Talk:Media bias in the United States

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of WikiProject Media, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles related to Media. For guidelines see the project page and Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ.
WikiProject Journalism
Journalism Portal
This article is part of WikiProject Journalism, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to journalism. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a message to explain the ratings and to identify possible improvements to the article.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Media bias in the United States article.
Article policies

This topic contains controversial issues, some of which have reached a consensus for approach and neutrality, and some of which may be disputed.
Before making any potentially controversial changes to the article, please carefully read the discussion-page dialogue to see if the issue has been raised before, and ensure that your edit meets all of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Please also ensure you use an accurate and concise edit summary.


Contents

[edit] Archive of prior discussions

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)
FYI, libertarianism, not liberalism, favors freedom. (Though one can be a libertarian liberal. case in point against the one dimensional spectrum) some items that "progressives" oft support seem to be liberating, and others seem not to be. one example would be high taxes required for massive social services. such are oppressive to financial freedom, which i believe is as much a protected right as that of privacy. sadly, in the modern environment financial freedom is a prerequisite to other freedoms. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.48.13.116 (talk) 07:19, 12 January 2007 (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)
I strongly support the position of User:Rick Norwood here. The Democratic Party in the US is owned by corporate money just like the Republican Party, and the Democrats, for the most part(with a few noteworthy exceptions: Maruice Hinchey, Dennis Kucinich, Cynthia McKinney, Barbera Lee) support the policies which benefit big business. The Dems are a fake oppositional party. Hijacking a quote by Amy Goodman, the range of debate between the Republicans and the Democrats is like the range of debate between GE to GM. --Bill Huston (talk) 17:58, 21 December 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)

Rick, even though you seem to have expertise in social sciences, I disagree. This policy would give an unfair advantage to e.g. Bill O'Reilly who describes himself as independent (by stressing very few positions from the left spectrum that he rarely talks about, such as opposition to the death penalty and gun control). Or what about the party which described itself as National Socialist (no, I am not comparing anyone to the Nazis here) ... and who here wants to chip in with a clearly left wing person describing himself/herself as moderate/centrist (but please, don't bring up Hillary Clinton) ... --Rolibaer 02:25, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Note how Wikipedia handles this problem: "O'Reilly is often called conservative, but describes himself as an independent." Rick Norwood 14:17, 11 February 2007 (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)

As far as I've can tell, "progressive" is a nice euphemism for what is popularly called "liberal." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.48.13.116 (talk) 06:32, 12 January 2007 (UTC).

Agree with last post. Even though I do not like the current left-right dichotomy in the US (must be strange reading at times from the UK), it works well here. Media matters does well-documented work, but they exclusively adress conservative bias ... while the right leaning sites do similar cherry picking. The problem with categorizing the bias monitoring groups from a "neutral" POV is that one has to define what the neutral POV is (and where the bias starts), and even though I believe objectivity/truth is more than a concept/construct (and not just one of multiple competing "narratives"), I admit that it it is usually impossible to achieve objectivity on examining complex issues. However, that does not mean that we should not try.--Rolibaer 02:05, 11 February 2007 (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)

[edit] O'Reilly isn't conservative??

