention bias either. aprock (talk) 23:53, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

RightCowLeftCoast: Your response makes me wonder if you understand Aprock's comment "Negative coverage is not the same thing as bias." Rick Norwood (talk) 13:20, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

You are absolutely correct, negative coverage does not always equal bias. However, in order to show that this distinction holds true, the negative coverage must be warranted (i.e. that Romney was really just an evil capitalist that wanted to give people's husbands cancer and then take their money and put it in Bermuda. What a riot considering he was the most liberal Republican in history back as governor of Massachusetts--the father of Romneycare and supporter of same sex marriage). I think together, the three sources make the case that there is negative coverage and that such negative attention is not warranted. Thus, there is good reason to make a heading for the 2012 election considering there is so much data about a colossal disparity in coverage and why that disparity was motivated by bias.--173.76.46.132 (talk) 03:19, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

It isn't enough for you to think that three sources make a case, you need to find a reliable published source that makes the case. If you do it yourself, you are engaged in original research or an improper synthesis of multiple sources. --Jeff Ogden (W163) (talk) 04:01, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Graph under Conservative Bias

Just wondering...if the idea of wikipedia is to give a generally unbiased telling of the situation..why would we use a Liberal group's graph (which is openly admitted to be subjective [eg. they use the word "they say"]) to prove a conservative bias when the entire stated position of the group is that there is conservative bias? What would we expect them to say? That it doesn't exist? Including the graph is like including a scientific article from a pro-creationist group under a section entitled "criticism of the big bang theory". It just doesn't make sense.

I agree that the graph should go, especially since it does not show what it claims to show.Rick Norwood (talk) 19:46, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Also agree. Thargor Orlando (talk) 21:38, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Right under the graph the description states, "Studies done by FAIR - a progressive media watchdog organization - argue that the majority of media citations[clarification needed] come from conservative and centrist sources." -- But the graph shows that in the last few years more citations actually come from non-conservative sources (look at the bars). 209.147.144.7 (talk) 08:52, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

 Done. I went ahead and deleted the graph. I don't see a problem with citing reports from FAIR in an article such as this where there are different sides to an argument and organizations from both sides are cited. And phrases like "they say" are used to make it clear that the claim is from a particular organization and not something that is necessarily accepted as fact, which seems appropriate. The real problem witih the graph from my point of view is that it doesn't help make the case for either a conservative or a liberal bias, but rather seems to support the idea that the media isn't particularly biased or perhaps is balanced. As such including it in the section on conservative bias is confusing. It would be confusing if it were in the section on a liberal bias too. --Jeff Ogden (W163) (talk) 15:25, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Link Trouble

note # 44. pertaining to a study of media bias by Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting does not link to any relevant page- I found nothing relating to said study. Furthermore, a brief search on Yahoo! yielded no pertinent results. In addition, following 'Purported Pro-Israel bias' under External Links takes one to an Error 404 page on the FAIR website.Cheechnig (talk) 00:22, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

 Done. I fixed the link problems on note # 44 and 'Purported Pro-Israel bias' in the External links section. --Jeff Ogden (W163) (talk) 15:04, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

There were several other problems with links in the External links section. I fixed the ones I could and marked the rest as 'Dead links'. If someone doesn't fix these after a few weeks, we should delete them. --Jeff Ogden (W163) (talk) 15:04, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

 Done. I deleted the dead links. --Jeff Ogden (W163) (talk) 15:35, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

I noticed that the article contains a number of bare URLs. I fixed one, but there are more that need fixing. I suspect that the whole article would benefit from a review of all of its links, but I haven't done that. --Jeff Ogden (W163) (talk) 15:04, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Corporate bias?

In the discussion of the conservative and liberal bias sections above, corporate bias was mentioned a couple of times:

• "... the best I could offer is a section on "corporate bias", but not conservative bias. You can't conflate the two and pretend they are the same. ... It's almost entirely a corporate bias section, nothing more."
• "... an additional section on corporate bias -- which is worth talking more about, I think"
• "... tries to conflate corporate with conservative ..."

And "corporate bias" is mentioned in the lead:

• "Claims of media bias in the United States include claims of liberal bias, conservative bias, mainstream bias, and corporate bias." [emphasis added]

But I don't see anything about corporate bias in the body of the article, at least nothing labeled as such. There is a section with the heading "Profit motive bias". Not sure if that is the same as corporate bias or something separate.

So what, if anything, do we want to do about adding information about corporate bias to the article? Is a new section called for? Should the "Profit motive bias" section be renamed and/or expanded to more explicitly include corporate bias? Are we agreed that corporate bias and conservative bias are separate? Or for that matter, that corporate bias and liberal bias are separate?

