Media

{{bronze}}
{{media}}
{{cquote| The media is the right arm of anarchy.|||[[Dan Brown]], ''Angels and Demons''}}

'''Media''' is a catch-all term that refers to all means of communication of information, which could be in [[:Category:Films|video]], [[:Category:Sound|audio]], or [[literature|literary]] form and can be spread through [[:Category:Broadcasting|broadcasting]], the print, and the [[internet]]. [[:Category:Television|Television]], newspapers, [[:Category:Magazines|magazines]], [[radio]], [[music]], and the movie industries are generally considered part of the [[mainstream media]] (MSM), since they appeal to a wide audiences, whereas the term media can also refer to [[Youtube]] videos, blogs, podcasts, [[wikis]], [[memes]], email, [[Scientific journal|research journals]], etc.&nbsp;— or really any other form of communication. "Media" is the plural form of “medium”, but it generally uses singular verb forms, so it'd be silly to say things like "so many medias are [[bias]]ed" or "the medias are raising a [[moral panic]]."

==Media bias==
[[Conservative]]s, particularly [[Fox News]], like to accuse the mainstream media of having a [[liberal bias]], [[psychological projection|not realizing that]] [[Tu quoque|they themselves]] [[Irony|are a part of the mainstream media]]. Claims of mainstream media bias however are not unique to the right and there are also many [[liberal]] and [[left-wing]] individuals who believe that mainstream media is beholden to special interests, particularly [[corporation]]s. In the case of state funded broadcasters, such as the [[BBC]], left-wingers may claim that although the institution may be publicly funded that it doesn't necessarily mean that the people in charge are sympathetic to left-wing causes. Finally, there are those who dislike the mainstream media because it functions as an effective [[scapegoat]] to explain why their [[conspiracy theory]], [[alternative medicine]] or [[New Age|new age spirituality]] isn't as popular as they think it should be. 

===Left-wing claims of bias===
Almost everyone who claims the media is biased, believes that it is in someway biased against ''[[Persecution complex|them]]''. But perhaps the most famous and enduring account/theory about how the mainstream media may be biased against the left is found in the model of [[propaganda]] outlined by Edward S. Herman and [[Noam Chomsky]].<ref>''Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media'' by Edward S. Herman and Noam Chomsky (1988) Pantheon Books. ISBN 9780679720348.</ref>

Chomsky and Herman proposed that since media is controlled by corporations, and those corporations have [[political]] and [[economic]] interests, those interests will be reflected in our media landscape. For example, a cable news channel that received large amounts of [[ad]] revenue from {{wpl|The Coca-Cola Company|Coca Cola}} will be unlikely to publish a report on Coca Cola having potentially funded paramilitary death-squads that killed and tortured [[trade union]] officials.<ref>Rob Harris and Tovin Lapan. [https://www.pbs.org/frontlineworld/fellows/colombia0106/index.html "Colombia: The Coca-Cola Controversy"]. ''FRONTLINE/World''. PBS.</ref> Likewise the editor of a newspaper owned by a wealthy media baron such as [[Rupert Murdoch]] is unlikely to be employed for very long if they run a story about [[tax]]ing wealthy media barons.

{{video|youtube|tTBWfkE7BXU}}

The model may seem conspiratorial at first but on closer inspection it is in many ways an alternative to conspiracy theories about the media, as it replaces speculation about [[Illuminati]] or [[International Jewish conspiracy|secret Jewish cabals]] with an analysis of how self-interest and private media-ownership produces an ecosystem that fails to "speak truth to power". 

Importantly this model does not require anyone to [[lie]] or to say things that they do not believe to be [[true]]. Under Chomsky's propaganda model, corporations and wealthy media executives simply hire the [[journalist]]s and editors whom they like and these journalists and editors (surprise, surprise!) tend to be one's who support the [[Fiscal neoliberalism|things]] that large corporations and [[Bourgeois|wealthy individuals]] also tend to like. Chomsky infamously made this point when responding in an interview to the BBC journalist {{wpl|Andrew Marr}} who dismissed his model claiming that Chomsky was arguing that journalists such as Marr were self-[[censoring]]:<ref>[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lLcpcytUnWU Bypass Mainstream Media, Noam Chomsky Stumps Andrew Marr, Youtube]</ref>

{{cquote|I'm sure you believe everything you're saying… But what I'm saying is if you believed something ''different'' you wouldn't be sitting where you're sitting.}}

