Talk:Media bias in the United States

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Headline text

Archive 1 through 2005 Archive 2 through June 2006


[edit] the UCLA study

The ucla study showed the range of bias in relationship to politics. The study states that outlets like Fox news has a conservative bias and that other instituions such as ABC news has a liberal bias. It is in fact what everyone knows already. ...and it proves the point that research that confirms common sense is true which research that violates common sense is false (at least in the global sense). ED MD 19:59, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

The UCLA study is flawed in ways that can be understood on an entirely objective basis -- for example: they investigated mentions of Democratic Party policy but reported this as mentions of left-wing policy. A basic rule of statistical studies (a subject I teach, by the way) is that you use the same wording in your conclusion that you use in your investigation. What would you think of a medical report that investigated the effect of aspirin on heart attackes, but reported the effect of pain relievers on heart attacks? You would see instantly that the report was flawed. Rick Norwood 13:04, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
But Left-wing = Democrat, for all intents & purposes, right? Dubc0724 13:27, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
You're kidding, right? Just in case you are not, to give just the most obvious example, a communist would be left-wing, but not a Democrat. Rick Norwood 19:26, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Rick, please... your bias is actually boardering on unbelieveable. Are we now to believe that you are an expert on studies now as well? Instead, you site an example of one person investigating one entity and state that this is valid reasearch? The problem with ideology is that it often gets in the way of common sense. Fox News leans right and ABC, NBC lean left. Who disagrees with that? The fact that people have to even do reaserch to come to this conclusion is an astonishment in and of itself. ED MD 08:31, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Ed, please...Fox News does not lean right, it is moderate. The opinionated shows on the Fox News Channel are more right winged then left. But the news itself is not. I guess focusing on both negative and postive aspects of the country makes the channel right winged under your logic, eh? --Firebird 02:22, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Actually, what causes people (such as myself) to believe that FOX News has a strong right bias is not only the way in which it treats issues, but which issues it chooses to cover. It is important to be aware that the mere content of a communication is not the only possible source of bias; it is also possible to bias the public discourse by giving undue weight to certain issues, and refusing to mention others. Kasreyn 03:33, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
That's exactly what I said. You see the same news you see on every other network (minus maybe special reports) on Fox. On Fox you also see a few things (all be it, not many) that aren't on the other stations, such as people donating clothing items to troops for them to distribute to families in Iraq. Obviously, since they show the same negative things, but a few positive things on this issue they are right winged (sarcasim...). A right winged organization (I'm talking about news, not the opinionated shows) would never talk about such things as possible civil war in Iraq almost daily. --Firebird 04:58, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
I have to disagree with you here, Rick, but not for the same reason ED MD does. While it is true that, compared to world politics, the Democratic Party of the United States is not particularly leftist (much more of a centrist), the title of the article includes "in the United States", which means when we refer to "right-wing" and "left-wing" we have to do so within the context of the nation under discussion. And while the Democratic Party is certainly not the most leftist party in America, it must be considered part of the left-wing, from the American point of view. Now, what you said about statistics, and beginning a report on specifics and ending with generalities, that I can agree with. Kasreyn 20:18, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Am I an expert on studies? Well, yes. Are you an expert on on medicine? I assume you are. I have a Ph.D. in mathematics, and teach statistics, and so, yes, I have a certain expertise in the correct way to conduct a statistical study.

I can't track you next sentence at all. You seem to say that the CEO of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting conducted the study himself, but obviously he hired a team of statisticians to do the research, and presumably, since he paid good, taxpayer money, he hired people who did valid research.

