Talk:Media bias/Archive 1

message: DO NOT EDIT OR POST REPLIES TO THIS PAGE. THIS PAGE IS AN ARCHIVE.
This archive page covers approximately the dates between 30 March 2001 and 3 October 2005.
Post replies to the main talk page, copying or summarizing the section you are
replying to if necessary.
Please add new archivals to Talk:Media bias/Archive02. (See Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.) Thank you. Kerowyn 10:03, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

message: Does this problem still exist? If so, could someone point out some examples to me and I'll fix them. --Kerowyn 08:43, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Factual Accuracy Dispute 

message: I think we are making progress.  I have tried to do some rewriting to maintain a neutral point of view, including pointing out that while favoring one particular religion is a kind of bias, NOT favoring one particular religion is also a kind of bias.  In other words, bias is a natural part of all human interaction, and can be discussed, but not eliminated.
:I don't think that's what is meant by "media bias". The term is almost always used to describe a situation where sections of the media are treating topics in a way that they should not. It is inherently a prescriptive concept. The assumption is made that there is some more balanced treatment.
:Now, there are philosophical positions that balanced treatments don't exist. (I'm guessing yours is one?) This position should be mentioned in the article, but it is by no means the only perpective, or even the dominant perspective, and its not fair to define "media bias" around it. Jasonlvc 10:31, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've just removed the disputed tag. Jasonlvc 07:06, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  neutral point of view 

message: The header on this page states "This page contains controversial issues, some of which may have reached concensus". Don't people reach concensus? Issues are ideas; they are inanimate, intangible constructs. Issues don't reach. Is this a weasle-worded way to avoid confronting the fact that there can be no concensus in a group process for which boundaries are not defined in terms of specific time span and personnel? Romuth 13:22, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  anthropomorphising ideas 

message: In The Tipping Point, Gladwell cites a study (Mullen, et al, "Newscasters facial expressions and voting behavior of viewers: Can a smile elect a President?", Journal of Personality and Social Psychology (1986), 51, 291-295), that suggests that not only is Peter Jennings not liberal, but that he has a record of smiling and being more positive when discusssing Republican candidates. The article then analyzes the effects of this, and finds that viewers of ABC on the whole voted more Republican than viewers of other networks as a result. This probably belongs in the article somewhere, as its a good example of scientifically confirmed media bias (which you dont see often).
:I'd Suggest adding that book to the bibliography. Your comments suggest this book contains material based on content analysis? One must always  check the coding system used in such a study. Now, Mr. Jennings was a representative of one of the major corporate news media networks, ABC. Right off, I observe that its perhaps a bit silly ascribe liberal bias to Jennings based on subtel facial expressions when he so obviously is more apt to be seen smiling when viewing his monthly direct deposit pay check. The corporate conflict of interest is glairingly obvious and even regardless of Jennings' sincerest attempts to overcome them, how could he ignore them?  I think Jennings himself would agree in all candor that there is corporate conflict and tension which has influence on him and the news presented on the ABC network. Calicocat 13:04, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: "Comparing very old newsreels broadcast during WWII and today's news, the rhetoric is similar. The mass media, being corporate owned, tends to represent corporate interests, often seen as being in harmony with the interests of executive government."
Reasons for which I have removed this:
A: Are WWII newsreels and today's news really similar? Would you care to give examples for those who don't watch TV news? (Someone like me, for example.) B: Media slant towards corporate interests is covered quite well under the section on conservative media bias, with examples and possible explanations included. --Mirv
Where is the section on political bias? A "progressive/conservative" split mentioned in one sentence hardly suffices.
We need examples of political bias, not speculation that corporate pressure 'ought' to cause conservative bias.
We need statistics, too. What percent of stories in the leading newspapers of the English-speaking world are biased, and in what direction? According to which researchers?
We should try to answer these questions and not sweep the whole issue under the rug, just because it's hard or unsettling to provide answers. --Uncle Ed 18:44, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)

text: Umm, I don't see anyone trying to "sweep the whole issue under the rug". The only problem is that this article has not been developed enough. --snoyes 19:15, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)

text: Why not indeed? I've added the link to Bias; feel free to add the appropriate external links. --MIRV 08:05, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mention? 

