Talk:Media bias
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Because of their length, the previous discussions on this page have been archived. If further archiving is needed, see Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.
Previous discussions:
|
|
This topic contains controversial issues, some of which have reached a consensus for approach and neutrality, and some of which may be disputed. Should you wish to make any substantial changes or additions;
(This message should only be placed on talk pages, please.) |
 |
This article has been improved by the Cleanup Taskforce to conform with a higher standard of quality. Please see its Cleanup Taskforce page for more details on this process, and possible ideas on how you can further improve this article! |
[edit] Talk Page Archived October 2005
I've archived the talk page for this article. If there are issues in the archived talk page that you feel still need to be addressed, please repost them here. Please do not revert the whole page. Thanks Kerowyn 10:05, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
one organization complains about the liberal media continually, www.newsbusters.org. They do not allow a free discussion. They eventually ban anyone that disagrees their very right wing bias.
[edit] Pompous style
The style of this page is too pompous. Exchgganges on media bias are a dirty, cruel war. Its battlefields are covered with dead bodies (Dan Rather, Mary Mapes, etc). This ain't no salon discussion. This page should be an organized collection of examples of exposed bias and a bibliography of studies on the subject. I tried to add several examples, all from non-US media to adhere to the page theme, but a major style check is needed. BTW, how many readers know what "sycophantic" mean? Emmanuelm 19:44, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
- You mean, of course, what "sycophantic" means. Rick Norwood 20:11, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
[edit] UCLA study
I believe that Media Matters was able to de-bunk the UCLA study quite effectively. this should be posted: http://mediamatters.org/items/200512220003.
Also the seminal Virginia Commonwealth study should certainly be included. I teach occasional electives on the media, and find many of the “academic” studies listed on this article deeply flawed for reasons I expanded on. -Brit
A UCLA study has been released, and a recap is here. How do we incorporate? --badlydrawnjeff 17:34, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
- MSM is truly biased... and bears truly shit in the woods!
- Great link. The study seem to focus on US media, and this page is reserved for non-US media bias (not my decision, I am not sure I like it), so I think the article should go as an external link in the "Media bias in the United States" page. If you can get access to the study, you might also want to add key findings in the main article text. Emmanuelm 18:10, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
- Bah. Go figure. I'll trot my way over there, thanks. --badlydrawnjeff 18:19, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
This is a tricky issue, though. One can certainly argue that claiming that the reporters actually influence the output to a great degree is like saying that the people working the floor of an automanufacturing plant have a say in the construction of a car. This issue is complicated, and worth discussion in how we frame reports like this.
Nonetheless, it is ludircous that Chomsky is not mentioned here at all. Being the progenitor of the idea of a "propagandizing" media, and supposedly one of the most influential people on earth (whatever that means etc.).
We should definitly include East Timor in this discussion (as there were 200,000 people killed and no one reported on it, and the US was complicit in arms deals with Suharto-the invading force in east timor).
- This page is not forbidden to mention US media bias -- it just should not focus on that to the exclusion of media bias in general. The UCLA report is too local and too topical, for example, and belong in Media bias in the United States. On the other hand, Chomsky is a major world figure, and should be mentioned here. As for East Timor, it is incorrect to say that "no one" reported on it, though it may not have gotten the coverage it deserved. Rick Norwood 17:39, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
Academics, schmackademics. Considering that most of them have never worked in a newsrooom one day in their lives, I find them unqualified to judge editorial decisions. Chomsky's worldview is clouded by his Marxism, and he cannot be taken seriously as an objective source. I am sure those on the Left would find citing Brent Bozell's Media Research Center offensive or non-objective.
>Chomsky, though leftist has in reality little respect for Marxism. Read his works. He also has an objective scientific bent that is quite effective -Brit
If Chomsky goes in, then so-should Bozell's work. --68.45.161.241 14:48, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Media Matters is not a unbiased source of information. Relying on a Media Matters study to 'debunk', the UCLA study seems biased in and of itself. The article itself should be more balanced. ozoneliar 5 October 2006
[edit] New paragraph about blogs
I thought that a page about media bias had to have a chapter about blogs. I also rearranged the external links, dividing them into blogs and others. Feel free to expand on my short chapter and add more links. Emmanuelm 21:04, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
- I have restored the External links superheader. I really don't have any problem with it. — Ambush Commander(Talk) 21:06, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] CBC
The article says - "Clearly, CBC editors want their readers to judge these acts differently, depending on the origin of the people targeted for killing. This particular word bias is not unique to the CBC, but can also be found in many western news source."
"Clearly" is a weasel word used to introduce an NPOV comment. Is there evidence that CBC deliberately chose those words to cause their readers to judge the two differently? If so, quote and link the source. There are other possible explanations - for example that Palestinian terrorists only get into the news as suicide bombers, whereas al-Qaida terrorists are more likely to be referred to in relation to the police operations looking for them or investigating potential plots in the US/Canada. Note - I'm not saying this is necessarily true, I'm just proposing an alternate hypothesis to show that it's not "clear". --195.8.190.39 15:24, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
- I came in here to make the same comment, but I see that it's already been made. I personally say delete it (given that no one has bothered to provide sources since this comment was first posted), particularly since the first sentence is merely that editor's speculation as to the reasons and violates NPOV unless evidence is included showing that that is in fact the reason.