You keep accusing me of bias. I'm not sure what you mean by that. I have opinions that I arrived at through study and observation. You make it sound like somebody is paying me to hold those opinions, or as if I had something to gain (other than, perhaps, good government) by holding those opinions. I call them as I see them. And about half the time, my opinions coincide with yours -- but nobody says, "You're only agreeing with me because you're biased." People always reserve accusations of bias for occasions when people disagree with them. Rick Norwood 19:48, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

RN to Kasreyn: Thanks for your comments. Most of what passes for public discourse is hopelessly muddled, and here I am, sinking beneath the waves for the third time, trying to use words to mean something. The Democratic Party is to the left of the Republican Party, yes. But most people who describe the Democratic Party as "left-wing" are Republicans. I remember all too well the fifties, when "lefty" was a synonym for "commie". So, at a time when most Democrats try to position themselves as in the center, I think identifying the Democratic party as "left wing" is more political than accurate.

I just listened to a "man in the street" interview on NPR, and one person said, "I'm voting for (the Republican candidate) because he is a Christian. That's the only reason." Well, it is very likely that the Democratic candidate is also a Christian, but attack ads have obviously convinced some voters otherwise. Ann Coulter's new book is a best seller, and it starts out by saying that liberals like to brag that they have no religion. Now, from a point of view of logic, that is absurd. But it is very powerful semantics. Liberals = leftists = godless communists = no religion.

To me, "liberal" means favoring freedom, "conservative" means favoring tradition, "left wing" means favoring socialism or communism, and "right wing" means favoring the establishment. And "Democrat" and "Republican" means favoring anything that will win an election. Rick Norwood 21:17, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

i disagree with pretty much that whole comment, rick. except maybe the part about republicans & democrats. that was funny, and unfortunately resembles the current situation. but you seem to be on a mission to imply that conservatives want to turn the clock back 50 (or 250!) years while liberals are setting everyone free. i don't buy it. and i certainly don't see an expanding and intrusive government as freeing in any sense of the word. and by that standard, bush's civil liberties record is as tarnished as bill clinton's. so i fail to see why liberals want to categorize him as "conservative." maybe a nutjob or a lightweight, but i don't see what's conservative in much of his "legacy". just my two cents. -- LoudMouth 01:40, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Of course, Rick is right about the meanings of liberalism and conservatism (hey Loudmouth: we're at an encyclopedia. Go look 'em up.)
And I agree about the "commie" slur. It's not the fault of the Democratic Party that the average American these days has such a one-dimensional (if that) political awareness that such gross misrepresentations as "Democrat = commie" can pass muster.
I also find it strange that the "man on the street" thought the Democrat in the race was no Christian... it seems every time I watch an ad for a Democratic candidate, they're busy spouting off about their freakin' private beliefs instead of something I care about, like maybe what they're going to do for the economy, the education system, and foreign relations. Democrats are getting into the "pandering to the religious right" game, only the Republicans are holding the perceptual trump card on that issue. Just another example of the Democrats' complete political ineptitude. They have ceded the strategic initiative on almost every issue, and seem completely ignorant of how reframing and other forms of manipulation are used in modern times.
The way I see it: Democrats have modern ideas but use archaic political methods. Republicans have archaic ideas but push them with modern methods of politics, which is why they're winning. Maybe I'm a cynic, but most people seem so gullible to me that I really don't think the actual message being pushed matters to the success; only the effectiveness of the political spin-doctoring. And the Republicans are currently the masters of that art.
As for Democrat and Republican meaning "favoring anyone who will win an election": that's just the nature of a plurality voting system. See Duverger's Law. It's a natural result of a plurality system that a duopoly will form. If the Greens actually managed to pull off some sort of coup and overthrow the Democrats, don't kid yourself that they would do something sane, like institute approval voting to end the duopoly. The Greens, or whoever, would simply become the new member of the duopoly, and would resort to the same dirty tricks to keep third parties down, because that is the nature of a plurality system. A popular grassroots amendment would be able to institute approval voting against the wishes of the duopoly, but the average American is far too politically ignorant for it to ever pass, and no elected official would ever vote for it. Therefore it would appear we're stuck with the duopoly in this country.
OK, enough ramble from me. Sorry. Kasreyn 03:50, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