message: Someone should put in the latest outrage of liberal media bias, the Killian memos fiasco.  [ed. you should do it] -- yes I know I should, but I thought I'd see if someone else would do it first :-)  Sdaconsulting 00:35, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: What's the alleged bias? Wolfman 03:17, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Time to amend this page 

message: We could add a section for Examples of media bias, and have a subsections for Liberal and Conservative, and ask editors to add a one or two sentance description in a particular format, like Source, Rough Date, description...
I don't think it would be wise to clutter up the page with lots of example text (i.e. the raw data), that isn't what this page is for.  But people would have to care enough about it to put items back when removed.
:We've already got links to watchdog groups on both side liberal/conservative.  Any interested reader can easily click there.  Adding examples seems to me like an invitation for disaster.  Every time a conservative complaint goes up, two liberal complaints will go in, then three more conservative ones, etc.  Once you start, it's hard to draw a line where to stop.  Wikipedia should discuss the topic, but leave the score-keeping to the partisan sites.  I say leave well-enough alone. Wolfman 05:02, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: The examples should be within the body of the article itself and not to external links. Calicocat 03:08, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Examples Proposal 

message: I'm not sure why most of these links are there. I've annotated them so the reader at least has some idea of what they are supposed to be None of them look to be at all non-partisan to me, I'm not sure any of them should be here unless they are examples of different views of media bias. I'm not sure if there is some little game being played out among link adders ("I'll add my favorite site which proves that media bias exists in X form!") but I'm not sure they are at all appropriate for a balanced encyclopedia article, much less without annotations explaining why they are there. I think that editors more invested in this page (I just stumbled across it) ought to review them a little more carefully. --Fastfission 20:55, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure why you have added Metanarrative here, it doesn't seem very relevant to the topic. Also, it is incorrect to assume that either Metanarrative or Postmodernism are inherently left-wing.illWill 01:18, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links 

message: The article needs a serious editing, especially being less US-centric and integration with Propaganda Model stuff.
# Assuming the PM is at least partially correct, the media bias is a lot greater than the article suggests.
# "Not until very recent times did the notions of unbiased reporting and neutral point of view have never been an integral part of journalism. Even today, however, journalism's most objective and balanced reporters cannot completely avoid bias." - NPOV, as anything close to the Wikipedia policies, has never been an integral part of journalism. NPOV is a lot more than mere journalist integrity. Even when journalists try to present everything truthfully, they don't avoid presenting own opinions, selecting worthwhileness of events and positions etc., and definitely aren't trying to "fairly represent all sides of a dispute, and not make an article state, imply, or insinuate that any one side is correct"
# "Most views within the free society are freely expressed, and the mass media tends to reflect the spectrum of opinion, with some accountability". <PM mode> Most views of the political and economical elites are expressed in the media, views of the rest of population that don't coincide with them are largely ignored or actively fought against. The liberal/conservative conflict is largely superficial, and on the issues where elites don't agree with the population there isn't even a pretence of neutrality. </PM mode>
# <PM mode> Just to answer possible critique. Exceptions to the contrary, like BBC or non-mainstream media (which, whether they're less biased or not, at least have a different bias) have significantly different structure than most mainstream media, therefore they don't contradict the main thesis of prevalence of certain bias. Most mainstream media is one country have similar structure and similar strong bias. </PM mode>
Taw 10:14, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Propaganda Model]] 

message: Shouldn't a merge be discussed a bit before being done?  Merges are usually accomplished with a proposal and some discussion. I'm all for being bold in editing, but this is not that. Calicocat 05:42, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge without consensus 

message: *"In the United States, some claim that a liberal media bias exists"
:Like whom?  Name them, show this is not just POV.
*"People who believe in a leftist media biased often also believe that most individual journalists and news producers hold left-wing or liberal political views."
:Who are "those people who beleive..." Unproven, unsubstantiated generalitiy, weasel words.
*"Some have argued that the media tends to portray Republican leaders as less intelligent..."
:Like whom?
*"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, are perceived by some as typically arguing from a liberal point-of-view...
:No examples given at all, no sourcing at all, weasel words in the passive voice.
This entire section is replete with weasel words and unsubstantiated, unsourced POV. Calicocat 02:23, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Liberal media bias 

message: While some of this article is good and sourced, much of it is very dubious and POV with too many weasel words. It's full of phrases such as "some say," and things in the passive voice with no substantiation and sources given.  Sections of this article were lifted from other developing articles in a slapdash fashion in a "merger" that was done overly boldly without discussion prior to the action and now what's here is a long, wandering, unfocused POVed mess. I'm sorry if this sounds strong -- nothing in way of a personal attack is intended, but lets take a really hard look at this and rewrite it. Calicocat 02:45, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Major rewrite needed 

