Talk:Media bias in the United States/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

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)

Rick, "liberal" does NOT mean favoring freedom, and "conservative" does NOT mean favoring tradition. The definitions are nowhere even close to either.

"Liberal" means believing in the governments ability to solve problems, and thus favoring solutions that involve empowering the government to fix those problems. Empowering the government means creation of committees, organizations, time spent, etc... All of which result in money spent - requiring more taxation to cover the expense. Hence the old phrase "tax-and-spend liberals...".

"Conservative" means believing that government should be minimized as much as possible, only empowering it for absolute necessity (national defense, protection of the rights and property of private citizens, etc...). Conservatives believe that government has no business trying to solve the problems of the people, and that the people should solve their own problems. Hence they balk at government initiatives that raise taxes and expand government, unless the reasons for it fit their definition of "absolute necessity".

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)

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)

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

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)

References

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

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)

"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)

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)

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)

Liberal media means free media, this is opposed to state-controlled media. One of the foundations of all free countries is the establishment of a liberal media. The interesting question here, is how the switch in the meaning of liberal as 'free' and liberal as in 'democratic party' was made. Carewolf (talk) 11:35, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

The distortion of the meaning of the word "liberal" was deliberate political spin, but it has been so successful that future dictionaries may define liberal as a synonym for "someone who wants to raise your taxes and free criminals". Rick Norwood (talk) 16:54, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

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)

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 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)

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)

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).

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)

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)

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)

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)

Antonrojo's edit

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

Added Author

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

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)

It's been moved

Exobyte 18:07, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

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)

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'm not sure this argument carries much weight. Should we create a section about bias in video games based on the fact that some people try and ban them? Aprock (talk) 17:25, 7 November 2008 (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)

I'm looking at the bias in cartoons and thinking it should be refocused, recast as it's own subarticle. Particularly, if comic's pages are to be a part of the article, that implies covering things like the Simpsons, comic books, and movies. What are the arguments for keeping them here above and boyond other fictional works? Aprock (talk) 07:28, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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).

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)

"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)

Skew

From the article:

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

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)

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)

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."

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)

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)

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. Byrd, a Democrat and a former member of the Ku Klux Klan, used the term "white nigger" in an interview. 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.")

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)

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)

Definetly this is one of the most highly cited areas of media bias in the 21st century it needs to stay. Further more I think it should be noted that media that is so called 'liberal' has been supporting the war in Iraq. With FAIR stating at one point in the early faze of the war that people were 15 times more likely to get a positive response from the coverage. I admit I think the whole issue of liberal biased in the US ridiculous and consider CNN etc. very conservative. More outside(non-US) observers need to be placed on this page as they are unlikely to have any bias. Further more I would like to see more about the daily show as many have described it "as the only indepent voice in the American media". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.65.43.168 (talk) 22:41, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

moral bias

Or rather a bias in favor of immorality. Is there a politically liberal bias in the media? Maybe. Probably. But what this article doesn't mention is the bias in favor of immorality (especially homosexuality) in the media. Why not? What is Wikipedia trying to hide? Newsflash: it's no good asking a liberally biased medium (i.e., Wikipedia) to comment on liberal bias in the media. Duh much? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.163.0.44 (talk) 19:33, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

This is a hard question. When it comes to science, there is a test for what is correct and what is incorrect -- try it and see. But when it comes to morality, there is no such test. I can remember when my friends and neighbors in the deep south argued that the media was biased in favor of the mixing of the races, which was immoral, and forbidden by the Bible. So, yes, the media is biased in favor of treating homosexuals as human beings, just as it is biased in favor of treating women and Blacks as human beings. It is really pretty hard to make a case for doing otherwise. But feelings on this subject tend to be extreme. In my home state, Tennessee, a fundamentalist Christian shot and killed two Unitarians yesterday because they preached equal treatment for homosexuals. I'm sure the newspaper reports were all biased in favor of the Unitarians. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:14, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Bias in the comics?

Does anyone expect the comics not to present the writer/artist's point of view? Is this section really worthwhile? Redddogg (talk) 19:34, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

If you read the section, you'll discover that a lot of people feel very strongly that the comics should not present the writer's point of view. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:23, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

It seems incongruous that a discussion of funny pages be elevated above editorial cartoons here. What is the rationale here? Aprock (talk) 07:31, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Editorial cartoons have a long history in American politics, and are rarely censored. There are, on the other hand, people who have expended great time an effort to censoring the comic strips. These people evidently feel that comic strips are influential, else they would not go to so much trouble to try to silence them. Some surveys indicate that more people read the comics and the advice column than read any other part of the paper except the headlines. Rick Norwood (talk) 14:37, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

To be clear here, the only distinction you've made between comics, and other forms of fictional media, is that they appear in newspapers. Is that the argument you are making? Aprock (talk) 17:27, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

The article discusses bias in television entertainment programs. Bias and accusations of bias occur in many media. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:44, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

It seems that if bias in entertainment is a particularly relevant aspect of media bias in the US, it should have it's own section, under which comics would be a subsection. There seems to be no reason to have an entire section devoted to the funny pages here. Aprock (talk) 01:02, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

The origin of the section was the successful effort by conservatives to have the liberal comic strip, Doonesbury, removed from newspapers not by an editorial decission, but by writing to the printer that printed the comics. This was sufficiently remarkable to be worthy of note. I'm at a lost to understand Aprock's desire to remove that information. Rick Norwood (talk) 16:20, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Specific examples

I've added an article from the Washington Post's media correspondent, Howard Kurtz, discussing a specific example of media bias in the current presidential election. Initially, I placed in at the end of a paragraph that starts with a Zogby poll of media bias, then reports an imbalance in the number of stories covering each candidate in the election, and then moves on to a poll suggesting the public believes the press is supporting one candidate over the other. The Kurtz article seems to me a natural way to flesh out that paragraph with a concrete example. The paragraph is:

A poll of likely 2008 United States presidential election voters released on March 14, 2007 by Zogby International reports that 83% of those surveyed believe that there is a bias in the media, with 64% of respondents of the opinion that this bias favors liberals and 28% of respondents believing that this bias is conservative.[18] In August of 2008 the Washington Post ombudsman wrote that the Post had published almost three times as many page 1 stories about Barack Obama than it had about John McCain since Obama won the Democratic party nomination that June.[19] In September of 2008 a Rasmussen poll found that 68% of voters believe that "most reporters try to help the candidate they want to win." 49 percent of respondents stated that the reporters are helping Barack Obama to get elected, while only 14 percent said the same regarding John McCain. A further 51% said that the press was actively "trying to hurt" Republican Vice Presidential nominee Sarah Palin with negative coverage. [20]