RN to LoudMouth: No, I don't think conservatives want to turn back the clock. I do think some conservatives want to remake America in the image of Leave it to Beaver. But I lived through the fifties, and so I remember that the reality of the fifties was very different from the fifties of Beaver and Wally and Eddie. You and I agree, however, about a huge intrusive government being a strange thing for conservatives to support: note attempts to ammend the constitution to forbid gay marriage and flag burning and also assertions by the federal government that they have a right to forbid the states to legalize medical marijuana or assisted suicide. I wish conservatives, especially conservatives who favor a strict construction of the constitution, would realize that what goes on between lovers, between a doctor and patient, or in the privicy of a person's home is not and never has been any business of the federal government. When the federal government tries to control very personal aspects of private life, it is about as effective as trying to remove a splinter with a forklift.Rick Norwood 13:26, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

well said. i think conservatism has been so mangled by neocons that it's unrecognizable. i guess i need to face the fact that i've become a libertarian. =). sorry if my previous post came across as aggressive... it was late and i was rambling! -- LoudMouth 16:25, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Good for you. Btw, sorry about my "this is an encyclopedia" comment. I was a little grouchy myself. ^_^; Kasreyn 21:26, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Bravo, RN. Love the splinter and forklift analogy... mind if I use that myself? I too, have been puzzled by conservatives' recent embrace of big "gubmint". (Not to mention being utterly mystified by the Democrats' failure to realize that now is their best chance to seize the mantle of "fiscal responsibility" for the next generation or two. Such political ignorance!!) In general, it appears that to pander to their social-conservative wing, the Republicans have decided to abandon or merely pay lip-service to their fiscal-conservative wing. It's a shame. Kasreyn 21:24, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
exactly. democrats are tax-and-spenders. republicans have become tax a little less-and-spenders... nobody talks about cutting spending...and both parties have essentially the same level of fiscal responsibility... ain't it nice living in a one-party country?? -- LoudMouth 20:24, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

It is likely a futile endeavor, but the point of this discussion is not your perception of "To me, "liberal" means favoring freedom, "conservative" means favoring tradition, "left wing" means favoring socialism or communism, and "right wing" means favoring the establishment." Sure it's nice and cynical. The point is the the research identified liberal positions as identified by self-described liberal organizations and conservative positions by self-described conservative organizations, correlated these "tag lines" that were specifically identifiable and written in the news in a positive light (and set the scale against political capital). To argue that ABC and the New York Times do not have liberal bias is a violation of common sense... just like a selective belief by you that FOX is a conservative organizaion, yet everyone else does not have bias. Its obvious that FOX has a conservative bias, and that the New York Times has a liberal bias. I am aghast that people cannot grasp the obvious. Seems to me that some people enjoy filtering reality. Just because you teach statistics does not mean that are an expert on its methodology--they are two different things. Just like I could tell you the meaning of a medical study or its implications, but I would be hard-pressed to tell you the some of the intricacies of such things as an odds ratio. As an aside, I know you hate conservatives and conservative ideas, but try to keep your biases out.... it's in way to many articles. ED MD 08:28, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

The "progressive" wing of the Democratic Party easily stand in the democratic socialist camp, considering that avowed Marxist groups such as the [Communist Party USA], [Democratic Socialists of America] and the [Workers World Party] frequently parrots Democratic talking points.[1][2][3] The left-wing description of the Democratic Party
The Democratic Party was effectively captured by the [neo-Marxist] [New Left] in the 1970s, and any good research into the Democratic Party's constituent groups--the AFL-CIO, National Organization for Women, Rainbow Coalition, etc.--would show an ideological overlap with social democracy. BTW, Max Elbaum, a Marxist scholar, says the CPUSA played a significant role in Harold Washington's 1983 Chicago mayoral campaign.--64.93.1.67 18:06, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dictionaries

It is not a question of what liberal and conservative mean to me. If there is to be any real communication, people must agree to use the dictionary definition of words. If you use words to mean what you want them to mean, and I use words to mean what I want them to mean, we are talking only to ourselves, not to each other.