--Jeff Ogden (W163) (talk) 23:55, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

I think this is covered, to some extent, in the section "Profit Motive Bias". Rick Norwood (talk) 13:02, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

most of the conservative bias section should be removed

Most of it not encyclopedic. It's loaded with opinion and speculation. There is a whole host of random supposed facts but that fact isn't relevant or demonstrated to be relevant to the case of bias existing or not. Instead of actual studies and valid empirical information the reader is greeted by the fantasies and propaganda of leftists orgs like FAIR, and the whole thing reads like a random rambling. The section on liberal bias is nothing like that. It actually has real facts/studies/etc. I'll be removing about 75% of it unless it's cleaned up significantly. Whatzinaname (talk) 12:15, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Can you be more specific about which material you think is problematic? I see numerous authors and citations listed here. If anything, some of these claims could be expanded, but I don't see much here that seems "not encyclopedic". Thanks & happy new year, groupuscule (talk) 16:59, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

a better question is what material is not problematic. The whole section is garbage, speculation, or speculative garbage. I don't underastand how it is the liberal bias section is so much better written, factual, and encyclopedic and you get to the conservative bias section and it looks like a drunk trolling wikipedia. Whatzinaname (talk) 18:13, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

It would be more constructive if you could answer groupuscule's question. I would support fixing problems over deleting all or most of a section. This article often has two sides to its arguments and deleting all or most of one side and leaving the other side will give us a different sort of NPOV problem. Statements like "fantasies and propaganda of leftists orgs like FAIR" make it sound like you might have an agenda of your own here. --Jeff Ogden (W163) (talk) 19:46, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

i do have an agenda. It's called the truth, which is a scarce commodity on wikipedia. I've read through the main section several times now, and the best I could offer is a section on "corporate bias", but not conservative bias. You can't conflate the two and pretend they are the same. I thought maybe 25%, but on rereading more comprehensively, nada. As far as a section conservative bias, from what I've read, none of this salvageable. It's almost entirely a corporate bias section, nothing more. Whatzinaname (talk) 20:26, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

I have a great idea, since i lack the fundamental ability to connect invisible dots: if mr. Ogden, mr/ms groupuscle, or anyone else so inclined sees anything in the conservative bias section that directly suggests/demonstrates conservative(not corporate) bias in the general media, go ahead and post it here. Whatzinaname (talk) 21:16, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

So it's terrible because it's terrible. Wikipedia is false and you want truth. Ok. So, aside from suggesting an additional section on corporate bias -- which is worth talking more about, I think -- can you (as those above have already asked) be specific? If you just go and delete the section you'll be reverted, but if you're finding unsourced speculation, unreliable sources, etc. and want to make a case for them, please do. Especially given that this is an inherently controversial topic, mass deletions (or additions) don't generally go over well without discussion first. As it is you who sees the problem, the burden is not on other editors to defend what is already there (and thus already discussed or otherwise passively accepted). Feel free to respond about how stupid Wikipedia is, but I don't think you'll get any further responses unless you want to be more specific. --— Rhododendrites ^talk |  22:53, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

As I said, YOU be specific. I'm not paid to connect invisible dots or prove negatives, nor am I paid to deal with your inability to comprehend such. you took the time to write a bunch of words, yet strangely not a single shred of what i suggested others do to establish the worthiness of that section. What's the problem? can't do it? You are proving the case. thanks. Whatzinaname (talk) 23:57, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

January 5th and I'm still waiting.Whatzinaname (talk) 18:36, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

See previous post. Feel free to progress the discussion or have at improving the article. Of course, since you've failed to justify any specific changes whatsoever (preferring instead to demand others refute your vague judgments) I imagine particularly bold removals of content or restructuring will just be reverted). --— Rhododendrites ^talk |  20:21, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm removing all of it if no one can argue for inclusion of any of it. Onus is not on me to prove something needs to be removed, it's on the person(s) who wish to add it.Whatzinaname (talk) 00:32, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

No, onus is on you to make a convincing point for content to be removed. Your aggressive attitude seems to be the same all over the place and resistance or consensus means nothing but shit for you. There's a thing called "collegial editing" which you sure are (just like other things here on WP) not quite familiar with or a fan of, despite the time you've been here. Such a pity I'd say.TMCk (talk) 01:20, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