The sentence I added made it:

A poll of likely 2008 United States presidential election voters released on March 14, 2007 by Zogby International reports that 83% of those surveyed believe that there is a bias in the media, with 64% of respondents of the opinion that this bias favors liberals and 28% of respondents believing that this bias is conservative.[18] In August of 2008 the Washington Post ombudsman wrote that the Post had published almost three times as many page 1 stories about Barack Obama than it had about John McCain since Obama won the Democratic party nomination that June.[19] In September of 2008 a Rasmussen poll found that 68% of voters believe that "most reporters try to help the candidate they want to win." 49 percent of respondents stated that the reporters are helping Barack Obama to get elected, while only 14 percent said the same regarding John McCain. A further 51% said that the press was actively "trying to hurt" Republican Vice Presidential nominee Sarah Palin with negative coverage. [20] In October 2008, The Washington Post media correspondent Howard Kurtz reported that Sarah Palin was again on the cover of Newsweek, "but with the most biased campaign headline I've ever seen."[21]

I do think adding something here is appropriate and helpful because it illustrates the subject that the rest of the paragraph is discussing in more general terms. In retrospect, it might have been better to quote the headline that Kurtz is characterizing as "biased."

One editor objected because it was a specific example - so I moved it to the section on "cited cases." Another editor then deleted it with the comment "The media is full of such accusations and counteraccusations. They could fill several books -- and have. Only the most notable belong here."

I still think it makes sense to have a specific, concrete example at the end of the paragraph on potential bias in the 2008 presidential election. Kurtz is a respected journalist, and his reporting has credibility. But beyond that, I'd suggest that we need a standard for what we include. For instance, we have a section citing the following:

In 2008, WorldNetDaily sponsored a children's essay and video contest to disprove global warming entitled "The Sky's Not Falling." The event was sponsored by WND Books, a subsidiary of WorldNetDaily. According to the site's promotion, "The contest was...designed to highlight the absurdities, untruths and downright lies that children are being taught daily about "climate change" in public school."[2]

We also have:

According to former FOX News producer Charlie Reina, unlike the AP, CBS, or ABC, FOX News's editorial policy is set from the top down, stating that "The roots of FOX News Channel's day-to-day on-air bias are actual and direct. They come in the form of an executive memo distributed electronically each morning, addressing what stories will be covered and, often, suggesting how they should be covered."[32]

These also strike me as being garden variety "accusations and counteraccusations" - without the specific context provided by the additional information we have on the 2008 election. I'm inclined to include all of it, because it is all relevant and is sourced. But if we're going to exclude this one, it seems to me that the same criteria would exclude several of the other specifically cited cases. EastTN (talk) 15:05, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Of your two examples, the first ("The Sky is Falling") seems trivial but the second (the Fox news quote) seems substantive. Rick Norwood (talk) 19:27, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

My larger point is that we haven't implemented a "most notable" standard, or any other, for that matter. The results are inconsistent, and we at least run the danger of including or excluding things based on our particular partisan views. As for the specifics, the WorldNetDaily one strikes me as particularly weak because it seems to be pure OR on the part of the editors - we've looked at the site's promo material and concluded that it's an example of bias. If it were up to me, it would go. The Charlie Reina example is stronger, but it's an ex-employee who's criticizing the operations of a prior employer. He may be right, but it does seem to be falling into the "he said . . she said" category. On balance, I'd probably keep it, though, because it's a specific accusation dealing with a notable media outlet, made by someone who - while not a disinterested third party - is in a position to know how Fox has operated in the past (we probably should chase down the Fox response since it is coming from an ex-employee.) In my mind, the merit of the Kurtz article is that it provides a specific example of a type of bias that's discussed in general terms based on surveys and statistics, the periodical involved is a notable one, and the person identifying the bias is a recognized and reputable media analyst. If we wanted to think of the Reina example as a point of comparison, the Kurtz article is directly connected to the discussion of alleged bias in the 2008 election, rather than standing alone, and Howard Kurtz is an uninvolved third-party. EastTN (talk) 15:57, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

OR in WorldNetDaily Example?

This section says:

In 2008, WorldNetDaily sponsored a children's essay and video contest to disprove global warming entitled "The Sky's Not Falling." The event was sponsored by WND Books, a subsidiary of WorldNetDaily. According to the site's promotion, "The contest was...designed to highlight the absurdities, untruths and downright lies that children are being taught daily about "climate change" in public school."

This appears to be original research; we as editors have taken a look at the WND Books contest and decided that it's an example of media bias. Do we have any third-party source that describes this as an example of media bias, or even mentions this contest? EastTN (talk) 17:16, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it looks like all the "cited cases" on both sides are just horrible. I think the best thing to do would be to nuke them all.Aprock (talk) 19:39, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Or improve them. I don't think there's much of anything significant here with the essay contest, but I do think there's good third-party information on the 2008 Presidential campaign. I suspect we can find other specific instances that have been reviewed and discussed by reliable sources. EastTN (talk) 19:35, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

removed due to definition of "bias" in the first sentence of the paragraph

This does not, of course, prove bias, which by definition is an unreasoned support of one side in a controversy. For example, in 2008 George W. Bush's press secretary Scott McClellan published a book in which he confessed to regularly and routinely lying to the media, and describes the contempt he felt for reporters who reported his lies instead of telling the truth, because they were cowed by the fear of an accusation of "liberal bias".[16]

[[15]]

Nowhere in the definition of "bias" does it mention "unreasoned support". By this definition, one could not "reason" and still be biased. According to this definition, "bias" would have to be some kind of unconscious act.

The example which follows the first sentence, in no way supports that claim.

Wperdue (talk) 19:20, 29 October 2008 (UTC)wperdue

It might be better to rewrite the sentence to make it more clear.Aprock (talk) 21:02, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Cleaning up the 2008 election section

As far as I can tell, none of the 2008 election section discusses bias. The first source is a poll from a second rate pollster which discusses perceptions of bias. The second one isn't about bias, but about coverage rates. The third source discusses a poll about percieved motives (for goodness sakes how can that even be considered encyclopedic?) And the final source is a hyperbolic quote from a journalist. As far as I can tell the entire section should probably be removed.Aprock (talk) 23:32, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Aprock, my perspective is a bit different here. We're talking about specific cases of alleged bias. With the 2008 election, we have polling data demonstrating a widespread belief that coverage was biased - not just one or two commentators making the claim. As for the quality of the polling data, I'm not sure whether your concern is with Zogby International or Rasmussen Reports, and I don't know what the concern is, but I do think that both firms meets the threshold to be considered reliable sources. We also have the Post media correspondent identifying a particular Newsweek headline as biased. Again, Howard Kurtz has been criticized, but I do think his media column in the Post qualifies as a reliable source. I also think the Post ombudsman is a reliable source for statistics on the Post's reporting, and the Project for Excellence in Journalism is a reliable source for national coverage statistics.