User:StayinAnon supports a deletion by claiming "O'Reilly isn't a conservative pundit". This is really a minority opinion which needs a reference. This one explains why O'Reilly denies that he is a conservative, and supports objective proof that he is one anyway: [4]. -- Bill Huston (talk) 10:50, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Bill, I read the article and I see where it's coming from, but frankly, only one person gets to say what their beliefs are- the person themself. Adding O'Reilly to the list when he says otherwise, is advancing a bias even though it is unintended. He may be a conservative, I don't know, but what I do know is that it is FAR safer to remove him from the list entirely than try to advance a thought that says he is a conservative. StayinAnon 02:12, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Bill O'Reilly says that he's a "conservative guy" almost every show. He uses the word "traditionalist" to describe himself vs. the "secularists"(what most conservative pundits would call "liberals"). He does say that he is an independant when it comes to political parties, however, and does not support the rebuplicans outright, and in fact has criticized them many times. However, this criticism is usually based on conservative values. (His criticism of the lack of border control and immigration policy, for instance). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Socratesone (talk • contribs) 04:24, 18 March 2007 (UTC).
It's not about belief. It's a characterization of how he acts, and what he says. OK, I do have problems with the terms "conservative" and "liberal". Notwithstanding, O'Reilly supports big buisness, he is anti-environment, anti-human rights, he is pro-war, he supports the fascist policies of the government (i.e., unchecked executive power), he attacks peace activists and environmentalists and union workers on his show....!!! C'mon here. It is patently absurd to argue that he is not a conservative, except if you want to support the ridiculous notion that Fox is "fair and balanced" and that his show is a "no-spin zone". This is not in the realm of opinion. This is demonstrable fact. -- Bill Huston (talk) 16:43, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
This directly contradicts what was said above in the talk section about avoiding such descripters unless they are self-applied. So, one is not a liberal unless she says she's a liberal, but if you are not a liberal you get slapped with the label "conservative"? Such hypocracy is what drives commentators to think Wiki is just a hotbed for seething liberals. (And I do think O'Reilly is a conservative, it's the antics here I criticize.) I'm sure I'm about to violate the policy here by saying this, but honestly? You are raving and ranting exactly like the typical liberal extremist. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.48.13.116 (talk) 06:22, 12 January 2007 (UTC).

[edit] rework Claims that media in the United States show conservative bias section

I have begun a rework of this section.

I deleted this as it belongs in the "liberal bias" section, not this one:

Conversely critics of liberal bias often point out left wingers in news outlets such as Meredith Viera, Rosie O'Donnell, Keith Olbermann, Katie Couric

I deleted this:

Mainstream liberal media include The New York Times, MSNBC, The Associated Press, CBS and it's reference to http://www.mediaresearch.org/biasbasics/biasbasics2.asp

This is not a view widely held by liberals or progressives. Media Research Center is a massive organization with a $6M budget, is funded by conservative foundations, and has connections to conservative think tanks like Heritage Foundation: [5]. This group is not on the same par as FAIR, which has 1/20th the budget and 1/10th the staff.

I also expanded it a bit with a larger list of both conservative and liberal commentators. --Bill Huston (talk) 11:01, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Review of edits by 67.175.133.83

I am beginning to review of edits by 67.175.133.83. There have been several contentious edits to the "Does the media have a liberal bias" section, as can be seen here: [6].

Examples:

  • "some American conservatives" -> "some Americans". Granted, both are weasel words which need to be sourced, but the second looks as if it is trying to put forth that this view is shared by all Americans, and not just conservatives.
  • overzealous addition of {{citeneeded}} tags in sections which oppose his viewpoint. This looks like an attempt to discredit these statements, since the section which agrees with is position does not get these tags. Not every statement in Wikipedia is referenced, and I question whether this is desirable. To be fair, I added a {{Unreferencedsect}} tag to the section in question. --Bill Huston (talk) 12:50, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I want this article checked for NPOV.

This article seems to be in gross violation of NPOV policy.

First, the section on liberal bias is entirely hearsay, i.e. "conservatives SAY this, conservatives CLAIM that", wheraes the section on conservative bias is written as if it were undisputed fact.

Second, some of the references cited for the Conservative Bias section are extremely dubious. For instance, right after the obviously loaded statement "To the trained observer, it is difficult to find any news reporting in most mainstream media which does not have a conservative bias" is given reference #7. Reference #7 does not link me to a respectable media watchdog group but rather some obscure blog I've never heard of. The source is not a reliable one.

Third, the language is loaded. Examples of this:

"To the trained observer, it is difficult to find any news reporting in most mainstream media which does not have a conservative bias"

Why was this not said about the liberal bias claim, since that claim is more prominent than the conservative bias one?