What The Magnificent Clean-keeper said. @Whatzinaname:, you can go ahead and remove it, but one of the things that makes Wikipedia work at all -- and why you'll probably decide the whole site is stupid -- is that the number of people who want to see it succeed, who want to build consensus and operate according to established norms that govern how content evolves, greatly outnumbers those who might like to unilaterally bend articles to their own points of view. One of those norms is to be bold to improve articles, though, so by all means do what you think needs to be done. But if someone undoes your changes (and if you do as you promise and "remove all of it" I assure you this will be the case), the burden is indeed on you to find consensus here on the talk page. As you seem incapable or unwilling to articulate the specific changes you'd like to make other than "remove it all," that seems unlikely. If you feel that you're being entirely clear but simply being stonewalled here, the next step for you to take, if you like, is to take it through one of the many channels in place for Dispute resolution. --— Rhododendrites ^talk |  03:32, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Pretty much the entire section is either establishes no link to conservatives(ism) with a random factoid, and/or tries to conflate corporate with conservative. Both are unacceptable. How can I be more specific? I don't need any consensus to remove irrelevant garbage from a wikiWhatzinaname (talk) 17:24, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Ok, so you blanked the section and I reverted it. That's not to say I think the page is stellar as it is, but per your comment above, you can be more specific by being specific at all. That means quoting specific text from the article and making a specific argument against it. And yes, you do need a consensus to decide that it is "irrelevant garbage." I'm sure I'm not the only one willing to spend the time hashing through this with you on the talk page, but wholesale deletions aren't going to work. --— Rhododendrites ^talk |  12:56, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Let me join with Rhododendrites in expressing a willingness to discuss specifics with you if you provide them. It might help if you gave us your idea of what "conservatism" is. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:24, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Me too. --Jeff Ogden (W163) (talk) 13:55, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Looking at the section, there are two problems. One is the large amount of original research and synthesis going on (such as the ownership and consolidation claims that are generally not sourced well to assert what's being claimed about them), and the other is the terrible sourcing on the matter. FAIR, Media Matters (and people who write for them), and so on are simply not good sources for this sort of thing since their entire intention is to push a point of view on the matter as opposed to illuminate. There's a tremendous amount of weight given to the Croteau study, and sort of buries the lead a bit while holding a contrarian viewpoint (one that isn't noted as such). Compare this with the liberal bias section, which doesn't rely on places like NewsBusters or the actual conservative media to make their point. There's issues of undue weight given to criticisms of methodology there, but the conservative bias section is significantly problematic, and I'm inclined to agree that it should be at least tagged as such if not outright removed for the time being. Thargor Orlando (talk) 14:19, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm been looking at the article and thinking about how we might go about improving it. One approach is to take a step back and look at the "Conservative bias" and "Liberal bias" sections together, reorganize them into one section that talks about both sides of the issue, defines "conservative" and "liberal" or admits that while the controversy has been going on for a long time, that there are no universally accepted definitions, shorten the sub-sections on allegations of conservative or liberal bias considerably with a focus on "allegations" that allows the views of advocacy groups on both sides of the issue to be included, and with a more neutral section that goes over the more balanced or neutral or well researched studies that try to determine if there is or isn't a bias and which way it goes (my own view is there is lots of bias on all sides of this issue). I do not think we should focus on changes or deletions in just one or the other of the two existing sections of the article. Marking the sections as problematic would be fine, but I do not favor removing anything "for the time being", since the time being is likely to turn into a long time. If improvements are called for, we should get on with figuring out what they should be and then update the article. --Jeff Ogden (W163) (talk) 16:44, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

This is an especially difficult subject, since part of the bias is the assumption that everyone on the other side has the "entire intention ... to push a point of view" while everyone on the "good" side is attempting to "illuminate" the situation. In America today, there are entire media outlets, Fox and Rush Limbaugh on the conservative side and MSNBC and Solon on the liberal side, that owe their popularity to the nasty things they say about the opposition. An additional complication: people who get most of their news from Fox or from MSNBC characterize anyone who is not biased on their side as being biased on the other side. We need specifics suggestions, and despite repeated requests for specific suggestion all we have gotten so far is generalities. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:17, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

There's enough scholarly information at this part that a good start would be limiting both sections to peer reviewed studies on the matter. Thargor Orlando (talk) 14:20, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

That would certainly be better than putting warnings on the "liberal bias" section because it cites FAIR but no warning on the "conservative bias" section, which references Ann Coulter. Rick Norwood (talk) 15:36, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree completely. Thargor Orlando (talk) 16:43, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

like I said, the section is gone until someone can actual come with something encyclopedic/factual to include.Whatzinaname (talk) 04:24, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Controversy over corporate bias versus conservative bias

Here's the thing: Corporate bias and conservative bias do not operate within the same paradigm such that they can be mutually exclusive. If talking about sources of bias or types of bias you might list corporate bias as one among many, but "conservative" and "liberal" are typically understood (in modern American politics) to operate by themselves in structural opposition, with a long list of ideological oppositions similarly simplified so as to fit within the paradigm. If we're working within that paradigm (liberal-conservative), corporate bias falls squarely under conservatism. That doesn't mean there aren't self-professed conservatives who aren't pro-corporation, it just means that in these terms, most reliable sources associate things like deregulation, free market capitalism, lower corporate taxes, etc. with conservatives more than with liberals. I don't think this is controversial. See fiscal conservatism, for example.

In fact, the dominant subject of our "profit motive bias" section, the propaganda model, takes as one of its most common targets "the myth of the liberal media." In other words, Chomsky isn't saying "it's not conservative, it's not liberal, it's corporate interests"; to the contrary, corporate interests here occupy the space opposed to liberal interests.

What may be useful to differentiate between, however, are the political manifestations of corporate bias (e.g. support candidate a, support party b, oppose law c, intentionally omit topic d, assume popular acceptance of ideology e, and so on in order to yield indirect monetary or power gains) and the more direct profit motives like Disney promoting its movies at its theme parks or Ryan Seacrest visibly drinking Coke on American Idol (e.g. where x creates revenue directly). --— Rhododendrites ^talk |  04:33, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

"Democratic polling" section is unclear

The "Democratic polling" section is unclear. In particular, the sentence "The perception of bias was highest among partisans of ideology, with 78% of conservatives, 44% of liberals and 50% of moderates" is difficult to understand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrewjohnbayles (talk • contribs) 20:16, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

I'll try to make it clearer.Rick Norwood (talk) 20:32, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

racial bias section outdated

It is stated that "local officials and editors often claim that mentioning the black-on-white nature of the event might inflame passion, but they never have those same qualms when it's white-on-black."[61]