Given that the public believes the coverage was biased, statistics on the degree of favorable and unfavorable coverage given each candidate are relevant. There may be alternative explanations, other than bias - if we have reliable sources on them, we should bring them in. I've tried to be very careful in using these sources. With the recent Post story, I stuck as closely as possible to the ombudsman's language, describing the findings as "tilt" and directly quoting her key conclusions.

I completely support improving the section, but I would strongly object to simply removing it - on a couple of grounds. First, this is the strongest concrete example we have of a specific issue where large numbers of people say that national media coverage was biased. We also have survey data on the prevalence of that belief, and statistics on the level of coverage given to each candidate. Whether or not we agree that the media is biased, it would damage the article if it didn't discuss such a prominent example (especially if it did go on to discuss the WorldNetDaily essay contest, and the "Media Matters" survey that found Sunday morning talk shows "gave Republicans and conservatives significantly more airtime than Democrats and progressives during 2005 and 2006," and what Buchanan and Agnew had to say about the coverage of Nixon). Second, while it may not be dispositive, the information is relevant. If someone were writing a dissertation on allegations of media bias in the U.S., they would have to address it - whichever side of the issue they ultimately came down on. Third, the statistics on number of stories and types of stories are also relevant. If we believe that there is no bias, we would certainly include the statistics if they ran the other way and showed no disparity in coverage levels. We can't, then, exclude them as irrelevant when they show a disparity. If nothing else, they serve to explain the belief that press coverage is biased. As I said, there may be other factors contributing to these disparities - by all means, bring them in.

Bottom line, I think we undermine the credibility of the article if we don't discuss a recent, notable case where over half the public report believing that the media coverage was biased. I think we also have to at least summarize the actual number of news stories and relative percentage of favorable and unfavorable coverage associated with it. If we can do a deeper dive and debunk any possibility of actual bias, let's go for it.

And honestly, don't you think this gives us a much more concrete and significant area to explore than what Anne Coulter and Al Franken had to say about each other? EastTN (talk) 15:26, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Well that's just it. This is supposed to be an encyclopedic article about bias, not a clearing house for all allegations. Again, perceptions of bias are not bias, and the idea that everytime someone thinks they see bias something must be added to this article is just silly. I'm all for documenting actual bias, but currently there is very little of that here. Part of the problem is that while you may feel like there has been bias in the 2008 election, there has been very little analysis of the subject. And the idea that the article should be a reflection of current events is incorrect. There are much better places to discuss such biases, like on the election page itself. If this really is the "strongest concrete example" as you say, then it should be easy to come up with reasonable sources of bias, as opposed to the fluff that is there now. Aprock (talk) 20:33, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I should also add, that there are dozens of elections over the history of our country which should also be considered when it comes to media bias. They key point being that we don't really want to focus exclusivly on current events, since the topic is much more broad than that. Aprock (talk) 21:32, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I hardly think a two-paragraph section on the last Presidential election turns the article into a "clearing house for all allegations." I also don't think suggesting that we should discuss a case where over half the Americans polled perceive bias is the same thing as saying "everytime someone thinks they see bias something must be added to this article." I agree that the article should not focus exclusively on current events - I have not suggested removing anything on the basis that it's no longer current. But I think it would be an equal mistake to ignore current events.

I disagree with the characterization that there's been very little analysis of this subject. There's been little if any published academic analysis at this point. But reputable polling organizations (Zogby International and Rasmussen Reports), a credible media research organization (Project for Excellence in Journalism) and respected journalists at newspapers of record (The Washington Post and The Wall Street Journal) have been studying public perceptions of the media coverage of the election and the actual patterns of coverage. Wikipedia articles should not be a grab bag of schlock from the internet, but I don't think they should be limited solely to peer-reviewed academic research either. As you suggest, more (and more academic) work will be done as time passes - and we should revise the article as new information beocomes available. But while Wikipedia isn't a newspaper, it's also not a history book. We don't have to wait until the last word is written before addressing a subject.

You and I recognize that correlation doesn't prove causation - let's assume that our readers are equally astute. I've tried to characterize the sources carefully, and avoid making any claims that they don't. But while correlation is not the same thing as causation, looking for correlations is a basic research tool, and understanding correlations is an important way of approaching a subject.

What I personally think about the coverage or the election is irrelevant. I agree that we should try and find solid information on other U.S. elections. I agree that we should try and document any alternative explanations that people may have found for these patterns. I agree that we should clean up anything in the language that goes beyond the sources and claims a causal connection that they don't. But if half the people in the country think the coverage of the last election was biased, if one candidate did in fact get more and more positive press, and if the Washington Post looks back at it's own coverage and says, in essence, "yep, it was tilted," then I think we'd look like fools to ignore it. What I don't agree with is the idea that we should leave what we do know out because we don't yet have the last word on it. EastTN (talk) 06:02, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Having slept on this, I'd like to try approaching it a different way. It seems to me that the sources we have demonstrate two basic facts:

• A large portion of the American public believed the media coverage of the election was biased; and

• One candidate received significantly more press, and significantly more positive press, than the other.

There will be more research on the coverage of the election, and we will learn more over time - presumably about why the public thought the coverage was biased, and what factors may have driven the disparity in coverage. But do we really think that either of those two basic facts is likely to change? I don't. Public opinion was what it was, and the coverage was what it was. It seems to me that we have solid enough sources to nail those two things down (though I'm willing to look for more).

I also think that both of those facts are relevant to the discussion, and widely enough known that the article is incomplete if it does not include them. I believe we should include the basic information we have now, and flesh it out with additional analysis and research findings as they become available. EastTN (talk) 14:48, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Part of the problem with this perspective is that while there is data out there about the 2008 election, much of it is of very poor quality. I still think polls which show that people think there is bias in this election are not very useful. It would be better to have that kind of information in a separate section which dicussses perceptions of bias explicitly, and uses more broad based polls over a wider range of time to illustrate that the general public sees bias. One that is established, there really is no need to include poll after poll about specific events which illustrate this fact.

And again, the election isn't even a month old. If recent elections are to be a topic in this article, it makes much more sense to have discussions about the 2006, or the 2004, or even the 1992 election. The information about a week old election is just too dynamic. That sort of stuff should be developed and fleshed out in an article specifically about the 2008 elections, and then once it settles down it might be included here.Aprock (talk) 19:56, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Polling has to be done contemporaneously. People may hash and rehash the polls, but the base data won't change - the fact that the election happened recently doesn't undermine the validity of the polling. Beyond the fact that it's recent, what's your concern about the quality of the polling data? Do these polls conflict with others you've seen? Or do you have some other reason to believe that the polling results are wrong? I haven't seen anything to suggest that the polling data misrepresent public opinion on the issue.