"Conservative commentators are easy to find:"

Far more people are listed here than in the Liberal Bias section. The terms "difficult" and "easy" are editorializations.

"The media promote fascist policies, such as expansive Presidential executive powers, and deregulation of corporations"

Describing conservativism as "fascist" is hardly what I'd call NPOV.

"The fact that most News organizations are owned by multi-billion dollar media conglomerates is a common method of determining where the bias leans. NewsCorp, GE, and Viacom are rarely described as 'liberal' companies. The CEOs of these three companies (and the other two major media companies, Disney and Time-Warner) are Republican. Editorial policy is set from the top down, in virtually all media organizations."

Do the CEOs of these companies actively exercise editorial control over the dozens of publications they own? Sources, please.

Finally, the Opposing Views section gives lengthy descriptions of opponents to the "liberal bias" theory, but zero mention of anyone opposed to the "conservative bias" theory.

Overall, this article seems to have a glaring liberal bias, which is very, very ironic for an article which makes such a strong case that there is no such thing as liberal bias.

That, as best as I can put it, is why I added the POV-check template. I ask that this article be investigated for NPOV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.3.224.64 (talk • contribs) 18:24, 21 December 2006

There is also another type of the same problem in the liberal bias section. The sentence reads: "Conservative critics claim that the editorial pages of many large U.S. newspapers such as The New York Times, the Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, and the San Francisco Chronicle, allegedly have a more-or-less explicitly liberal point of view."

The problem is probably just a typical misuse of the word "allegedly." The way the sentence reads now is that conservatives claim there is an alleged bias, which is not correct. Conservative actually claim there IS a bias. The sentence can either be 1) Conservative critics allege ... have a more-or-less explicitly liberal point of view; or 2) Conservatives claim ... have a more-or-less explicitly liberal point of view. Either say the same thing and it is an accurate representation of the conservative position. If somebody objects to me making this correction, please state so we can discuss before I make the changes. JimZDP 19:20, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Many of these points are well taken. This article is a magnet for people who want to push their own agenda, both lefties and righties. I suggest your remove or rewrite POV claims, one at a time, starting with "To the trained observer, it is difficult to find any news reporting in most mainstream media which does not have a conservative bias".
The advantage of doing, say, one edit a day, is that if you do too many edits at once, you will probably provoke another edit war, and this page has seen all too many revert wars. Rick Norwood 22:26, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Made the correction re: use of "allegedly" as discussed above. JimZDP 23:48, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

These are good guidelines for NPOV and 'weasely' language: WP:WTA and WP:AWW. Antonrojo 17:13, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I ripped a whole lot of the loaded language out. If anyone sees any problems feel free to correct 'em. -- Pellucid 13:50, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with most of your changes, Pellucid. I'm working to provide the references you request, or else to rewrite the section if I cannot find a solid, academic reference for the assertion you question. Rick Norwood 14:20, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone else see the irony in this? I think the "The neutrality of this article is disputed." tag should be kept on this article indefinately. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.171.183.136 (talk) 23:38, 29 March 2007 (UTC).

I hope you are wrong. I think that it is possible for people of good will to overcome their own biases and write a neutral article. Rick Norwood 12:36, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Hah! That's pure conservative bias talking! Anyone who thinks that people can and should be virtuous clearly hates liberals! End of sarcasm. -- Pellucid 09:18, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] One more small inaccuracy.

The claim that the Disney CEO (Bob Iger) is Republican is false. Go to tray.com, or any other site where you can track political donations, and you will see that he has donated money to the Democrats. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.142.130.45 (talk • contribs) 22:34, 22 December 2006

Just because he contributes to the Dems does not mean that he is a Dem. Corporate CEOs are smart and usually contribute to both sides. -- Bill Huston (talk) 16:35, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Antonrojo's edit

An edit that begins with a redlink is problematic. Rick Norwood 20:11, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Added Author

Added the John Stossel reference under "Authors on liberal bias claims". TimeDog 21:36, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Huge list of commentators under "Claims that media in the United States show conservative bias"

First off, the list adds nothing to the section. At the very least, it should be moved elsewhere.