Did no one hear about the Trayvon Martin case? I feel like this section needs to be modernized to reflect that. Dillan.Murray (talk) 19:09, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

The Trayvon Martin case was a "white-on-black" killing. Rick Norwood (talk) 00:48, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

This is ignoring the fact that George Zimmerman isn't even white. He's Hispanic and he is a registered Democrat. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.76.46.132 (talk) 04:32, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

exactly, so that white-on-black case inflamed passion, did it not? Dillan.Murray (talk) 20:27, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

So you're saying local officials and editors are wrong. That may be true, but you need a source, otherwise you're just making an editorial comment, which is against Wikipedia policy. Rick Norwood (talk) 16:30, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Being Hispanic does not exclude someone from also being White. FamAD123 (talk) 09:22, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Saw this in that section, which looks monkeyed with: "Research has shown that African Americans are over-represented in news reports on crime and within those stories, they are more likely to be shown as the perpetrators of the crime than as the persons reacting to or suffering from it. This perception that blacks are over-represented in crime reporting persists even though crime statistics indicate that black do indeed commit the majority of crime relative to population.[79]"24.199.195.38 (talk) 22:38, 29 September 2014 (UTC)del

Donations

An edit that I added, sourced, and attributed in the content to the reliable source, was removed by another editor. How is the donating percentages not relevant, when the sentence prior to the one removed reads:

These arguments intensified when it was revealed that the Democratic Party received a total donation of $1,020,816, given by 1,160 employees of the three major broadcast television networks (NBC, CBS, ABC), while the Republican Party received only $142,863 via 193 donations

Is showbiz not part of media? And if not, where would this content best be located here on Wikipedia?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:05, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

I didn't notice the other sentence about donations. It also seems to indicate a belief that anyone who personally supports some political party automatically does so out of bias, and then allows that bias to influence their public actions. This is a common assertion: I support my party out of honestly held beliefs, but you support your party because you're biased. Doesn't belong in Wikipedia. I'm not going to delete the sentence you quote, however, because it can be taken as reporting the intensity of the arguments, rather than automatically calling all liberal beliefs biased. Rick Norwood (talk) 22:45, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps than my new reliable source, from Variety, can be added to the quoted sentence, and the sentence generalized. Both point towards the verified fact that the Democrat Party receives far more donations from showbiz sources than the GOP.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:04, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Let me try to explain once more. Many groups of people: college professors, newscasters, city people, Blacks, Hispanics -- all strongly support the Democratic party. Support does not prove bias. Bias occurs when people hold beliefs that are essentially irrational, and refuse to recognize evidence for opposing beliefs. I doubt you would say that, for example, White men, Christian Fundamentalists, farmers, and Southerners support the Republican Party because they are biased. They support the Republican Party because it represents their interests. Not all belief is due to bias, and support is not proof of bias. Rick Norwood (talk) 22:02, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

And this article is about bias in the media, so one would need to find support (reliable sources) that say that what the media says, reports, shows is biased and that bias is caused by or evidenced by support for the Democratic party. It is the causal link between support and bias that is missing. Can someone support the Democratic Party and still provide unbiased news or movies or whatever? I hope so. Are all supporters of the Republican Party biased too? I hope not. -Jeff Ogden (W163) (talk) 22:27, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

OK, I can find sources:

• Dedman, Bill (25 June 2007). "Journalist dole out cash to politicians (quietly)". NBC News. Retrieved 26 August 2014.
• Perazza, John (31 October 2008). "In the Tank: A Statistical Analysis of Media Bias". FrontPageMag.com. Retrieved 26 August 2014.
• Kuypers, Jim A. (21 November 2013). Partisan Journalism: A History of Media Bias in the United States. Rowman & Littlefield. p. 183. ISBN 9781442225947. Retrieved 26 August 2014.
• Groseclose, PhD, Tim (2011). "Viva Homogeneity". Left Turn: How Liberal Media Bias Distorts the American Mind. Macmillan. pp. 99–110. ISBN 9781429987462. {{cite book}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help); External link in |chapterurl= (help); Unknown parameter |chapterurl= ignored (|chapter-url= suggested) (help)

--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 02:40, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Few, if any, of these sources are talking about "showbiz".

I'd say that some of the sources suffer from the same lack of a link between support for a particular party and bias. Or that the link is weak, as when the NBC News article says "The pattern of donations, with nearly nine out of 10 giving to Democratic candidates and causes, appears to confirm a leftward tilt in newsrooms — at least among the donors, who are a tiny fraction of the roughly 100,000 staffers in newsrooms across the nation" [emphasis added].

But I think one could use several of the sources to write something for this article, although some of the ground has already been covered in the existing article. And what you should write based on the sources is more complex than just "members of the media support Democrats and that shows media bias". The sources are about more than support for a political party and they do cover the many sides of the debate as should we.

And some of the sources seem a little one sided themselves, which is OK, but WP:NPOV requires us to include sources that support all sides of the debate so that the article as a whole is neutral.

--Jeff Ogden (W163) (talk) 03:56, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

The only one sided source is Frontpagemag.com, however that article is very well cited itself. The rest of the sources are main stream publishers.