- Furthermore, since I haven't run into it often, would the sentence before it ("For example, searching the CBC web site, […]") violate WP:NOR? (If it's a study by an organisation, it's not cited, so as is it looks to me like someone just went and searched on CBC for themselves and then typed it up.) 156.34.208.152 08:13, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] NPOV either impossible or unavoidable
because the article is about pov, it is self referential making it unavoidable. John wesley 17:55, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] more than just journalism
The introductory sentence defines media bais as being limited to journalism, but it also includes non-journalistic media -- movies, television shows, and music. Unless I am mistaken, those are also "(mainstream) media" and I know that I've heard complaints about how "liberal" pop media tend to be. I think that journalistic bias should be handled on its own page...at least this page should acknowledge that there is more to "the media" than just journalism, and direct readers to the proper articles. AdamRetchless 05:07, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] removed "political correctness"
I removed the following because it is heavily POV, and not really to the point:
- Political correctness is a bias inherent in the Western world's standards of journalism. In an effort to be fair and impartial, many reporters present radical views with credence equal to that which they give to mainstream views, which have been proven over time or are widely accepted.
I replaced it with an item called "exaggerated influence of minority views". AdamRetchless 05:12, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Good call, AdamRetchless. Political correctness is really something else entirely. Rick Norwood 12:39, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
I have worked in two mainstream newsrooms in Virginia and Pennsylvania, and can anyone explain to me why I was the only person who was remotely conservative? The editorial standards I have been forced to work under have been so PC that I have been forced to put up and shut up. Saying media culture is skewed to the Left is pretty accurate from my personal experience, not to mention my interactions with reporters from other news organizations. I have been routinely harassed by my secular, liberal co-workers because I am a practicing traditional Greek Catholic, at times for years. I have had my faith mocked to my face and have even suffered discrimination for my faith because I didn't want to go along with PC rules. The AP style manual, the Bible of Journalism, is skewed to the left. You can say a person who opposes abortion rights is anti-abortion, but you can't refer to someone who supports abortion rights as pro-abortion. I could list many others. I think the problem lies in the fact Liberals who have worked in journalism find everyone else in the newsroom shares their worldview, so they come to believe being Liberal=being objective. Being objective means you set aside your feelings and even go to the extent of writing your stories in the Third person. User:Pravknight--146.145.70.200 17:44, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
- I think you are in a better position to answer your question than anyone else is. Why are journalists, academics, and big city people overwhelmingly Democrats, while southerners and small town people are overwhelmingly Republican? Many people have observed this fact, few offer explanations. Rick Norwood 12:47, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
I wish I knew the answer. I don't want to paint with too broad of a brush, but my experience has been city dwellers tend to be more self-absorbed and uncaring of how their actions affect their neighbors. Rural folks tend to be more community-oriented as a whole and be more sensitive of how their bad behaviors negatively impact their neighbors. In a city, you have the luxury of anonymity, but not in the country, hence the conservatism.
From my experience, my liberal co-workers have been more attracted to hedonistic pursuits than in the conservative, rural Pennsylvania community where I grew up. User:Pravknight--68.45.161.241 14:37, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
- You sound like the kind of conservative I get along with just fine. Most of my friends and neighbors here in Tennessee are conservative for the reasons you cite -- family and community above the pleasures of the flesh. But what your explanation does not cover is the other kind of conservatism. Why are the "hedonistic" city dwellers more concerned about the working class and the disadvantaged than the "sensitive" rural folks. Why does the supposedly sensitive side support corporations over workers, tax cuts that primarily benefit the rich over raising the minimum wage. And why does a hedonistic city person become a bleeding heart liberal? Rick Norwood 16:03, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] new section
While it is nice to have some hard data, this new section really belongs in Media bias in the United States rather than here. Rick Norwood 13:24, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Blogs
I find it hard to believe that blogs are 'reliable' news outlets. Therefore I removed the blog section, should you return it, then we'll need some sources to back up your claims that major news stations use them.
- Blogs do have an effect on mainstream media, the provided link to the Killian documents verifies that. Furthermore, the blog section doesn't claim that blogs are reliable. I have reverted your edit accordingly. — Edward Z. Yang(Talk) 21:25, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
-
- Note that the magazines Time and The Week, and the webzine Slate regularly quote blogs. They aren't relieable, but they are news. Rick Norwood 13:34, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
I believe that Media Matters was able to de-bunk the UCLA study quite effectively. this should be posted: http://mediamatters.org/items/200512220003.
Also the seminal Virginia Commonwealth study should certainly be included. I teach occasional electives on the media, and find many of the “academic” studies listed on this article deeply flawed for reasons I expanded on.