I think I'm going to make a page title "American political commentators." That list adds nothing to the section 171.71.37.28 18:54, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] It's been moved

Exobyte 18:07, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Will this help?

It seems as though this article will never be able to remove the Neutrality tag. Someone always comes along trying to assert a bias. I want insights as to what may happen if we try this approach- We keep this article and add a Liberal bias and a Conservative bias page. We leave the relevant history and build up prior to the rise of professional journalism. The bias shown there will rarely be in dispute. Then, we create short summaries under the headings that direct people to go elsewhere. The short summaries can easily be checked for NPOV, and the two new articles will be easier to maintain and check for vandalism and POV issues as well. What are your thoughts? Could this work out, or am I missing something? StayinAnon 05:02, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

You sound reasonable, and most people are reasonable, but the die hard liberals and the die hard conservatives -- the people who say that every liberal is a traitor or that every conservative is a bigot -- will always cry bias, no matter how reasonable the article is.
IMHO there are already enough web pages about bias, and it is too ephemeral and changes too rapidly to be worth two new articles here. Rick Norwood 13:19, 19 March 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Should "Bias in the comics" be removed?

Both Doonesbury and Mallard Fillmore are very biased, but neither is a news source; they are both commentaries. Exobyte 18:07, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Note the title of the article: Media bias, not News bias. Rick Norwood 21:29, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Noted, and you're right. That said, looking at Media, this article clearly discusses published, mass communication media, a superset of news media. Are we using Media as a synonym for News Media? It turns out News media bias in the United States forwards here.
From our parent page of sorts, media bias
Media bias is a term used to describe a real or perceived bias of journalists and news producers within the mass media, in the selection of which events will be reported and how they are covered. The term "media bias" usually refers to a pervasive or widespread bias contravening the standards of journalism, rather than the perspective of an individual journalist or article. The direction and degree of media bias in various countries is widely disputed, although its causes are both practical and theoretical.
To me, it seems like we're using Media as a synonym for News Media.Exobyte 00:44, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

While news media come in for the most mentions in the article, accusations of media bias often extend to entertainment media, witness Dan Quale on Murphy Brown. Is it that you don't think the comics are important media, or that you think the comics are too biased to mention? Rick Norwood 13:03, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Closer the the latter. I see them as something closer to a letter to the editor and as such are inherently biased and presented as such. If we keep them, we should expand it to cover other political cartoons (this type http://cagle.msnbc.com/politicalcartoons/). I'm just not sure it there's any point discussing content where the point is to express an opinion, i.e. biased. Exobyte 17:41, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
I think you miss the point about media bias in the United States. Many conservatives believe that all of the media -- newspapers, television, the internet and, famously, wikipedia -- are so mad dog barking biased against patriots and Christians that they can't think straight. Thus, the conservative action to keep Doonesbury out of newspapers is very much on topic. Rick Norwood 21:30, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I know Mallard Fillmore is openly conservative, but is Prickly City? I know it has a conservative slant, but unless it's openly conservative, isn't saying it is POV? -- Pellucid 03:35, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

How about replacing Prickly City with Little Orphan Annie? Rick Norwood 12:57, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Some cleanup

I did some cleanup. I removed some long lists of names (feel free to remove more), cleaned up some stuff that showed up in strange places (the stuff where you can tell someone is trying to insert specific information anywhere, not add to the article), stuff like that. I tried to maintain most of the content in some way. Exobyte 18:07, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sentence removal

Does anyone have any problems with removing this sentence? It seems like original research, and it's written in a biased way.

Furthermore, a considerable amount of news is directed towards the wealthy, and disproportionately conservative, population in the form of Stock Market analysis and discussion.