message: In order to better faciltate the rewrite which this article so desperately needs, I have hived off much of the material which was merged into it to a separate article called Media bias in the United States. Hopefully this will be the first of a series (it would be great if somebody could do Media bias in the United Kingdom, Media bias in Australia and Media bias in Israel as sub-articles).
I'm of the opinion that the main article should focus primarily on:
* History of media bias related to history of media and mass media
* History of political advocacy in the media
* Media bias an state-owned media
* Media bias and different models of media (Broadcast, local, internet etc.)
* Effects of media ownership and concentration on media bias
* Academic and historical studies of systemic media bias
I think all of these points could be extended from their current focus on the US-based, English-langauge media to provide a broader picture of the global media. Hopefully, a better-structured main article will facilitate this process.illWill 16:10, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Split article 

message: I've rearranged the introduction so that it follows the following form:
* Brief definition, brief list of theoretical and practical sources of bias, tag on statements (about "extreme views" causing overestimation of bias, and the role of "accusations"). These tag on statements came from prior versions of this article and may need to be moved elsewhere or removed completely.
* Theoretical aspects of bias. I've incorporated the cat/dog example, with a related one from John Street concerning selection of facts within stories.
* Practical aspects/sources of bias. I've expanded this, and tried to make it more international with the most obvious source of bias (that arising from government censorship) given first mention, over the more subtle forms of bias found in the Western free press.
I've then moved studies and theories of media bias to section 1, as I suspect this is what many people reading about media bias in an encyclopedia will be looking for. I've mentioned a few specific studies, their approaches and conclusions, and have done away with the more general "there exist studies that discuss this and this...". But my list needs to be greatly expanded to fairly characterise the methodologies and results of the main studies of media bias. Please add to this section.
The history of media bias has been moved to the second section at present. It could do with a complete rewrite. If someone wants to give a complete account of control over the printing press and such up to the 18th Century through to the 20th, please do so. I don't have time to personally research this. :-)
Finally, I have left all the later sections intact, but they're really quite a mess. I'm hoping that as the "studies and theories" section is expanded, we will be able to move text to it in obvious places, and this article can take on some structure.
Providing there are no serious objections, I will continue work on this article over the next few weeks. Jasonlvc 02:09, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  I've started rewriting, please contribute! 

message: I'm wondering if the section on the role of language needs to be there at all? The only sentence that seems to have anything to do with media bias is "The choice of language of mass media may represent a bias towards the group most likely to speak that language, and can limit the public participation by those who do not speak the language." This can probably be moved elsewhere.
The other stuff concerns someone's observations that the mass media's reach is limited by language barriers, Al Jazeera's audience, and something I can't make much sense of about language not "homogenizing" opinion in the US. I think the signal:noise ratio is too low to justify this section, and removing it would aid the cleanup.
Similarly, "National and ethnic viewpoint" is just a sequence of weasel statements and vague opinion: "[m]any news organizations reflect or are perceived to reflect", "Western media is often criticized", "Al-Jazeera has been frequently criticized", "accusations of bias from one or both sides". There's no real substance, I don't think.
Shall we just drop these sections and start again with more solid material? Jasonlvc 08:20, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Far more people hold "popular" views within theirr culture or subculture than have really thought about them.  Yes it may overlap with other biases, but the rarer holders of less popular biases are more likely to have thought about their positions.  Far more people for instance have positions on global warming than have any knowledge of the scientific or economic issues involved.  Unfortunately, reporters aren't much more likely to hold informed opinions that others.  BTW, you can't get more weaselly than the moral relativism bias, such as "some bias is inevitable".  --Silverback 11:34, September 4, 2005 (UTC)
I don't mean to be rude or pretentious, but you have made numerous edits and reverts based on what appear to be your ideas and opinions. Are you familiar with any of the (substantial) literature on media bias? Jasonlvc 04:39, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sections that should be removed? 

message: Excelent rewrites, Silverback and Gazpacho.  It makes me think we are actually making progress Rick Norwood 18:09, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  congrats to Silverback and Gazpacho 

message: * Restored text deleted by Kerowyn. It is pertinent and it is supported by references
* Removed the disputed tag. If it is still disputed, please summarize the reasons and put the tag back. Thanks. --ZappaZ  19:19, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edits 

message: Though it's not surprising... anyone daring to try to take on a full re-write of this article on a site like this would be insane.  I'm not insane, so I'll simply provide an idea.  Would it not improve the article considerably if 80% of the content was just removed?  It's nearly all poorly-written guff which adds nothing to understanding or explanation of the subject matter, and instead simply drowns any reader in irrelevant walls of text.  The 'External Links' section just as a start - many of the articles aren't external at all, and it seems to have degenerated into an advertising board for blogs and minor websites.  The 'Scholarly Treatment' section is a horrific mess and perhaps pushed my view on the article too far into the negative.  'Experimenter's Bias' - just a basic 'this is what it is' and a link to the main article.  And on, and on...
I don't edit this thing much, just found this page so especially poor that I had to at least throw an idea out there to people who might care enough to do something about it... 87.102.38.11 (talk) 03:32, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Still A Bad Article - Fix Idea 