I strongly disagree with the idea that polling results aren't useful. Why is the article here? The second sentence in the lead focuses on claims of bias. The relevance seems pretty clear if a majority of the public claim that the media coverage of a significant national election was biased - to make it very concrete, if this perception of bias is anywhere near as prevalent as the polling data suggest, it's going to be a common reason motivating people to look for an article on the topic in the first place.

I very strongly disagree with the implication that public opinion should be separated from the facts of the specific case that opinion relates to. It makes no sense to me to suggest that it's better to say, in essence, "public polling suggests a widespread perception that the national media are biased" than to identify what coverage they thought was biased, and to talk about how much coverage was given to each side. I have no objection to a discussion of broader trends in public opinion, and the types of situations where the public thinks there's bias - but the idea that we should not also provide specifics on the relative amount of coverage given each side where it's available seems counterproductive.

I understand that you have a concern that we need to let things "settle down." I think that concern is mistaken here. I don't see any reason to believe that the polling data will change. I also don't see any reason to believe that the base statistics on the amount of coverage given Obama and McCain will change materially. The interpretations given the polling data and coverage patterns will almost certainly develop over time - but I haven't suggested putting any particular interpretation on the data.

If you have any relevant information on the other elections you mention, let's bring it in. Presumably the interpretation of the data will be a bit more mature. I'll be glad to work with you on it. But unless we think the polling data from Zogby International and Rasmussen Reports misrepresent public opinion, or that the summary statistics on the number of stories, and relative number of favorable vs. unfavorable stories from the Project for Excellence in Journalism and the Washington Post misrepresent the actual patterns of media coverage (and honestly, we can speculate about why it happened, but I don't see how we can quibble with the conclusion when the Post's own ombudsman says they gave Obama more coverage and more favorable coverage than they did McCain), I don't see any case for keeping this out unless we simply don't think readers can draw the correct conclusion (whatever that may be) from the information. EastTN (talk) 22:11, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunatly, polling data isn't really relevant to bias per se. Polling data only presents peoples perception of bias, and I've seen no indication that polling data should be a definitive source on anything beyond what people think. And despite what people think, an encyclopedia doesn't exist to collect polls about a topic. You shouldn't find polls about what the best apple is, or what the capital of a state should be. There's also the issue that most media is generally biased in one way or another. Given that, the idea of including a poll which illustrates that is probably less useful than just including that in the lede.Aprock (talk) 23:24, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

That strikes me as logically inconsistent. You're objecting to polls, but not to the more general coverage of specific claims of bias from everyone from Spiro Agnew to Anne Coulter and Al Franken. Polls are simply a broad-based, data driven way of measuring how many people would accuse the media of bias - in a specific case. If we were to take your line of reasoning to its logical conclusion, the article would have nothing but a definition at the top and the "Research" section. I disagree with your assertion about apples - you might use sales or production statistics instead of polls, but any discussion of the "best" apples would consider which ones are eaten or otherwise or used the most. Depending on what purpose you were trying to find the best apple for (e.g., eating, commercial baking, etc.) you might poll or look at usage statistics for the public, moms, restaurant chefs, or commercial bakers. But you'd ultimately end up looking at the apple opinions or choices for a large number of people. Beyond that, neither the quality of apples nor state capitals are really parallel research questions.

I'm going to make a concrete suggestion at the bottom of this section to see if we can get off the dime here. EastTN (talk) 14:32, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

It is always tempting to include current events in Wikipedia articles, but imagine the length of this article if it had long sections on the US elections of 2008, and 2004, and 2000, and 1996, and 1992, and... Well, you get the idea. We need to try to sort the transient from the memorable. Rick Norwood (talk) 16:05, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Agreed - but at this point, the only other text we have on any other presidential campaigns is:

• "An example of pro-corporate or establishment bias is alleged to be the marginalization of insurgent political candidates. According to Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting, a Democratic candidate like John Edwards has been falsely maligned and has not been given coverage commensurate with his standing in presidential campaign coverage because his message questions corporate power."

• "Riccardo Puglisi of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology looks at the editorial choices of the New York Times from 1946 to 1997. He finds that the Times displays Democratic partisanship, with some watchdog aspects. This is the case, because during presidential campaigns the Times systematically gives more coverage to Democratic topics of civil rights, health care, labor and social welfare, but only when the incumbent president is a Republican. These topics are classified as Democratic ones, because Gallup polls show that on average U.S. citizens think that Democratic candidates would be better at handling problems related to them. According to Puglisi, in the post-1960 period the Times displays a more symmetric type of watchdog behaviour, just because during presidential campaigns it also gives more coverage to the typically Republican issue of Defense when the incumbent President is a Democrat, and less so when the incumbent is a Republican."

The "Alleged effects on elections" section might arguably also qualify, but it's basically just reporting media theory.

I don't think we're in any immediate danger of giving undue weight to coverage of presidential politics - and I really do disagree with the notion that we're dealing with the "transient" here. Do we really think that this is going to disappear from the public discussion of media bias in the next year or two? Or that it's less relevant than "Rupert Murdoch, the CEO of News Corporation (the parent of FOX News), self-identifies as a libertarian, while Richard Parsons, CEO of Time-Warner, identifies as a liberal Republican," or that "[t]he Media Research Center, for example, was founded with the specific intention to 'prove ... that liberal bias in the media does exist and undermines traditional American values' "?

Look, I really don't disagree with your general point - we don't want a two paragraph section on every presidential election going back to Lincoln. If we find good material on prior elections, we'll need to think about whether we have a single section on "alleged bias in Presidential elections," or short sections on a couple of the ones with the best information or the highest percentage of people who report thinking the coverage was biased. We'll also need to think about what the best information is, and how to balance what we have. I'm glad to help look for additional material, as I have the time. The reason I've added information on the 2008 election is that I'm running into it in my daily reading, without any additional effort. I have made a good faith effort to only include stuff that comes from reputable polling firms and national papers of record; I'm not suggesting that we include all the claims and counter claims of pundits, blogs and the campaigns themselves.