In short, the economic leverage that wealthy right-wingers and large corporations have means they don't need to corrupt anyone. They can just throw money at media projects that align with their interest and dominate the media that way, either by [[Wingnut welfare|bank-rolling individual conservative thinkers]] or by channeling money into [[right-wing]] media organisations and associated [[Astroturf|pressure groups]] and [[Lobbying|campaigners]]. A prime example of this would be [[GB News]] the self-styled Fox News of the [[UK]] that was propped up by huge investments from friendly and wealthy right-wing donors,<ref>[https://bylinetimes.com/2021/01/19/plastic-patriotism-gb-news-foreign-funders/ bylinetimes.com, Plastic Patriotism: GB News’ Foreign Funders]</ref> despite the channel largely underperforming and failing to capture and hold on to its audience.<ref>[https://inews.co.uk/news/media/gb-news-has-lost-60-per-cent-of-viewers-since-june-launch-1221761 inews.co.uk, GB news has lost 60 per cent of viewers since June launch]</ref><ref>[https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/lee-anderson-loses-half-audience-30442964 the mirror.co.uk, Lee Anderson loses half his audience]</ref><ref>[https://pressgazette.co.uk/publishers/broadcast/gb-news-ratings-versus-talktv/ pressgazette.co.uk, GB News versus Talktv]</ref> Meanwhile, left-wing media outfits such as [https://novaramedia.com/ Novara Media] and [https://www.thecanary.co/uk/ the Canary] can only dream of angel investors descending to buy them a news studio and salaries for 24/7 coverage.   

This materialistic account of how private media ownership, and the reality of having to sell ad-space, affects the media sphere provides a relatively good explanation for why in almost every [[Capitalism|capitalist]] society the media skews to the right in terms of who is represented, what views are allowed on air and what stories make it to print. For example, a report by {{wpl|Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting}} (FAIR) found that between 2014 and 2016 almost no representatives of organized labor appeared on U.S. mainstream media outlets.<ref>[https://fair.org/take-action/media-advisories/labor-almost-invisible-on-tv-talk/ Fair.org, Labor Almost Invisible on TV Talk]</ref> A recent study has found a positive correlation between investments in corporate media by corporations and less coverage on corporate scandals (what the study deems "corporate social irresponsibility"). <ref>Stäbler, S., & Fischer, M. (2020). When Does Corporate Social Irresponsibility Become News? Evidence from More Than 1,000 Brand Transgressions Across Five Countries. Journal of Marketing, 84(3), 46–67. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022242920911907]</ref> In this way, Chomsky's propaganda model works as an [https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/abduction/ inference to the best explanation] for why such correlations and lack of representation of labour and left wing voices are so common.

Another example of right-wing bias in the U.S. media is the amplification of pro-[[war]] voices in the lead-up to the [[Iraq War]] and the marginalization of [[anti-war]] activists.<ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20050205063853/http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1145 Fair.org, Amplifying Officials, Squelching Dissent]</ref>{{efn|It shouldn't need to be explained how this benefits the [[military-industrial complex]].}}

Despite what the media would have you believe,<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.foxbusiness.com/retail/former-home-depot-ceo-fears-biden-administration-fueling-lawless-society-retail-theft-surges|title=Former Home Depot CEO ‘fears’ Biden administration is ‘fueling a lawless society' as retail theft surges|last=Coggins|first=Madeline|date=August 28, 2022|publisher=Fox News}}</ref> a 2022 report by the National Retail Foundation found that external retail theft only makes up 37% of total shrink.<ref name="nrf">{{cite web|url=https://cdn.nrf.com/sites/default/files/2022-09/National%20Retail%20Security%20Survey%20Organized%20Retail%20Crime%202022.pdf|title=2022 Retail Security Review|date=2022|publisher=National Retail Foundation}}</ref> Conversely, wage theft has cost American workers billions.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.epi.org/publication/employers-steal-billions-from-workers-paychecks-each-year/|title=Employers steal billions from workers’ paychecks each year|last=Kroeger|first=Teresa|date=May 10, 2017|publisher=Economic Policy Institute}}</ref> It's an open secret that the media barely covers wage theft while "going all in" on shoplifting.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://newrepublic.com/post/175343/wage-theft-versus-shoplifting-crime|title=The Real Crime Isn’t Shoplifting—It’s Wage Theft|last=Linkins|first=Jason|date=September 3, 2023|publisher=New Republic}}</ref>