The rise of the IRA and 401(k) suggest that there are more small investors than ever (but I need a source for that). Oh, and that theory contradicts the previous theory of a capitalistic media as a product (but in fairness, there can be multiple theories).171.71.37.103 21:03, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I say it's OR and I say remove it. To say that stock market reports show conservative bias would be like saying horoscopes show bias towards idiots. Rick Norwood 19:21, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rework a sentence

The CEOs of these three companies (and the other two major media companies, Disney and Time-Warner) are Republican.[citation needed] Editorial policy is set from the top down in virtually all media organizations.[citation needed] Similarly, the media magnate Rupert Murdoch can hardly be described as liberal.[citation needed]

In looking for sources, I found this:

NewsCorp (FOX): CEO [Rupert Murdoch]: very likely a Republican, no argument there

GE (NBC): CEO [Jeffrey R. Immelt]: [7] contributions Dem: 7%, GOP: 26% ($28,000), 67%, special interests

Disney (ABC): [CEO Robert Iger]: [8] 57% Dem ($77,000), 15% GOP ($20,000)

Time-Warner (CNN): CEO [Richard Parsons] [9] GOP: 67% ($200,000), described on the wikipedia page as "A liberal African-American Republican." Note that the president of CNN, Jim Walton, is NOT the same Jim Walton as the Wal-Mart son Jim Walton.

I'm thinking we should re-write the above quote, and probably not include ABC in the list. Including GE in it is questionable.171.71.37.103 00:25, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Good work. I agree with the changes you suggest. You should also reference the sources you have found. Rick Norwood 13:01, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
It's updated. I went with the Murdoch and Parsons. Their wikipedia articles describe them as a libertarian and liberal republican respectively, and their campaign contributions agree.171.71.37.103 20:36, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Are capitalistic and conservative philosophies distinct?

* Media Concentration: The mass media comprises a few very large media corporations.[citation needed] Such a uniformity of ownership means that stories which might not be to the benefit of these large corporations may not be run.[26]
* Capitalist Model: In the United States the media is operated for profit, mostly funded through the sale of advertisements. This tends to drive news, commentary, and public affairs towards supporting industry and mercantilism generally.[27]
Liberals argue that there is a heavy bias in US media in favor of corporate interests.[citation needed] They claim that the news is described as a product to be sold to consumers, funded by advertisers.[28]

These three points suggest a capitalistic bias more than a conservative. Are capitalist and conservative almost synonymous?

I'd say this is a distinct bias. It's news that's covered and chosen not with political interests, but in the interest of getting readers/viewers--selling news. According to [[10]], "science stories usually fall into three families: wacky stories, scare stories and 'breakthrough' stories," three topics areas where the only agenda is getting an audience.--171.71.37.103 22:50, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Most of my friends and neighbors are pro-business and also pro-Christ, and the two seem to go together. My church will not only tell you that it is your Christian duty to vote Republican, they will also tell you who to go to for investment counceling. The church has doubled in size twice since I started going there. I've since left the church, because they preach against Godless evolution, and Creationism seems silly to me, but the social conservatives and the economic conservatives walk hand in hand. Rick Norwood 13:14, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
I meant that bias could be introduced into the news as a result of people trying to make money from the news. Air America Radio has struggled to turn a profit. I'm sure that the people choosing the programming actively sought out shows that fit their agenda (they are explicitly biased, claiming to be progressive talk radio), but also would attract and keep listeners. In the same way, Rush Limbaugh is broadcast by so many stations because people listen to him, so he does a good filling space between the commercials.
This is if we assume America is generally a capitalist state. If it's actually somewhere between capitalist and communist (and close to the middle), then you're point is entirely correct; the right has a socially and economically conservative agenda, while the left has a socially and economically liberal agenda.
If capitalistic bias was added, I'd probably suggest making the description read "Capitalistic bias in the media is the result of treating news as a commodity to be sold to consumers, and the coverage or selection of stories to maximize profit." Yellow journalism was certainly a result of capitalistic bias. According to the page, "...papers were accused by critics of sensationalizing the news in order to drive up circulation." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 171.71.37.103 (talk) 18:35, 3 May 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Reverting recent 12.180.32.66 Edits

I think these edits speak for themselves:

[11] [12] [13] [14] 171.71.37.103 23:41, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Opposing Views?" What exactly is this?