Bottom line, I don't see how we can with a straight face say that this article is "encyclopedic" on this topic without once looking at a specific election and talking about how the public viewed the coverage, the extent of coverage given to each candidate and the relative proportion of "favorable" coverage given to each. To your point, as we find information on other elections (or as the next election occurs), we'll have to make some editorial decisions. To Aprock's point, as researchers dissect the possible alternative explanations for public perceptions of bias and disparities in coverage, we'll have to include those too. But I really don't see why reporting on public perceptions of bias in the media coverage, and the relative extent of coverage given each candidate, for an election that's being widely described as "historic," should be controversial. Do you really think public perceptions of bias in the reporting of presidential elections is irrelevant to a discussion of media bias - or that the relative amount of press given each candidate during those elections is irrelevant? I still think that while those things may not be dispositive of the issue, they are clearly relevant. Do you really think that two paragraphs on the most recent presidential election somehow unbalances the article? I just don't see it. EastTN (talk) 17:43, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

At this point, I'm hearing:

• It's too soon, we need to let the dust settle - but no one is arguing that the information is incorrect or likely to change;
• It isn't relevant - that argument doesn't make sense to me. The simple fact that most people think coverage is biased is relevant, and the relative level of coverage given different candidates strikes me as prima facia relevant.
• We should include information on other elections, but not too much information on too many other elections - I agree, and am willing to help with that. It doesn't strike me as a reason to exclude information on the most recent election, especially given its significance both historically and in the political realignment that it represents.

Looking back on the discussion, I'd like to make a concrete suggestion. My suggestion is that we create a section on "Coverage of electoral politics" and use it to bring together everything we have on coverage of elections and presidential politics. This would do a couple of things for us. It would:

• Organize some information we already have scattered around;
• Provide more context for the reader;
• Give us an obvious place to add information from other elections; and
• Pull it all together so we can better judge when we approach the line of putting to much weight on the issue of political coverage.

If we use everything we have, it would look something like this:

==Coverage of electoral politics==

In the 19th century, many American newspapers made no pretense to lack of bias, openly advocating one or another political party. Big cities would often have competing newspapers supporting various political parties. To some extent this was mitigated by a separation between news and editorial. News reporting was expected to be relatively neutral or at least factual, whereas editorial was openly the opinion of the publisher. Editorials might also be accompanied by an editorial cartoon, which would frequently lampoon the publisher's opponents.

In an editorial for The American Conservative, Pat Buchanan wrote that reporting by "the liberal media establishment" on the Watergate scandal "played a central role in bringing down a president." Richard Nixon later complained, "I gave them a sword and they ran it right through me."

Nixon's Vice-President Spiro Agnew attacked the media in a series of speeches--two of the most famous having been written by White House aides William Safire and Buchanan himself--as "elitist" and "liberal."

Steve Ansolabehere, Rebecca Lessem and Jim Snyder of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology analyze the political orientation of endorsements by U.S. newspapers; (the paper is forthcoming on the Quarterly Journal of Political Science). They find an upward trend in the average propensity to endorse a candidate, and in particular an incumbent one. There are also some changes in the average ideological slant of endorsements: while in the 1940s and in the 1950s there was a clear advantage to Republican candidates, this advantage continuously eroded in subsequent decades, to the extent that in the 1990s the authors find a slight Democrats' lead in the average endorsement choice.

Riccardo Puglisi of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology looks at the editorial choices of the New York Times from 1946 to 1997. He finds that the Times displays Democratic partisanship, with some watchdog aspects. This is the case, because during presidential campaigns the Times systematically gives more coverage to Democratic topics of civil rights, health care, labor and social welfare, but only when the incumbent president is a Republican. These topics are classified as Democratic ones, because Gallup polls show that on average U.S. citizens think that Democratic candidates would be better at handling problems related to them. According to Puglisi, in the post-1960 period the Times displays a more symmetric type of watchdog behaviour, just because during presidential campaigns it also gives more coverage to the typically Republican issue of Defense when the incumbent President is a Democrat, and less so when the incumbent is a Republican.

John Lott and Kevin Hassett of the conservative think tank American Enterprise Institute studied the coverage of economic news by looking at a panel of 389 U.S. newspapers from 1991 to 2004, and at a subsample of the two ten newspapers and the Associated Press from 1985 to 2004. For each release of official data about a set of economic indicators, the authors analyze how newspapers decide to report on them, as reflected by the tone of the related headlines. The idea is to check whether newspapers display partisan bias, by giving more positive or negative coverage to the same economic figure, as a function of the political affiliation of the incumbent President. Controlling for the economic data being released, the authors find that there are between 9.6 and 14.7% fewer positive stories when the incumbent President is a Republican.

A poll of likely 2008 United States presidential election voters released on March 14, 2007 by Zogby International reports that 83 percent of those surveyed believe that there is a bias in the media, with 64 percent of respondents of the opinion that this bias favors liberals and 28 percent of respondents believing that this bias is conservative. In August of 2008 the Washington Post ombudsman wrote that the Post had published almost three times as many page 1 stories about Barack Obama than it had about John McCain since Obama won the Democratic party nomination that June. In September of 2008 a Rasmussen poll found that 68 percent of voters believe that "most reporters try to help the candidate they want to win." Forty-nine (49) percent of respondents stated that the reporters are helping Barack Obama to get elected, while only 14 percent said the same regarding John McCain. A further 51 percent said that the press was actively "trying to hurt" Republican Vice Presidential nominee Sarah Palin with negative coverage. In October 2008, The Washington Post media correspondent Howard Kurtz reported that Sarah Palin was again on the cover of Newsweek, "but with the most biased campaign headline I've ever seen."

After the election was over, the Washington Post ombudsman Deborah Howell reviewed the Post's coverage and concluded that it was tilted in favor of Obama. "The Post provided a lot of good campaign coverage, but readers have been consistently critical of the lack of probing issues coverage and what they saw as a tilt toward Democrat Barack Obama. My surveys, which ended on Election Day, show that they are right on both counts." Over the course of the campaign, the Post printed 594 "issues stories" and 1,295 "horse-race stories." There were more positive opinion pieces on Obama than McCain (32 to 13) and more negative pieces about McCain than Obama (58 to 32). Overall, more news stories were dedicated to Obama than McCain. Howell said that the results of her survey were comparable to those reported by the Project for Excellence in Journalism for the national media. (That report, issued on October 22, 2008, found that "coverage of McCain has been heavily unfavorable," with 57% of the stories issued after the conventions being negative and only 14% being positive. For the same period, 36% of the stories on Obama were positive, 35% were neutral or mixed, and 29% were negative.) While rating the Post's biographical stories as generally quite good, she concluded that "Obama deserved tougher scrutiny than he got, especially of his undergraduate years, his start in Chicago and his relationship with Antoin "Tony" Rezko, who was convicted this year of influence-peddling in Chicago. The Post did nothing on Obama's acknowledged drug use as a teenager."

Various critics, particularly Hudson, have shown concern at the link between the news media reporting and what they see as the trivialised nature of American elections.