The section which the initial content was removed was in the liberal bias section. These sources verify there is a liberal media bias, or at least that there is a perception of liberal media bias that can correlate to how members of the media (in this case journalist) donate politically and/or self identify politically. It is not whether we as editors believe this to be correct, but whether it can be verified and added content can be neutrally worded in a due weight manner.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:50, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

This is a complex and difficult question, and I think everyone here is trying to deal honestly with the issues involved. We need to focus on the particular edit in question. That particular edit cites sources about political contributions, and not sources about bias. Some other edit, citing other sources, might be fine.

Part of the problem is that the vast majority of Americans are both liberal and conservative. They believe in freedom and equal opportunity and they believe in traditional values. The choice between liberal and conservative is a false dichotomy. The divide is between two political parties, who exaggerate their differences to motivate voters to go to the polls.

Another part of the problem is generalizations about "the media". Solon and Slate show liberal bias. Fox shows conservative bias. Time and The Week bend over backwards to present both liberal and conservative views side by side. I think any edit to this article must be very specific, and must cite sources, preferably with quote that focuses on bias, and not on belief. Rick Norwood (talk) 20:37, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

I think this is not what people believe, but what can be verified by reliable sources. People may be as stated above, but that does not impact what the content of the article says. For instance a large minority may not believe in man-caused global warming, but that is claimed to be FRINGE by the most active editors there, due to the large number of academic sources that they can cite to back up that the large minority's POV should not be given any weight in the article concerning that topic.

In regards to this topic, there are a reasonable number of references that tie political campaign contributions, and self-identified political identification, with a perceived bias of the media, or at least of journalist sources. We do not have to state that as fact, but we can attribute the claim, to the various sources and give the claim due weight in accordance with the sources. Let the reader decide, whether it is factual or not factual.

As for The Week, and Time, I would disagree with the above editors perception of these sources, finding them center-left. But that is my opinion and doesn't matter here.

I understand the need to be cautious regarding this topic, but if written in a neutral way, what can be verified from the sources provided regarding the perception of liberal bias in the media in the United States, can be added to the article.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 03:47, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

This thread has expanded to touch on many related topics, but I just wanted to weigh on on the original Variety source: it gives as examples of who was included in the calculation people like Cameron Diaz and Ben Affleck. This should highlight the discrepancy between "show business" and the kind of "media" this article concerns. "Show business" covers a vast range of professions, most of which are many, many steps removed from the decisions going into what a media consumer sees, hears, or reads. Movie set caterers, I hear, are staunch Libertarians, while hand models are known for their Communist sympathies, but what impact does that have on you or me? There are plenty of absolutely relevant sources wrapped up in those numbers, too, I'm sure, but because it's so broad it doesn't seem useful here. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:11, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

There is a serious and ongoing problem with this entire article.

More than one editor of this article confuses disagreement with bias. The posts usually take the following form.

Section title: Round earth bias: The Pew research center surveyed 1000 people, and 999 believe the earth is round, not flat. This proves bias against the belief that the earth is flat. 9 out of 10 college professors believe the earth is round, proving college professors are biased. A survey of 100 news sources revealed that they reported that the earth is round ten times more often than they reported that the earth is flat. This proves the news media are biased.

Belief is not bias, and this article should not pretend that belief proves bias. Unless a source shows bias -- that is a predetermination to only present one side of a question on which there are two reasonable points of view and a refusal to present valid evidence for the other side of the question, then it doesn't belong in this article.

Rick Norwood (talk) 13:54, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Removed statement re: Pew study

I just removed this statement "A 2014 Pew Research Center study found that of the 32 most popular sources of news, more than three quarters (25 of 32) leaned left." It refers to this Pew study. I don't see anywhere in the report -- although it's entirely possible I'm overlooking it -- about which media outlets "lean left" [or right]. The study is about media habits. So it says things about the stations liberals trust for news vs. stations conservatives trust for news, and the extent of that trust, but not whether the stations themselves have a bias. It also includes a chart of how ideologically consistent readers of a given source [in the past week] are (e.g. New Yorker readers are more consistently liberal, Breibart readers more consistently conservative, etc.). You can draw correlations here, but that a person who identifies one way uses something doesn't make that thing ideologically aligned with the person. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:24, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

It's not clear where the number 25 of 32 come from. But regardless of where that data is found, the source is of high enough quality that it should be included, and summarized in full. aprock (talk) 16:41, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Upon further review of the source, it does not explicitly discuss investigating bias as part of the project. This is a good source for another article (e.g. political polarization), but probably not this article. aprock (talk) 17:35, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm certainly in favor of including Pew research when applicable, and there's likely a use for this one in the present article -- I just didn't see any evidence for the claim as stated. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:19, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

I included the base source, and the Washington Examiner, a reliable source, source where the 25 of 32 figure which it extrapolates from the base source.

And it found a stunning overweight of Left-leaning media, with 25 of the 32 most used news sources considered by users to the left of center, and only seven to the right of center.

— Washington Examiner, 21 October 2014

(It was removed when the Pew Research Center study was removed) If anything the Pew Research Center study is a primary source, and the Washington Examinar source, which I included in the references is a tertiary source.

The Washington Examiner article which talks about the base source is clearly talking about media bias, when stating the left-leaning media. Yes, it could also be included in political polarization, but that doesn't mean that it cannot be included there as well.