Can someone explain to me what the "opposing views" section is all about? It just seems like another "accusations of conservative bias" section. Is it a holdover from some point at which this article only mentioned liberal bias?

My guess is that it should be a place for claims that the media generally isn't biased. I still support the idea of creating an area for capitalistic/mercantilistic bias. Conservative and liberal aren't the only biases. 171.71.37.103 18:03, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
I think we should fix the current article first. If it's for claims that the media generally isn't biased, then we need to overhaul even the tiny bit I left there.Pellucid 18:19, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Good move on moving the conservative bias stuff out of Opposing Views. I wish we had more than that one sentence, but it is important to present claims that the media generally aren't biased. 171.71.37.103 18:23, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
I removed the "Opposing Views" section. The one line was not long enough to constitue a new section. In fact, the description of the footnote was not even related to "Opposing Views", it was just exhorting the liberal bias of CNN. I added it instead to the external links of other pages that attempt to show a bias. Until an actual section can be developed, I say this section remains deleted. Alex 16:11, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Skew

From the article:

In 2006 after the elections Fox News leaked a memo apparently intended to skew its coverage.

[1]

From the cited memo:

Be On The Lookout For Any Statements From The Iraqi Insurgents who must be Thrilled At The Prospect Of A Dem Controlled Congress

Does that quote from the memo (or the rest of the memo) actually prove that they intended to skew their coverage? As a whole, it's poorly written, and it's hard to pick out the sarcasm without preconceived notions of FOX News bias. Regarding Rumsfeld's resignation, the writers said "he must be in a fine mood," and was more than happy to cover Rumsfeld's resignation. He also said the insurgents must be "thrilled." In the sake of POV, I think we have to give the author the benefit of the doubt on this. It also isn't exactly the smoking gun that proves FOX skews their news. 171.71.37.103 19:48, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Good call. That's one of the big things we really need to watch for in this article; we absolutely cannot be interpreting statements when we could be directly quoting them. Pellucid 10:20, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Roger Ailes

This should probably be removed; I just didn't want to be the one to do it.

Pellucid's right. Just because he's probably a Republican doesn't mean he introduces bias into Fox News. If we include that, we need a source that claims he's a Republican (his wikipedia article doesn't even make that claim); there's a difference between running a campaign and supporting the campaign (but I admit, he's probably a Republican). We'd also need to find a reputable source that has more evidence than "he worked on a Republican campaign, so me must be a Republican. If he's a Republican, that means he's introducing conservative bias into Fox News."

Grebrook: I actually hated the word "consultant." Is a Republican media consultant someone who works for the party, or a media consultant who happens to be Republican? 171.71.37.103 17:58, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removed two paragraphs about Fox News having conservative bias

The current CEO of the Fox News Channel is Roger Ailes, a veteran of both mass media and politics, having played an instrumental role for Ronald Reagan in the 1984 presidential election and for George H. W. Bush in the 1988 presidential election. After the 2006 midterm elections, a leaked Fox News memo instructed reporters to "be on the lookout for any statements from the Iraqi insurgents, who must be thrilled at the prospect of a Dem controlled Congress."[2]

If someone can find a reputable source claiming that either of these actually lead to conservative bias, please cite it and move the content back.

The first claim of bias, while a fact, expects readers to assume that Ailes is introducing bias because of his background. That's implicit OR. We need an outside claim.

The second claim expects readers to read into the memo. There was no allegation of bias, only support for the claim that coverage is set by executives. This was already covered in the wikipedia article.