As for the UCLA study, I found its conclusions perfectly reasonable -- until I began to read how the study was actually conducted. Yes, of course Fox news has a conservative bias and the New York Times has a liberal bias (though the reasons behind their bias, and the nature and extent of the bias, is a more interesting question). That does not change the fact that the study used bad methodology. And, yes, the methodology of statistical testing is a subject I teach.

Also, please stop reading my mind. You aren't very good at it. I do not "hate" conservatives and conservative ideas. I hate some conservative ideas, such as teaching creationism in the public schools, and love others, such as cutting the federal deficit. And I certainly don't hate anybody because they are conservative. In fact, most of my relatives and close friends are conservatives. In particular, ED MD, I don't hate you. I rather like you, and like much of what you have written for Wikipedia. Rick Norwood 16:22, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] References section

The references to this article don't seem to have been coded right. The links are from a superscripted number in the text out to external links. The numbers should correspond to a items in a list of references at the end that identify what the link goes to - a bibliography or reference list. There are different ways of doing this.... Rlitwin 19:36, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

It is generally a bad idea for the writer to put numbers on references, because later writers may add references in between existing references. Instead use the format: wedgebracket ref close wedgebracket author title publisher date ISBN brief statement of the nature of the reference wedgebracket slash ref close wedgebracket. If it is not already there, put at the bottom of the page: double equal sign References double equal sign wedgebracket references space slash close wedgebracket. Here is an example [1]
That is one of the methods I am referring to. Rlitwin 12:52, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
I've tried to standardize the references in this article, but I keep getting an "error 6" message. Can you tell me what "error 6" is and how to fix it? Rick Norwood 13:28, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] References

  1. ^ Oxford American Dictionary, Eugene Ehrlich, editor, Avon, 1986 ISBN 0-380-60772-7 paperback dictionary

Rick Norwood 12:38, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] opposing views section needs clean up

Seems to me that the article needs to be divided evenly. conservative points, liberals points. The opposing views section is currently a bunch of info written in a non-sequitarian fashion. Opposing views of what? that the media is neither liberal nor conservative??? ED MD 23:15, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps it might make more sense to change the title to fit the content, rather than the content to fit the title? Kasreyn 23:39, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Done. Still I see no value to the inclusions as they are randomata. ED MD 23:42, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

ABC/NBC/CBS/NYT/WP/AP/CNN....................................Fox. Yeah, 'evenly divided' should work. Riiiiiight.

The opposing views are views the disagree with the claims of bias. For example, one widely stated opposing view is that claims that the news media show liberal bias is an effort to win votes for the Republican Party, rather than a serious effort to explore the problem of bias. There was a column in this Sunday's local paper by a conservative columnist that claims that the New York Times is in favor of terrorism, because it criticizes President Bush. The question of bias is difficult and subtle, and cannot be reduced to "good guys vs. bad guys". Rick Norwood 15:52, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "real" liberals

It is only natural that every group considers themselves to be the bearers of the flame, and considers every other group to have strayed from the true path. But the use of phrases such as "real" liberals is unencyclopedic. An encyclopedia should state which groups self-identify as liberal and what each of those groups say they believe, not what the oponents of that group claim they "really" believe. It should not designate one of those groups as real and the others as strayed. Rick Norwood 13:56, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] External links problems

I'm rather confused by what is meant by much of what is in the External Links section. By "Liberal point of view" and "Conservative point of view", are we claiming merely that the site argues for that position, or that the site is actively run by those of that particular political bent? Because Media Matters self-describes as progressive. Hmm, a quick check on self-description:

  • Media Matters: self-describes progressive.
  • FAIR: self-describes progressive.
  • Bartcop: couldn't find any explicit self-description.
  • Media Research Center: self-describes conservative.
  • Fairpress.org: couldn't find any explicit self-description.
  • Raptureready.com: does not self-describe politically. (Furthermore, why the hell are we using this as a source??)
  • Dartmouth.edu link: link broken. Can anyone fix this?