message: I've archived the talk page for this article. If there are issues in the archived talk page that you feel still need to be addressed, please repost them here. Please do not revert the whole page. Thanks Kerowyn 10:05, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Talk Page Archived October 2005 

message: Just curious about this...  If you type "liberal bias" into the wikipedia search field, it directs you to Media bias in the United States.  If you type in "conservative bias," it directs you to this article, Media Bias.  Is there any reason for this? Vordabois 05:21, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the statement above, that the phrase "liberal bias" is rare outside the Englsih speaking world, is essentially correct.  Liberalism is the dominant philosophy of Western Civilization and so a level of ignorance unknown in continental Europe is necessary for such accusations to be effective propaganda.  The subject is, however, of worldwide interest, since  accusations of "liberal bias" allowed the election of a US president who started two disastrous wars and destroyed the world economy. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:29, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

text: At least we still have our sense of humor.  What can be said on talk pages and what can be said in articles are different breeds of cat. But please do observe the difference between saying something negative about a public figure and saying something negative about a fellow Wikipedian. Rick Norwood (talk) 18:50, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

text: The difference is that the civility and personal attack guidelines come into play when you discuss your fellow editors. Franamax (talk) 00:42, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see how my words could be considered a personal attack, or uncivil.  They were meant to draw attention to a previously made statement that struck me as ridiculous and arbitrary.  I was merely making a comparison of one ridiculous statement to another.  I did not intend to disparage anyone, which I don't think can be said of the previous statement. If you feel I acted with incivility towards you, or towards a Wikipeidan, and personally attacked another, please accept my apology.  While I firmly believe in an individual's right to free speech within the confines established by the U.S. Supreme Court, I also believe that the speaker must willing to accept the consequences of his words.  Nonetheless, I apologize for acting outside the realm of Wikipedially accepted norms.Scurry64 (talk) 17:14, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Searching "liberal bias" vs. searching "conservative bias" 

message: The style of this page is too pompous. Exchgganges on media bias are a dirty, cruel war. Its battlefields are covered with dead bodies (Dan Rather, Mary Mapes, etc). This ain't no salon discussion.
This page should be an organized collection of examples of exposed bias and a bibliography of studies on the subject.
I tried to add several examples, all from non-US media to adhere to the page theme, but a major style check is needed.
BTW, how many readers know what "sycophantic" mean? Emmanuelm 19:44, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You mean, of course, what "sycophantic" means. Rick Norwood 20:11, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pompous style 

message: I thought that a page about media bias had to have a chapter about blogs. I also rearranged the external links, dividing them into blogs and others. Feel free to expand on my short chapter and add more links. Emmanuelm 21:04, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have restored the External links superheader. I really don't have any problem with it. — Ambush Commander(Talk) 21:06, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New paragraph about blogs 

message: because the article is about pov, it is self referential making it unavoidable. John wesley 17:55, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV either impossible or unavoidable 

message: The introductory sentence defines media bais as being limited to journalism, but it also includes non-journalistic media -- movies, television shows, and music. Unless I am mistaken, those are also "(mainstream) media" and I know that I've heard complaints about how "liberal" pop media tend to be. I think that journalistic bias should be handled on its own page...at least this page should acknowledge that there is more to "the media" than just journalism, and direct readers to the proper articles. AdamRetchless 05:07, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  more than just journalism 

message: I removed the following because it is heavily POV, and not really to the point:
:Political correctness is a bias inherent in the Western world's standards of journalism.  In an effort to be fair and impartial, many reporters present radical views with credence equal to that which they give to mainstream views, which have been proven over time or are widely accepted.
I replaced it with an item called "exaggerated influence of minority views". AdamRetchless 05:12, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you are in a better position to answer your question than anyone else is.  Why are journalists, academics, and big city people overwhelmingly Democrats, while southerners and small town people are overwhelmingly Republican?  Many people have observed this fact, few offer explanations.  Rick Norwood 12:47, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  What the heck is your source for that? The South was the heartland of the Democratic party and its roots, and it's recent shift still only has part of the South voting more towards the right. In addition while journalists do lean left, Academics are divided sharply by field. Science, Buisness, Math, and Engineering for example all are far more right leaning then the almost exclusively liberal social science fields. While their is some minor truth to the generalization you say, you vastly overstate those generalization myths by calling them 'overwhelmingly'. Aside from a few exceptions, most cities, counties, and states don't split more then 40/30 or so towards either party, with the remaining 30 undecided or middle of the road voters who occasionally lean eithr way.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.11.132.73 (talk) 08:16, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

