Talk:Liberal bias

message: This page needs a serious rework. It's entirely anecdotal, and tries to cover an enormous subject in a few cliches (kind of like a bad media report, really).
Lets take some examples. The Ebert quote appears to be central to this, but in what way is this liberal bias? It's bad reporting; it's a good example of a reporter following their agenda rather than trying to find the facts, but is the agenda that the reporter was trying to push more or less liberal than the one Ebert suggests? After all, the point that Ebert was trying to make was made even more successfully by Michael Moore. Is Moore a conservative all of a sudden?
To give this an international perspective, let me tell you than whenever someone from another country who is familiar with US news reporting hears accusations of 'liberal bias' we fall over laughing. US media is the most right-wing of any democracy. The US news media slavishly followed everything the administration said about the War on Iraq. Compare that with every other country, even those that supported the war. Why did no US news outlet publish stories of the attempt to remove voters from the Florida lists in 2000, but the BBC did? DJ Clayworth 15:03, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, the article in its current form is of horrible quality. The short paragraph on liberal bias in Media bias is way better: more factual, and neutral. IMHO liberal bias could just as well be deleted and the valuable content (if there is any) moved to media bias. Otherwise we'll have to start conservative bias, progressive bias, US bias, Taiwan bias, etc. for every entity in existence. --snoyes 15:13, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)

text: I hope you're not suggesting that I/we (the critics) don't want you to edit Liberal bias, we're just pointing out ways to make the article better. --snoyes 15:21, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)

text: I support this, I'd just like Ed's input as well. When the different sections (liberal & conservative bias) are large enough in media bias, they can always be spun off to their own articles. I would just not like to be accused of censorship because of changing liberal bias to redirect to media bias, but rather this must be a consensus decision. --snoyes 15:55, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: I had a go at this article and wasn't so happy with it; I wouldn't object to seeing this redirected. -- Viajero 17:27, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)

text: Hmm, no idea. Wikipedia:Footnotes doesn't say that it is actually possible.  This is the best I could come up with: [1]? --snoyes 20:19, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)

text: Well, it's an important topic--we've studied it in my upper level media classes.  As far as it goes, you're right, this is not Wikipedia's finest hour.  I'd support a move, but only if we kept the resulting redirect--"liberal bias" is the much more common phrase. Meelar 08:09, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Rewrite requested

message: What is fairpress.org?  What kind of organization is it?  I know what the MRC and FAIR are, but I have no idea what this is. john 01:29, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I donno either, I just generally dislike removing external links. Lets look into it. Sam Spade 01:34, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: fairpress.org

message: thank you and happy editing--Ham and jelly butter 13:19, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: please don't blank this article again

message: I think the redirect is sensible, and that an article on Liberal bias is a WP:POVFORK.  If there's not enough coverage of alleged liberal bias in the media bias article, then that should be added to that article; that's not an argument for recreating an article on liberal bias.  If that article is too long, then perhaps there's an argument for spinning out articles on both alleged liberal and conservative bias.
I think Ham and jelly butter's additional edits to the liberal bias article are also problematically POV in nature, e.g. the opening statement "Liberal bias is common in American politics, expressed by the fact that the American media generally has a liberal bias."  Fact? Шизомби 17:32, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps a POV Fork is not the best way of describing this article, then.  I think it would be difficult to make the case that Media bias in the United States is a POV Fork; it seems to me to be an attempt to cover all accusations of media bias in an NPOV way.  Still, Liberal bias is a POV article, particularly given the recent edits making it a "fact" rather than a "view." Шизомби 17:41, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't see "Liberal Bias" as anything OTHER than inherently POV. I wouldn't support a "Republican Graft" or "Liberatian Psychosis" article, either. --MattShepherd 19:30, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ham and jelly butter's been blocked for trolling, so I think I'll revert to the redirect.  As I noted above, perhaps an article on supposed "liberal bias" would make sense if the media bias can't accomodate it. Шизомби 21:03, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

text: In my opinion, the real issue here is not whether anything on Liberal Bias should exist, because it's clearly important enough to have information on it. I personally think, however, that there is not really enough on Liberal Bias that differs from Media Bias to create an article for it. I believe it should have its own section within the Media Bias page. Verloren Hoop 12:10, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Liberal bias]] article or redirect to [[Media bias in the United States]]?