There has also been found to be a demonstrable media bias against [[Palestine]]. For example, ''[[The Nation]]'' did a review where it was found that during the first 100 days of the [[genocide]] in Gaza [[CNN]] and [[MSNBC]] have consistently provided "far less sympathetic or humanizing coverage for Palestinians" than either [[Israeli]]s "during that same period" or [[Ukrainian]]s received after the first 100 days of the [[Russian]] invasion.<ref>[https://www.thenation.com/article/society/cnn-msnbc-gaza-media-bias-study/ "A Study Reveals CNN and MSNBC’s Glaring Gaza Double Standard"] - Adam Johnson and Othman Ali (October 14, 2024). ''The Nation''.</ref> ''[[The New York Times]]'' has also directed its staff to avoid using words like "genocide," "[[ethnic cleansing]]," and "[[military occupation|occupied territory]]" in reference to coverage of Gaza.<ref>[https://theintercept.com/2024/04/15/nyt-israel-gaza-genocide-palestine-coverage/ "Leaked NYT Gaza Memo Tells Journalists to Avoid Words 'Genocide,' 'Ethnic Cleansing,' and 'Occupied Territory'"] - Jeremy Scahill and Ryan Grim (April 15, 2024). ''The Intercept''.</ref>

During the [[2016 US presidential election]], there was a noticeable discrepancy in coverage of [[Bernie Sanders]]' campaign as opposed to the campaign of the eventual 2016 Democratic nominee, [[Hillary Clinton]], and what coverage that did cover Bernie's campaign was more negative than the coverage of Hillary's.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://shorensteincenter.org/news-coverage-2016-presidential-primaries/|title=News Coverage of the 2016 Presidential Primaries: Horse Race Reporting Has Consequences|last=Patterson|first=Thomas|date=July 11, 2016|publisher=Harvard Kennedy School Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics, and Public Policy}}</ref> Trump also received 23 times more coverage than Bernie did.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/the-discourse-suffers-when-trump-gets-23-times-as-much-coverage-as-sanders/|title=The Discourse Suffers When Trump Gets 23 Times As Much Coverage as Sanders|last=Nichols|first=John|date=December 14, 2015|publisher=[[The Nation]]}}</ref>

===Right-wing claims of bias===
{{main|Liberal media}}
As is expected, left-wingers are not the only people dissatisfied with how they are covered (or not covered) by the mainstream media. Although it is the hallmark of American conservatives and Fox News especially, almost all right-wing movements decry the media as biased against their values, beliefs and identity. There are typically three main right wing gripes with the media: 

# Modern Media is a [[Atheism|godless]] cesspool full of [[Sex|sin]].
# Modern Media is too [[Alt-right glossary#Woke|woke]] and [[politically correct]].
# Modern Media is a [[Socialism|socialist]]-[[communist]]-[[Obama]]ist-[[Marxist]] plot to destroy our [[freedom]].

'''Complaint 1''' is, depending on your idea of sin, an easy enough claim to evidence. However it probably has less to do with an [[evil]] liberal media bias and more to do with the slow [[Secularism| secularising]] society and the fact that sex sells in a hyper-consumerist economy. 

'''Complaint 2''' is, again depending on your idea of wokeness, perhaps reasonably easy enough to evidence. However most of the time what conservatives are upset at is not really a meaningful embracing of radical [[feminist]] or anti-[[racist]] politics and more a symbolic, and often highly cynical, gesture in the [[culture war]] intended to court progressive dollars rather than meaningfully advance a cause.

'''Complaint 3''' is the more obviously batshit claim and where the right-wing critique of mainstream media tends to break down. Whereas a stuck-in-the-mud [[evangelical]] (who's opinions on race, sexuality and [[gender]] haven't evolved since the 1950s or earlier) could probably make a case for modern media having left his values behind the same cannot be said for someone claiming that mainstream media has become "communist", not least because communists try not to make a habit of running billion dollar media empires. Such a claim tends to raise more questions than it answers, such as how did socialist come to dominate the corporate landscape of private media? Why don't they use that control to shut down Fox News or support a party that is more radical than [[Labour Party| new-labour]] or the fairly centrist [[Democratic Party]]?

As of yet, right wingers have struggled to create anything similar in scope or sense to the propaganda model outlined by Chomsky and Herman, where simple economic and politics forces can evidence and explain any sort of systemic bias against the political right. Probably the most lasting and successful attempts (though that's ''really'' not saying much!) to create a systematic right wing critique of mainstream media is found in the right wing boogeyman, and Nazi conspiracy theory, [[cultural Marxism]] and short-lived [[neoreactionary]] notions of '[[Neoreactionary movement#The Cathedral|the cathedral]]'.