Hudson argues that America’s news media elections damage the democratic process.

He argues that elections are centered on candidates, whose advancement depends on funds, personality and sound-bites, rather than serious political discussion or policies offered by parties. His argument is that it is on the media which Americans are dependent for information about politics (this is of course true almost by definition) and that they are therefore greatly influenced by the way the media report, which concentrates on short sound-bites, gaffes by candidates, and scandals. The reporting of elections avoids complex issues or issues which are time-consuming to explain. Of course, important political issues are generally both complex and time-consuming to explain, so are avoided.

Hudson blames this style of media coverage, at least partly, for trivialised elections:

"The bites of information voters receive from both print and electronic media are simply insufficient for constructive political discourse... candidates for office have adjusted their style of campaigning in response to this tabloid style of media coverage... modern campaigns are exercises in image manipulation... Elections decided on sound bites, negative campaign commercials, and sensationalised exposure of personal character flaws provide no meaningful direction for government".

==References==

Appropriate subheads might be necessary to help organize it. I do think it would be helpful to see what we can find on prior elections, and depending how much we find, we might want to pull it out into a separate "Polling" section. EastTN (talk) 14:59, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I offered to help find some information on prior elections. Here's a first stab:

• "THE SOCIAL “CALCULUS” OF VOTING: Media, Organization, and Interpersonal Influences on Presidential Choices"
• "Nearly 1 in 2 Voters Cite Media Bias in Campaign 2004"
• "Revisiting the "Liberal Media Bias":A Quantitative Study into Candidate Treatment by the Broadcast Media During the 2004 Presidential Election Campaign"
• "AIM Report: New Evidence of Liberal Media Bias" 2006
• "Cable and Internet Loom Large in Fragmented Political News Universe Perceptions of Partisan Bias Seen as Growing, Especially by Democrats" 2004
• "UNBALANCED MEDIA COVERAGE AND THE 2004 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION: THE NEW YORK TIMES VS. THE WASHINGTON TIMES"
• "THINK POLITICAL NEWS IS BIASED? DEPENDS WHO YOU ASK"
• "A Measure of Media Bias"
• "Reformulating News Media Bias: A New Theoretical and Methodological Approach"
• "Liberal Bias in the South Bend Tribune"
• "THE MEDIA IN THE 1984 AND 1988 PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGNS"

I'm sure there is a lot more out there - this is the result of a fairly quick Google search. Are you guys interesting in pitching in? As an aside, I stumbled over an interesting article on another form of potential bias: Mollyann Brodie, Lee Ann Brady, and Drew E. Altman, "Media Coverage Of Managed Care: Is There A Negative Bias?", Health Affairs, January/February 1998. EastTN (talk) 16:58, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

At a high level, I really like the idea of a section/sub-article devoted to bias in electoral elections. I think it gets talked about frequently, and a good retrospective would help provide context to what we're seeing today. For example, I sometimes hear that McCain has run the most "dirty" election ever, but when you look back you see that most elections in the US are dirty, and suggesting that McCain is somehow beyond the pale is biased. I'm not sure if it's a liberal bias, or an ignorance bias, or an "in the moment" bias. But I think that's the sort of thing these articles are supposed to address. That is to say, this should be a clearing house for all accusations for bias, but a description of various biases and how they relate to consuming media. One tangential comment about bias. Sometimes we forget that the party colors used to switch between red and blue because not so long ago being called a "red" was equivalent to being called a "terrorist" today. Aprock (talk) 23:30, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

O.k., how about using the text I pulled out above as a starter? The new section could be parallel to the Coverage of Iraq section, and we'd take the material we have out out of the other sections so we aren't duplicating stuff. It would be far from perfect, but might serve as a useful base to begin exploring the issues you mention. EastTN (talk) 19:36, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I say "be bold". It's much much better than what's there now, and I'm sure once it's in other contributers will come in to address both large and small issue. If it develops well, it could even be folded into it's own sub article. The tough thing with the real world is that there is so much information, and the nice thing about wiki is that hierarchies can evolve so that the top level is a strong summary, but the details are not lost for those who are looking. Aprock (talk) 05:01, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

O.k., I took a shot at it. Take a look and see what you think. EastTN (talk) 20:38, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Moving Scott McClellan Reference to End of "Claims of Liberal Bias" Section

The cite concerning McClellan claiming that reporters were "cowed by the fear of an accusation of 'liberal bias'" should be moved to the end of this section. The reason for this is that this statement seems to CONTRADICT a claim of liberal bias. On this basis alone, it should probably not even appear in this section of the article at all; this section is devoted to claims of liberal bias - not claims calling into question the notion of liberal bias. However, for the time being I'm simply going to move it to the end of this section of the article.Jm131284 (talk) 04:54, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Pro-Israel Media

I have done a bit of research on US media bias and have found that many so-called mainstream media have a pro-Israel bias, such as Reuters, the New York Times, Bloomberg, TIME magazine, Newsweek and others. This could be mentioned at some point. For instance, media boss Haim Saban is a major supporter of the Israeli government and has used much of his media influence in order to support causes related to the Mideast Conflict. I notice this because I am used to reading French-language media from all five continents, where pro-Israel influence is almost zero. ADM (talk) 21:22, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I have been eying this missing content for a while also. There is no lack of RSs on this subject. As you note, it is one of the subject areas where US media differs from the rest of the world. It differs in stance, lack of coverage and lack of relevant context, among others. The problem I see, and why I have stayed away, is that the current article is narrowly framed on only the left-right split. How can this material best be added, without confusing the existing prose? This subject also plays into the existing article framework, but specifically more to a neo-conservative bias.

This quote from Columbia Journalism Review indicates the notability. "No news subject generates more complaints about media objectivity than the Middle East in general and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in particular. While many write letters, e-mail, fax, and phone to voice their dissatisfaction, for some that is not enough."[16] It is entitled, The Other War: A Debate; Questions of Balance in the Middle East Additionally, the term Washington_Consensus is relevant for addition as an identified bias. This new area of bias also brings its own set of watchdogs and their related 'narrative wars': some of these are corralled here and include useful refs. For academic 'whats' and 'wherefores', the article Empathy with Palestinians vs. Israelis: Examining U.S. Media Representations, Coverage, and Attitudes[17] looks informative. It includes an academic discussion of “priming” and bias in US mass media. These discuss/review the subject and data[18], [19], [20], [21]. Don't forget hasbara and its many outlets. Like I said, it has been on my NPOV radar a while. Regards, CasualObserver'48 (talk) 02:38, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I think the quote above from Columbia Journalism Review should go in the article, but please note that, as quoted, it is not an article about pro-Isreal bias, but rather about accusations of bias on both sides. It could be argued that media outside the US show anti-Isreal bias. For example, the phrase "disproportionate response" was picked up by virtually all media after the recent invasion of the Gaza Strip. But only some media mentioned that Hamas shot first.Rick Norwood (talk) 12:58, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Freemasons and Media

I also think it would be a good idea to investigate on Masonic influence in US and Global media. These masonic groups or sects really do exist, and no one should underestimate how much power and influence they really have. For instance, this piece in the Los Angeles Times [22] almost looks like a promotional article, and suggests that Masons don't have to look very far to send positive signals across standard media outlets. ADM (talk) 21:57, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Quotes from "What Happened: Inside the Bush White House and

"I had unknowingly passed along false information. And five of the highest-ranking officials in the administration were involved in my doing so: Rove, Libby, Vice President Cheney, the president's chief of staff Andrew Card, and the president himself."