text: You sound like the kind of conservative I get along with just fine.  Most of my friends and neighbors here in Tennessee are conservative for the reasons you cite -- family and community above the pleasures of the flesh.  But what your explanation does not cover is the other kind of conservatism.  Why are the "hedonistic" city dwellers more concerned about the working class and the disadvantaged than the "sensitive" rural folks.  Why does the supposedly sensitive side support corporations over workers, tax cuts that primarily benefit the rich over raising the minimum wage.  And why does a hedonistic city person become a bleeding heart liberal? Rick Norwood 16:03, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  removed "political correctness" 

message: While it is nice to have some hard data, this new section really belongs in Media bias in the United States rather than here. Rick Norwood 13:24, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  new section 

message: I find it hard to believe that blogs are 'reliable' news outlets. Therefore I removed the blog section, should you return it, then we'll need some sources to back up your claims that major news stations use them.
: Blogs do have an effect on mainstream media, the provided link to the Killian documents verifies that. Furthermore, the blog section doesn't claim that blogs are reliable. I have reverted your edit accordingly. — Edward Z. Yang(Talk) 21:25, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Note that the magazines Time and The Week, and the webzine Slate regularly quote blogs.  They aren't relieable, but they are news. Rick Norwood 13:34, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blogs 

message: I believe that Media Matters was able to de-bunk the UCLA study quite effectively. This should be posted: http://mediamatters.org/items/200512220003. i also thought that in  order to make a statement such as the following quote, one should define “liberal” and “conservative” and the context –compared to WHAT?: “A major problem in studies is experimentor bias. Studies of US Media Bias studies show that A) Liberal experimentors tend to get results that say the media has a conservative bias, B) conservative experimentors get results indicating a liberal bias, and C) experimentors that do not identify themselves as either liberal or conservative do not detect any bias.”
Objective analysis does exist. So when Galileo suggested that the  earth went around the sun, the Church considered him “biased”, biased enough to be put under house arrest. He was a “liberal” for his time and place (or even a “radical” since “liberal” means reformist.) His evidence was objective – advanced optics in his new telescope that allowed fairly conclusive study of the sky. 
What I am getting at is that many of these studies draw the line so far to the right in what is considered moderation in the real world ( For instance poll after poll have shown that a vast majority of global moderates do not agree with the Iraq occupation or approve of government sponsored health care. Indeed theses days most of the American “public’ do as well (e.g http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2003-10-19-health-poll_x.htm ), yet even the “liberal’s” – US Democrats as defined by the many studies above voted for the war and have failed to pass policies that provide public health care fro all.) –Brit Bunkley
:I agree.  Thanks for dropping in, Brit. Rlitwin 18:07, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Partially agree and disagree, the international media was againt the Iraqi war from the word go but public reaction was mixed.  It is only as the war has gone on that with continual feeding by anti war media that public reaction has followed and reached the state that it has now.  I do not have sources present to cite this however. omricon
I added another small piece of evidence on how media bias works: http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2595). Students of mine are always asking me "how it works". I think that this article illustrates one element of the propaganda model effectively.Bunkley 02:14, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  More on UCLA study and objectivity in studies of bias 

message: This section has become totally unprofessional.  It agures with itself, abounds in bad grammar, rambles at great length, lacks focus.  It needs a complete rewrite. Rick Norwood 13:40, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Studies and theories of media bias 

message: This section seems to lack a neutral POV in places:
Another example of language bias would be using the phrase "freedom fighters" instead of "insurgents or terrorists." The former phrase creates an image of a noble struggle, while the latter is more neutral and true.
I think it's especially inappropriate for an article discussing Media Bias to espouse the opinion that "terrorists" better describes insurgents than does "freedom fighters."  Isn't that exactly the kind of bias this section is attempting to explain in the first place?
:I'll try to make the same point in a more value neutral way. Rick Norwood 13:50, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Role of Language in Media Bias 

message: Someone recently reworded the section on "experimenter bias", and supported the rewording by adding one new reference and deleting two old references.  I have tried to restore a NPOV wording.  
The new reference, which I have left in place, says that the NAACP is a "left leaning" organization, which shows the difficulty of quantifying bias in an unbiased way.  If racial integration is leftist, then certainly the media are leftist, since almost all American media are in favor of racial integration.  Rick Norwood 13:38, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  experimenter bias