Chomsky, though leftist has in reality little respect for Marxism. Read his works. He also has an objective scientific bent that is quite effective
[edit] More on UCLA study and objectivity in studies of bias
I believe that Media Matters was able to de-bunk the UCLA study quite effectively. This should be posted: http://mediamatters.org/items/200512220003. i also thought that in order to make a statement such as the following quote, one should define “liberal” and “conservative” and the context –compared to WHAT?: “A major problem in studies is experimentor bias. Studies of US Media Bias studies show that A) Liberal experimentors tend to get results that say the media has a conservative bias, B) conservative experimentors get results indicating a liberal bias, and C) experimentors that do not identify themselves as either liberal or conservative do not detect any bias.”
Objective analysis does exist. So when Galileo suggested that the earth went around the sun, the Church considered him “biased”, biased enough to be put under house arrest. He was a “liberal” for his time and place (or even a “radical” since “liberal” means reformist.) His evidence was objective – advanced optics in his new telescope that allowed fairly conclusive study of the sky.
What I am getting at is that many of these studies draw the line so far to the right in what is considered moderation in the real world ( For instance poll after poll have shown that a vast majority of global moderates do not agree with the Iraq occupation or approve of government sponsored health care. Indeed theses days most of the American “public’ do as well (e.g http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2003-10-19-health-poll_x.htm ), yet even the “liberal’s” – US Democrats as defined by the many studies above voted for the war and have failed to pass policies that provide public health care fro all.) –Brit Bunkley
- I agree. Thanks for dropping in, Brit. Rlitwin 18:07, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
I added another small piece of evidence on how media bias works: http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2595). Students of mine are always asking me "how it works". I think that this article illustrates one element of the propaganda model effectively.Bunkley 02:14, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Good link. Rick Norwood 14:42, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Studies and theories of media bias
This section has become totally unprofessional. It agures with itself, abounds in bad grammar, rambles at great length, lacks focus. It needs a complete rewrite. Rick Norwood 13:40, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Role of Language in Media Bias
This section seems to lack a neutral POV in places:
Another example of language bias would be using the phrase "freedom fighters" instead of "insurgents or terrorists." The former phrase creates an image of a noble struggle, while the latter is more neutral and true.
I think it's especially inappropriate for an article discussing Media Bias to espouse the opinion that "terrorists" better describes insurgents than does "freedom fighters." Isn't that exactly the kind of bias this section is attempting to explain in the first place?
- I'll try to make the same point in a more value neutral way. Rick Norwood 13:50, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] experimenter bias
Someone recently reworded the section on "experimenter bias", and supported the rewording by adding one new reference and deleting two old references. I have tried to restore a NPOV wording.
The new reference, which I have left in place, says that the NAACP is a "left leaning" organization, which shows the difficulty of quantifying bias in an unbiased way. If racial integration is leftist, then certainly the media are leftist, since almost all American media are in favor of racial integration. Rick Norwood 13:38, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
It looks like someone once again reworded the section on "experimenter bias". I returned some of the wording and included the deleted Media Matters study that firmly debunked the Timothy J. Groseclose of UCLA and economist Jeffrey D. Milyo study who planted the line of left-right far to the right (using the same logic as saying New York is in the West… because it is west of Maine). . http://mediamatters.org/items/200512220003
It looks like someone once again reworded the section on "experimenter bias". I returned some of the wording and included the deleted Media Matters study that firmly debunked the Timothy J. Groseclose of UCLA and economist Jeffrey D. Milyo study who planted the line of left-right far to the right (using the same logic as saying New York is in the West… because it is west of Maine). . http://mediamatters.org/items/200512220003 Bunkley 23:30, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Editorial on the Chomsky book.
I reverted the recent deletion of material on the Chomsky book and the editorial that replaced that deletion on two grounds: first, that it is generally not a good idea to replace referenced material with unreferenced material, and second, because the new material contained a large number of errors in grammar and usage. Rick Norwood 13:41, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Attribution bias
I removed the section on unattributed quotes and all that because, ironically, it had no attribution. I don't know what proof the author had that any journalists use "no comment" to not include points of view contrary to their own rather than using it to indicate that the person declined to comment or didn't return messages. Also, what proof is there that journalists use unattributed comments to push their agenda rather than to indicate that those sources didn't want to be named? Fianlly, were any of this true, it would be a tecnique of propagating bias rather than a type of bias. Stardog101 21:06, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] International Examples of bias
It seems that this article is too focused on US media, and international examples would be good.
In Australia, for example, the row over left-wing bias in the ABC (Australian Broadcasting Corporation, an entirely government funded network) would be good. See http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&q=abc+bias&btnG=Search&meta=cr%3DcountryAU Wmoisis 04:06, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] No attributions
Holy crap, now that I look at this, much of this article is without attribution. The history of bias section, for example -- Carl Sagan once criticized the Flintstones? Is there a source for this, let alone the rest of the assertions in this article? These sections without attribution should be fixed or deleted. Stardog101 02:22, 28 November 2006 (UTC)stardog101