"The vast majority of reporters -- including those in the White House press corps -- are honest, fair-minded and professional."

"If anything, the national press corps was probably too deferential to the White House and to the administration..."

I'll do a rewrite of the disputed paragraph based on those quotes. Rick Norwood (talk) 17:02, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

That'll work. Soxwon (talk) 18:34, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Capitalist and Concentration

While conservatives may generally be pro-capitalism, that the media is run a profit model and that a couple of companies control most of the stations is not a pro-capitalism bias. There is a bias to portray sponsers positivly, but that does not indicate a conservative bias. It is certainly a bias, but does belong in the conservative bias section. Gtbob12 (talk) 00:29, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

While that isn't the bias claimed, I think that a source that we can read would be nice before money=conservative bias. Soxwon (talk) 01:07, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Bias that favors advertisers is mentioned in the lede and should not be conflated with conservative bias. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:49, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Claims of Conservative Bias

Soxwon: You ask "how is that relevant". It is relevant because the press secretary for the president of the United States admitted, in a published book, to lying to the media in order to promote a conservative point of view. It is not only relevent, it is hard to imagine what could be stronger proof of conservative bias than the confession by a major conservative government figure of deliberately and successfully promoting conservative bias. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:05, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

First, that's WP:OR. And second, if lying is a sign of bias, can we cite Clinton as being an example of Liberal bias? A politician lying and his perception of others being intimidated is not the same thing as reporters deliberately mi stating or omitting facts to support their own worldview (See Media Bias). Soxwon (talk) 23:39, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Soxwon: After trying for several weeks to work with you, I am finding it harder and harder to assume good faith. Your definition of OR and "irrelevant" seem to be "insufficiently favorable to the conservative cause". If a fact is referenced, then it isn't OR, even if you disagree with it. If a fact speaks directly to the subject, it isn't "irrelevant", even if you disagree with it.

I will, in the interest of settling this amicably, and because you have done good edits in the past, explain. If a politician lies, that is evidence that a politician lied. If a politician lies to the media in an attempt to bias their reporting, and the media prints those lies, then that is media bias. I trust you see the difference. Similarly, if person who controls several major media outlets contributes large sums of money to the Republican party, that certainly tends to support claims that his media outlets have Republican bias. It isn't evidence in itself, but when combined with many examples in which those media outlets distort the news to support Republican candidates, it is corroborating evidence.

Your paragraph above seems to suggest that the only source of media bias is reporters supporting their own worldview, but the article already lists several other sources of media bias, including the profit motive. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:45, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

So does Ms. Pelosi's ill-fated remarks about Waterboarding constitute liberal bias (i.e. she was lying to the media in attempt to biased the reporting). Or do any other politician's lies to the media in attempt bias what information is reported constitute media bias? Media bias is a conscious effort on the part of the media to bias the information, NOT an attempt by politicians to control information by reporting misleading information. You're not drawing a distinction between a media reporting facts in a slanted manner, and politicians or other outside groups controlling the information being offered. And as for the contributions, who says they are significant? You do, and that's where the WP:OR comes into play. Soxwon (talk) 23:48, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

You are wrong, and I'm not sure why you can't see the illogic of your POV. You may personally define media bias as "a conscious effort", but nobody else does. There are many sources of media bias, and while bias can be objectively demonstrated, it is impossible to tell what goes on the the subjective consciousness of individual reporters.

Because I think you are capable of logical thought (not everyone is) I'll explain again. If Nancy Pelosi lies to the media (and she does) that isn't media bias. If the media uncritically and consistently report her lies as if they were the truth (but they don't) then that would be media bias.

The significance of what a president's press secretary does has nothing to do with my POV, but has to do with the importance of his position in the government. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:02, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, first of all, you don't have any accurate claims of unflinching acceptance. Secondly, it doesn't match any of the signs of media bias: [23]

The media are neither objective nor completely honest in their portrayal of important issues.

A conscious action by the media

Framing devices are employed in stories by featuring some angles and downplaying others.

Conscious effort by media

The news is a product not only of deliberate manipulation, but of the ideological and economic conditions under which the media operate.

Again, conscious effort by the media, deliberatly manipulating facts

While appearing independent, the news media are institutions that are controlled or heavily influenced by government and business interests experienced with manufacturing of consent/consensus.

No government control

Reporters’ sources frequently dominate the flow of information as a way of furthering their own overt and hidden agendas. In particular, the heavy reliance on political officials and other-government related experts occurs through a preferential sourcing selection process which excludes dissident voices.

Perhaps this one, but that is debatable as dissident voices were heard and the opponents were given air time.

Journalists widely accept the faulty premise that the government's collective intentions are benevolent, despite occasional mistakes.

No evidence of this occuring

The regular use of the word “we” by journalists in referring to their government’s actions implies nationalistic complicity with those policies.

No evidence of this occuring

There is an absence of historical context and contemporary comparisons in reportage which would make news more meaningful.

The failure to provide follow up assessment is further evidence of a pack journalism mentality that at the conclusion of a “feeding frenzy” wants to move on to other stories.

No evidence of this occuring

Citizens must avoid self-censorship by reading divergent sources and maintaining a critical perspective on the media in order to make informed choices and participate effectively in the public policy process.

Irrelvant

Again, it meets none of these. However, the biggest problem is that it being classified as an example of conservative bias is someone's WP:SYN of a primary source (hence the arguing). Soxwon (talk) 23:55, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

What a lot of words! I've explained this as patiently as I can. Ah, well, nobody ever said editing Wikipedia was supposed to be easy.

You assert, without evidence, that a number of objective actions by the media necessarily involve a conscious effort. You attribute this consciousness to "the media", but "the media" is not a person and has no consciousness. Presumably, what you are claiming is that, for example, if the media features some angles and downplays others, there is always a reporter or editor thinking, "I will feature some angles and downplay others." I doubt this. In any case, you don't get to delete material because you think you can intuit the motives of the people involved. You need to provide evidence.