Also I kindly ask Aprock to please stop hounding me.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:04, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

@RightCowLeftCoast: I did see the Examiner article -- I removed it because while I saw that it gave the figure you provided, it appears to be based on a basic misinterpretation of the chart -- it shows the chart of sources ("ideological placement of each source's audience") and interprets the audience as source. It doesn't say 25 of 32 sources are left-of center at all. If liberals use Crest and conservaties use Colgate, Crest and Colgate would appear at the left and right, respectively -- which presents a pretty weak argument for Crest or Colgate themselves being biased. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:31, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

The source specifically states it, in the quote I provided above.

Surely, it the Washington Examiner source can be included as an attributed quote regarding the study.

The base source is also interpreted on Town Hall, which states:

When we actually take stock of the ideological profiles of different news organizations, this makes sense: liberals have many many more outlets to turn to in order to get their news!

I am not saying that the Washington Examiner and Town Hall sources should be given undue weight, but from sources from the Left I only find (via Google News) Prospect.com and the Baltimore Sun interpreting the source.

Perhaps how we should do it, is state base data direct from the source, and how it is interpreted/reported from the left and the right.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:49, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes the source (Examiner) specifically states it, but again, it's based on a basic misinterpretation of its source. Whether something is considered a reliable source is a question that involves multiple factors, and if there's an obvious self-contradiction e.g. "source says x" when source doesn't say x, it's not a reliable source. If we're going to talk about the Pew study, it should be supported by the Pew study. This does not seem controversial. Are you saying you don't care whether or not it's backed up by the source it cites? People can say the study says whatever they want it to say -- if it's not backed up by the original it's not a reliable source. If anything, the misinterpretations of the source seems to indicate right-wing bias, no? (i.e. interpreting a source incorrectly in order to portray "the liberal media"?) -- That's not an actual suggestion that we do so, just an irony. If there's stuff from the Pew study we can include, let's do so (rather than dismiss the actual study in favor of "interpretations"). --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:05, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Given that the primary and secondary sources do not mention media bias, I think it is ill advised to include the Pew source here at this time. aprock (talk) 21:13, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Just to head this off -- the Washington Examiner does mention media bias in a way (stating the sources are left/right-leaning). The point is, it has no basis in the study it purports to be reporting on. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:25, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Mentioning media bias "in a way" - without actually mentioning it - is not sufficient to establish due weight. Once other mainstream sources pick up this report and start using it as a barometer for media bias, we can start adding that content. aprock (talk) 21:42, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

The base source, goes into exactly that issue of "mainstream sources". That depending on where one views themselves on the political ideology scale, ones "mainstream sources" differ. If by "mainstream sources" one means those watched more often by those left of center, which this base source shows, than that is an issue in itself.

The Washington Examiner might be writing about it in the way it does, based on the study's findings that individuals trend to receive news from sources which are similar to their own point of view. This explains why many conservatives listen to Rush Limbaugh on the radio, and many liberals listen to NPR on the radio.

Either way, the study shows one (or both) of several things: 1) Different individuals among different political ideologies in the United States trust different news sources; 2) There are more sources trusted on the Left, than there are on the Right 3)Individuals, regardless of political ideology in the United States trust news sources that agree with their political ideology.

YMMV of course. IMHO, this is useful to include in some fashion in this article.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 22:04, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

This sort of synthesis is precisely what we rely on secondary sources to do. We as editors are not the ones who should be doing it. As soon as a secondary source appears which makes the connections that you are making to media bias, we can consider using that source (and the Pew study) in the article. aprock (talk) 22:08, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

I think it is significant that RightCowLeftCoast makes a parallel between Rush Limbaugh and NPR. An investigation by a George W. Bush appointee looking for bias reported that NPR was unbiased. Why not contrast Rush Limbaugh and Solon, or some other media that really is biased? Rick Norwood (talk) 23:21, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

The only valid parallel is that they are both entertainment sources devoid of actual, relevant news. NPR stopped reporting actual news sometime after 2001. Try listening to old NPR broadcasts from the 1970s and 1980s. It's like listening to a university lecture series. Today, it's nothing more than an Idiocracy roundtable. And Limbaugh never reported news to begin with so that's just absurd. Both NPR and Limbaugh are responsible for creating the low information electorate that is motivated by fear and greed, not good data nor evidence. Viriditas (talk) 09:07, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Serious and ongoing problem, part 2

I would really like to work to improve this article, but when I search for sources, they all seem to fall into one of three categories:

1) books on bias, which say that people are all biased, and which suggest methods for individuals to overcome unconscious bias. 2) books on the media, which say that the media show horrible liberal bias. 3) books on the media, which say that the media show horrible conservative bias.

Can anyone suggest a book on bias that addresses liberal and conservative bias, without being biased itself?

One ongoing problem: The United States was founded on liberal principals, and so if you write anything favoring freedom, you show liberal bias. There are, for example, very few major media in the United States that favor slavery. If you count every statement in favor of freedom as an example of liberal bias, you get an overwhelming liberal bias. That doesn't seem right, to me, but I can't argue with the sources. Which brings me back to the difficulty in finding an unbiased book on bias.