171.71.37.103 22:54, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

A claim that Iraqi insurgents like American Democrats, unsupported as it is by even the slightest evidence, is clearly biased. That is what bias is: belief unsupported by evidence. Rick Norwood 14:24, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
You're right. Now we just need to find a source that claims the memo was evidence of bias. 171.71.37.103 18:34, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
And then, of course, we need to find a second source that states that the first sourse claimed the memo was biased, and a third sourse that states that the second source did in fact state that the first sourse claimed the memo was biased. And so on, ad infinitum. Rick Norwood 12:27, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
To say that the memo is biased is putting words in the mouth of The Huffington Post. I doubt they'd mind, though, and I have no doubt that they intended that memo to be evidence that Fox News is run by someone with bias, but we do need a second source, or else it's original research. I admit, you're right that finding someone who says something and citing it is original research, but wikipedia seems to consider that much acceptable. 171.71.37.103 18:20, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Story on bias for missing persons

Missing People Face Disparity in Media Coverage

This is clearly bias (something's influencing story selection). An interviewee in the article claims it's due to "pure unconscious racism," (racial bias) but the article mentions that "missing minorities, men and the elderly simply don't generate as much media interest." So a bias in covering stories based on what gets ratings.

Multiple theories (and neither is OR), and a nice break from the liberal and conservative biases. 69.12.143.197 16:39, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of Byrd/Lott paragraph

I have removed the following paragraph from the article:

Conservative politicians alleged media bias resulted in differing treatment of Senators Robert Byrd and Trent Lott over racial issues.[citation needed] Byrd, a Democrat and a former member of the Ku Klux Klan, used the term "white nigger" in an interview.[3] Lott resigned as Senate majority leader under criticism from Democrats and Republicans alike regarding a comment about Lott's home state of Mississippi supporting then-segregationist Strom Thurmond's 1948 Presidential campaign ("We're proud of it. And if the rest of the country had followed our lead, we would not have had all these problems over all these years either.")[4]

No source was provided claiming that this was evidence of bias. This seems simply to have been inserted by an editor, representing his own Original Research and opinion. Please don't reinsert this paragraph unless supported by reliable sourcing.-Hal Raglan 02:06, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Coverage of Iraq and Weasel Words

This section is so weak that it nearly destroys the credibility of the rest of the article. "Some say," "Critics say," "It has been said," etc. These sentences have absolutely no cited sources and therefore, no comprehensive meaning. Believe me, I'm as big of a critic of the coverage of Iraq as any other liberal, but this sort of made-up nonsense is unacceptable for an encyclopedic article. I vote that it should be removed until properly sourced. BadMojoDE 21:49, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Instead of removing this, how about adding references? Rick Norwood 13:08, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Claims of conservative bias

I just removed the part about "state-owned media" that tends to support governments. Whoever put that in has no idea about European media - first of all, the examples given (Italian RAI and German ARD) are not "state-owned", they're public broadcasting services (well, admitedly, RAI is pretty much owned by Berlusconi, so it's difficult to tell if it still can be called a public broadcasting service or not). There is a big difference between ARD, the public service TV station, and CCTV, the state-owned TV station.

I would also like to point out the sentence: "The capitalist model also creates a healthy competition for fair and quick news coverage, as well as investigative reports, such as the uncovering of the Watergate scandal." The sentence is sourced, and I'm not contesting it's veracity, but I do feel that it is sort of out of place where it is. What does that sentence have to do with claims of conservative bias? If I understand correctly, the "Claims of conservative bias" subsection is intended to represent the views of those concerned that there is conservative bias in US media. Would someone concerned with conservative bias really say: "Well, the capitalist model tends to favor big company bias, but on the other hand, it creates healthy competition."? Isn't there a better place for this statement somewhere in the article? TomorrowTime (talk) 12:40, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Watergate

This article seems to imply that making the Watergate Scandal public knowledge is proof of a liberal bias, wasn't that just reporting and exposing the truth? I think some right wings are editing the article to make it appear as if there is a liberal bias.

AllyndNoir (talk) 00:49, 19 May 2008 (UTC)