So out of all these sites, we have one self-described conservative site and zero self-described liberal sites. Whatever our opinions may be about what the leanings of these sites might really be, it seems to be original research for us to unsupportedly claim they are presenting those viewpoints without outside attribution.

Also, it is claimed that certain links have "purportedly" shown bias. This is confusing on two levels: Who has made the allegation of bias (ie., was the claimant a reliable source)? And are the linked sites being accused of being biased, or are we saying they report on bias in others? Because the link to fair.org under "Purported pro-Israel bias" is to a fair.org article claiming pro-Israel bias in the rest of the media - but the simplistic heading "Purported pro-Israel bias" could lead the reader to mistakenly believe fair.org itself is accused of pro-Israel bias.

Am I alone in thinking this section needs work?

In any case, it is important that in our efforts to chronicle this phenomenon, we avoid being sucked into the one-dimensional left/right political frame that pervades the corporate media structure. There are many more dimensions and angles from which we can reflect on this issue, and we are not restricted to the same elementary script as the TV hairdos. Kasreyn 08:24, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Who coined the term Liberal Media, and when?

I seem to remember it was William Kristol, and that he conceded it was always something of a stretch. Can anyone here back, or correct, me? MWS 22:22, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] sarcastic?

The paragraph in question is not sarcastic. Minarchists, for example, object to (as biased) any statement that begins... "The government needs to do something about ... " They argue that private citizens should take action, without resorting to government. Rick Norwood 13:18, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Weasel wording and Poisoning the Well

I've removed two instances of "It should be noted...", a popular weasel word for injecting POV editorializing into an article. Our decisions on which aspects of the article are notable should be opaque to the reader; their only clue as to our opinions of notability (assuming they don't visit the talk page), should be how much space we devote to each topic. Period. It's not our place to call special attention to something with pontificating little phrases like this.

Secondly, I believe this entire paragraph should go:

'Doonesbury is often considered an editorial cartoon[citation needed] and is published on the opinion page of newspapers. Editorial cartoons (as well as comics in general) are not bound by any journalistic ethics to present only neutral or politically balanced viewpoints. Doonesbury and creator Garry Trudeau have never claimed to be unbiased.

See Poisoning the well; this paragraph's purpose is to attack Doonesbury. The closing phrase "...Garry Trudeau [has] never claimed to be unbiased..." is an example of a common debating tactic. Its purpose is to disingenuously lead the reader into believing something is being hidden from him; it's the equivalent of a broad wink and an elbow in the ribs. I don't personally disagree with the assessment or description of Doonesbury in this second paragraph. The point is, it's not particularly relevant and its purpose is to prejudice the reader. The article can do just fine with only the first paragraph, which sticks admirably to just the facts, ma'am. Kasreyn 07:51, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Rick Norwood 13:44, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
I agree as well. In the days leading up to the election, NBC (?) refused to run a commercial for the Dixie Chicks documentary. I'll find sourcing for it. - F.A.A.F.A. 10:37, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reporters Without Borders

I think the press freedom rankings mentioned in the additional information sectioon should be updated. The 2006 index shows the United States is no longer near the other countries in the index the article claims it is. This is especially evident with Bolivia, which is now at 16th with the United States at 53rd. The United States is now even with Tonga, Croatia, and Botswana.Raymondluxuryyacht1 06:30, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Please do the update. In general, 2005 info should be replaced with 2006 info throughout Wikipedia. Sad to hear that American media are moving in the wrong direction. Rick Norwood 13:22, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../m/e/d/Talk%7EMedia_bias_in_the_United_States_84a5.html"