Rick Norwood (talk) 14:25, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

A slight issue with your positioning: "liberal bias" means "left wing bias" in an American media context, not the "classical liberal" principles you speak of with the founding of the nation. It might be part of the problem with finding good sources on the matter. Thargor Orlando (talk) 14:52, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

There is no longer any "left-wing" in the United States, so it most certainly does not mean that. The fact that most reliable sources consider Obama and his administration a "liberal Republican" should tell you everything you need to know. Viriditas (talk) 08:55, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

I did a quick review of what's available culling to the more seriuos sources. These are provided in no particular order:

• How Biased Is Your Media?: A New Freakonomics Radio Podcast: A good tertiary source for high level tertiary views. The sources they link to, and provide synthesis for higher quality work on the topic: [4], [5], Thinking, Fast and Slow. High weight.
• University of Chicago Economist Who Studies Media Receives Clark Medal. An award winning researcher who does work in the field. Some of his work may or may not have reached the mainstream yet. His work is data driven. Low weight, possibly no weight.
• A Definitive History of Media Bias: Highlights the work of [[6]], who has a long academic history in the field, including his books: Presidential Crisis Rhetoric and the Press, Press Bias and Politics, and Bush's War. High weight.
• Media Bias: Going beyond Fair and Balanced: A discussion of the academic work of academic Tim Groeling. Low weight.
• Media Bias and Voting: From the NBER, a study of the effect of media bias an voters, published in The quarterly journal of economics There are probably other papers by the NBER on the topic, but secondary sourcing would be needed to establish weight.

Based on the more mainstream modern sources, especially ones like Groseclose, I think the organization should move away from the false dichotomy of Liberal vs. Conservative. The work of Groseclose demonstrate that there is a continuous spectrum in terms of media bias along the political poles. I suspect if we dig deeper there will also be academic work illustrating a continuum for other poles as well.

I would generally favor reducing the content sourcing to websites, blogs, and op-eds, and increasing the sourcing to the higher profile book sources. Of course, non-book sources are excellent for establishing that any given book or academic work has resonated with the broader culture. Similarly, the work of Pew, with weight established by secondary sources, also merrits some coverage.

The coverage of specific events is probably better left to other articles. For example, Media coverage of the Iraq War could be much much shorter, possibly just appearing in the See Also like many of the other media coverage articles. Similarly the election coverage stuff also has their own articles. There could/would/should also be a section for media bias polarization, but the recent Pew study is a bit catty about saying that the outlets are biased, so I would want to use secondary sources to make that link for us.

The The Media Elite survey from 1986 is historic at this point, and should be covered as such. It might be better to cull the lesser known survey studies, which are all becoming quite stale, and haven't received much secondary coverage outside their era. Again, historically interesting, but not currently interesting.

Books by media personalities (like Rush Limbaugh, Al Franken, Amy Goodwin, John Stossel, Ann Coulter, etc ...) probably deserve their own section, but shouldn't be mixed in with higher quality work as that creates some sort of false equivalence. For example, Tim Groseclose has much more authority on the matter than does Al Franken.

I should also add, that mainstream coverage appears to be precisely cauched in this left/right kind of way, most likely because it sells. That profit motive bias is a hard one to shake.  :) Just my two cents. aprock (talk) 16:09, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

aprock: Thank you. This is exactly what I was looking for.

Thargor Orlando: The idea that modern liberals no longer value freedom is itself biased.

Rick Norwood (talk) 16:30, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Rick, that implication was not intended. The point was merely to demonstrate the difference between "liberal" and "classical liberal" in the United States, nothing more. Regarding Groseclose, I would suggest we take a look at what he actually believes, as Left Turn, his book based on his studies, quite clearly notes the left-liberal bent of the media as opposed to the "continuous spectrum" being portrayed here. Thargor Orlando (talk) 17:08, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Since there is no extant "left" in the United States, what he notes must be declared "mythological". Currently, the only active and vocal political parties in the US are centrist, right, and far-right. Viriditas (talk) 08:54, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

I was going to read Groseclose's book, and see if his use of statistics was valid. Without looking at what the sentences say, I can see if the statistical methods are sound. I know a lot more about statistics than I know about politics. But it turns out some people who know even more about statistics than I do have done the work for me. For example: http://www.stat.columbia.edu/~gelman/research/published/groseclose.pdf and http://www.dartmouth.edu/~nyhan/media-bias-critique.pdf and http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2011/09/what-liberal-bias.html. Unless these people are lying in their teeth, Groseclose's methods are so flawed as to render his conclusions worthless. That doesn't prove there isn't media bias, it just proves that Groseclose doesn't know much about statistics. Rick Norwood (talk) 21:27, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm starting to have a sense of deja vu. I think I've had this discussion before, though not necessarily with Thargor Orlando.Rick Norwood (talk) 22:13, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Groseclose's book is already in the article. While there are certainly valid criticisms of the book, including mentions of in the article, from a mainstream perspective his work is certainly one of the more high profile presentations of the "left/right" bias. One of the more interesting conclusions is that it attempts to objectively measure source bias relative to population bias, as opposed to on an absolute scale. Still, as with other stuff, it's worth taking with a grain of salt. aprock (talk) 22:24, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