In any case, while the question of the extent to which media bias is conscious is philosophically interesting, it has nothing to do with the case at hand. You brought the subject up! The person quoted says that he consciously attempted to bias the media in favor of the conservatives. I have no reason to doubt his word. So the question of to what extent media bias is conscious is entirely beside the point.

You quote, The news is a product not only of deliberate manipulation, but of the ideological and economic conditions under which the media operate. and then you say "Again, conscious effort by the media, deliberatly manipulating facts." You are editing so hastily you don't carefully read what you are quoting! The quote says "not only of deliberate manipulations", you ignore the "not".

You quote, While appearing independent, the news media are institutions that are controlled or heavily influenced by government and business interests experienced with manufacturing of consent/consensus. and then say, "No government control". The instance you delete is specifically an example of the government influencing the media!

I could go on, but a few examples should be sufficient to make my point. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:56, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

The person quoted says that he consciously attempted to bias the media in favor of the conservatives. I have no reason to doubt his word. So the question of to what extent media bias is conscious is entirely beside the point.

Actually no, he didn't. And claiming he admitted to it is your own analysis as are your last two paragraphs. And by that definition, you again open the door for Clinton, Pelosi, and any other politician who continually denied or lied to the media as being examples of bias.

Soxwon (talk) 14:10, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Ah, good. Now we have a question of fact rather than opinion. I'll research it, and if you are right then of course the paragraph should be removed. Rick Norwood (talk) 15:39, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Referring to conservative media outlets as propaganda outlets isn't exactly NPOV. The same could easily be said about The Washington Post or New York Times whose editorial policies skew decidedly to the left in terms of what they choose to cover and the angles they select. The only difference is people on the left tend to deny their lack of objectivity. Having worked in several papers in a couple of markets for 8 years, I know how the editorial process works. If you are a conservative who is intent on pursuing solid unbiased journalism, good luck getting a job at any of these major news outlets. --96.227.235.104 (talk) 04:41, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Your POV is noted, plz provide reliable sources to back it up. Thank you. Soxwon (talk) 04:53, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to stay out of the broader discussion here. However, the last couple of comments did catch my eye. Referring to the Post and Times as "Propaganda outlets" would of course represent a clear POV. 96.227.235.104 makes a valid point, though, in suggesting that it's equally POV to use the terminology to refer to media outlets with a conservative reputation. We can joust around about which media organizations are conservative, which are liberal, and which are pure as the driven snow and find sources to characterize each, but whichever side we come down on in any particular case, the word "propaganda" seems unnecessarily loaded.

On this particular issue, I would like to suggest using the term "Conservative media organizations" as the label in the list, and spelling out the argument explicitly in the text. It would then become something along the lines of:

• Conservative Media Organizations: Certain conservative media outlets such as NewsMax and WorldNetDaily describe themselves as news organizations, but are generally seen as promoting a conservative agenda.

I don't doubt that these organizations are intended to provide a conservative source for news, presumably motivated by a desire to counterbalance a perceived liberal bias among other news outlets. But the sourcing for our discussion of these outlets is really quite weak. That's why I'm suggesting adding a "fact" tag. We never answer the question "who says that they promote a conservative agenda" or, for the original text, "who says that they are [incorrectly] treated as reliable news sources?" or "who says that they should more correctly be described as 'propaganda' outlets?" EastTN (talk) 14:26, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with EastTN. Everybody knows that National Review, for example, is conservative. Even so, it should be called a conservative news magazine, rather than conservative propaganda. In contrast, an "infomercial" paid for by one candidate to smear another candidate is propaganda. Rick Norwood (talk) 15:31, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

The above arguments strike me as mired in POV, the grounds for which are irrelevant regarding the topic of media bias. For example, "lies" by political figures that are reported by the media provide no evidence of bias, only evidence that politicians make statements, true or false, and the media duly report them. If a media outlet only reports truths and lies that favor one side, then it is obviously biased. If it reports truths and lies by multiple sides, it is probably not. Journalists share something with Wikipedians in this regard. It is not our role to sort out what is true and what is not, but to relate what is reported by notable sources. Journalists do exactly the same. The problem, in fact, is rooted in notability, For example, the President is more notable than the Speaker of the House, who is more notable than the Minority Whip. Sources representing the side that is out of power, then, are far less notable by virtue of their lesser positions and, therefore, are far less likely to receive coverage. "Balance," as it turns out, does not mean giving equal footing to everyone but to reporting what a notable source says or does and including some coverage to those who may disagree. Though the study is somewhat dated (1979), a clarification of these issues can be found in Deciding What's News by sociologist Herbert Gans: http://books.google.com/books?id=bWpFtVJlAD0C&printsec=frontcover&dq=herbert+gans+%22deciding+what's+news%22&source=bl&ots=tkJnXvi4dS&sig=FrjTZXWvK06oWVtPTGG6hALXl80&hl=en&ei=zWvdTJCRC4aBlAfe-4HgDQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CC4Q6AEwAg#v=onepage&q&f=false Allreet (talk) 16:33, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Quibble on Citation

We've added a reference to source the statement "[y]et the media had been just as tough on his Democratic predecessor, Lyndon Baines Johnson, for his handling of the Vietnam War, which culminated in him not seeking a second term." This statement follows up the complaints by Buchanan and Nixon that the media brought down the Nixon presidency.

The footnote that was added is a biography of Lyndon Johnson, and is quoted as saying "...the terrible problems he had had with the media, newspapers, and television..."

It seems to me that there's a subtle distinction here. The text in the article is comparative - it says not only that the media criticized Johnson, but that the media treatment of Johnson was "just as tough" as that of Nixon. The quotation from the Johnson biography doesn't make that comparison - it just says that Johnson had a "terrible problem" with the media. The portion that's quoted doesn't draw any conclusions about whether that problem was the same, worse, or less severe than the one Nixon had.

The source may have more to say - I don't have a copy in front of me. If not, though, I'd suggest changing the text to something doesn't explicitly draw a conclusion about the relative severity of the two Presidents' press problems. Something like this:

"However, the media had also strongly criticized his Democratic predecessor, Lyndon Baines Johnson, for his handling of the Vietnam War, which culminated in him not seeking a second term."

This seems to me to do what we need, without going beyond the quotation in the footnote. It makes it clear that both presidents caught a lot of flack from the media, and that in both cases it was instrumental in ending their political careers. EastTN (talk) 14:38, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree. "just as tough" is unencyclopedic. Your wording is better. Rick Norwood (talk) 15:35, 10 June 2009 (UTC)