I've found a book that seems to be serious and well-researched, from a respected academic press. Jonathan M. Ladd, Why Americans Hate the Media and How It Matters, Princeton University Press. Needless to say, it has not sold nearly as many copies as the books that take one side over the other. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:01, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

I've also started checking out the sources aprock so kindly provided. One touchstone: since Groseclose's book is so obviously flawed (obvious to anyone who knows even elementary statistics) any source that accepts Groseclose is also flawed. Note that Groseclose's work has never been replicated -- the ultimate test of scientific reliability -- and has no favorable academic reviews, though plenty of favorable reviews in the popular media. Since "How Biased is your Media" starts by accepting Groseclose, I can't take it seriously. The second item on the list seems to be exactly what I'm looking for. I especially like this quote "The University of Chicago believes very strongly in clear thinking and following the data wherever it leads. People here have a low tolerance for shallow, simplistic liberal ideas and shallow, simplistic conservative ideas." I'm not sure why aprock describes this as "low weight, possibly no weight". The third source, which aprock describes as "High Weight" is from American Thinker, which Wikipedia describes as a conservative on-line magazine. The titles of the three lead articles in today's edition do not exactly inspire confidence: "Serfin' USA, Clarice Feldman, "It would be a good idea to pay more attention to wiping out America’s rampant vote fraud, clearly a Democrat plan to secure a permanent majority of rent seekers." "Democratic Party: America's Resident Evil" by Lloyd Marcus, "Guess what tried-and-true strategy the Democrats are going to use to try to win in the 2014 midterms. Hint: it's pretty evil." and "The Special Treatment Homosexuals Demand" by Selwyn Duke, "There is one particular thing that illustrates better than anything else the unreasonableness — and some would say gall — of homosexuality activists." Turning to the fourth source, Scientific American, I note that aprock ascribes low weight to Scientific American. I'm beginning to wonder why 100% conservative sources are getting high weight, and more scientific sources are getting low weight. aprock? The sentence that stood out for me in this article was the one in which the author describes Bill O'Reilly citing him as an expert when he says something O'Reilly likes, but dismissing him as biased when he says something O'Reilly dislikes. This is the biggest single problem I have in trying to dig out the truth about bias. All too often "biased" is used to mean "says something I don't like". Finally, turning to the last source provided by aprock above: it seems to be good science at first. It shows that Fox News has a small but measurable effect on voters. The authors of the article state that so far this only shows effective advocacy, not bias. Sadly, in attempting to show that Fox News shows right-wing bias, the authors cite Groseclose, which renders their results invalid.

Oh, well, two out of five ain't bad. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:55, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Groseclose's work is academic and peer-reviewed, so it's pretty much the gold standard for what we want here. It's not to say there are not other peer-reviewed conclusions that have other points of view, but that means we have to include a lot of points of view, not just exclude one because we don't like its results. Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:57, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

There are 1.7 million college professors in the US, and all of them publish or perish. To be "notable" the most common standard for published research is that it be confirmed by more than one study. Groseclose's work is a single paper by a single academic that has never been replicated (and which, because of its statistical failures, cannot be replicated). I exclude it because it is wrong, not because I don't like the results. Do you seriously think that The Wall Street Journal is more liberal than the New York Times? Publication alone is not the "gold standard". In my own field, mathematics, I remember a publication that claimed Einstein was wrong because he was Jewish. A lot of nonsense gets published. Wikipedia should cite papers that are well-reviewed (in Mathematical Reviews, for example) and which have been replicated by other researchers. Rick Norwood (talk) 15:01, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Groseclose's work is notable because it received significant media attention. It's appropriate because it's academic and peer-reviewed. You exclude it because you believe it's wrong, not because it actually is. For reporting, the Wall Street Journal may be more liberal than the New York Times. Groseclose's noteworthy, academic work certainly believes so. I'm glad you're on board with limiting this article to quality work, but when we have good information (even when disputed), we should use it. Thargor Orlando (talk) 15:03, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Groseclose is wrong. Note that I'm not saying (here) that his conclusions are wrong. I'm saying his methods are wrong. I know his methods are wrong because I teach statistics, and I know when statistics are damn lies and when they aren't. But I didn't ask you to take my word for it. I give you three serious academic references for the fact that Groseclose's methods are wrong. Attention by the popular media might make Groseclose (moderately) famous, but it doesn't make him right. Rick Norwood (talk) 15:17, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

So the article should reflect that Groseclose came up with an academic peer-reviewed paper that shows the liberal bias of the media, and that others have disputed the claim based on his statistical methods. Dispute is not debunk, Groseclose has not retracted anything, and so on. Thargor Orlando (talk) 15:40, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't think we're getting anywhere, here, but note once again it is not his claim that is disputed, but rather his methods. I'm something of a fanatic when it comes to mathematics. If someone says 2 plus 2 is 5, I say they're wrong. Rick Norwood (talk) 15:47, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Then note that. As it stands, we're not here to figure out "the truth," but merely make sure the article reflects what the sources tell us. Thargor Orlando (talk) 15:58, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

No, we aren't transcription monkeys. Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion. Discussion and consensus is the sine qua non for adding content. Viriditas (talk) 19:16, 26 October 2014 (UTC)