===It doesn't have to be that way.===
Despite the large-scale corporate ownership of large media companies, there are some successful models for non-corporate news reporting organizations:
{{collist|2|
*''Chicago Sun-Times'', one of whose predecessor publications was founded in 1844, became part of the non-profit Chicago Public Media company as of 2022.
*''Associated Press'' was founded in 1846, and operates as a cooperative, unincorporated association. Its members can distribute its news and photos without additional fees, and non-members can distribute individual articles and photos for a fee.<ref>[https://apnews.com/ ''Associated Press'']</ref>
*''[[The Guardian]]'' was founded in 1821 as ''The Manchester Guardian''. Since 1936, it has been owned by Scott Trust Limited, so as "to secure the financial and editorial independence of the Guardian in perpetuity and to safeguard the journalistic freedom and liberal values of the Guardian free from commercial or political interference."<ref>[https://www.theguardian.com/the-scott-trust/2015/jul/26/the-scott-trust The Scott Trust: values and history] (26 Jul 2015 08.55 EDT) ''The Guardian''.</ref><ref>[https://www.theguardian.com/us ''The Guardian'']</ref>
*''The Philadelphia Inquirer'' was established in 1829. Since 2010, ''The Inquirer'' has been owned by a non-profit corporation (''Philadelphia Media Network'', later renamed as ''The Philadelphia Inquirer LLC'').<ref>[https://www.inquirer.com/ ''The Philadelphia Inquirer'']</ref>
*The ''Texas Observer'' was founded in 1954 and is part of the non-profit Texas Democracy Foundation.<ref>[https://www.texasobserver.org/ ''Texas Observer'']</ref>
*''Pro Publica'' was established in 2007 as a non-profit investigative journalism organization.<ref>[https://www.propublica.org/ ''Pro Publica'']</ref>
*''The Texas Tribune'' was established in 2009 as a non-profit politics and public policy news website.<ref>[https://www.texastribune.org/ ''The Texas Tribune'']</ref>
*{{wpl|The Conversation (website)|''The Conversation''}} was established in 2010 as a non-profit. Articles are written by academics and edited by professional journalists. The written stories are under [[Creative Commons]] license. There are editions for different countries and in different languages.<ref>[https://theconversation.com/ ''The Conversation'']</ref>
*''Mississippi Free Press'' is a non-profit, founded in 2016. It covers issues surrounding systemic inequality in [[Mississippi]].<ref>[https://www.mississippifreepress.org/ ''Mississippi Free Press'']</ref>
*''Mississippi Today'' was founded in 2016 as part of the non-profit Deep South Today.<ref name=dst>[https://deepsouthtoday.org/newsrooms/ ''Deep South Today'']</ref>
*States Newsroom is a non-partisan nonprofit that was founded in 2018. As of 2026, it has partners of affiliates in all 50 US states.<ref>[https://statesnewsroom.com/ ''States Newsroom'']</ref>
*''Defector'' was founded in 2020 by 18 former ''Deadspin'' staffers who resigned in protest against private equity bullying of ''Deadspin'' staffers. ''Defector'' is employee-owned and covers sports and culture.<ref>[https://defector.com/about-us About Us] ''DeadSpin''.</ref>
* ''Bolts'' was founded in 2022 as a non-profit. It covers political change, including local and non-local elections.<ref>[https://boltsmag.org/about/ ''Bolts'']</ref>
*''Verite News'' was founded in 2022 as a non-profit focused on New Orleans. It is part of the non-profit Deep South Today.<ref name=dst/><ref>[https://veritenews.org/ ''Verite News'']</ref>
*''404 Media'' was established in 2023 by three editors and a writer for Vice Media's ''Motherboard'' after ''Vice'' filed for bankruptcy. Its journalism covers [[technology]] and [[internet]] reporting. ''404 Media'' offers free articles as well as paid subscriptions as well as paid subscriptions for additional features. The owners have so for been responsible for all content creation.<ref>[https://www.404media.co/ ''404 Media'']</ref>
}}

Some examples of quality journalism can be found on [[Substack]], but some truly awful shit can also be found there (e.g., [[Joseph Mercola]], [[white nationalists]], [[Nazis]] and [[antisemite]]s) due to the owners' [[free speech]] absolutism.<ref>[https://substack.com/@hamish/note/c-45811343 Note] by Hamish McKenzie (Dec 21, 2023) ''Substack''.</ref><ref>{{wpa|Substack#Criticism}}</ref> Some of the better examples of journalism on Substack are:
*''The Contrarian'', founded in 2025 by ''[[Washington Post]]'' exile {{wpl|Jennifer Rubin}} and lawyer {{wpl|Norm Eisen||,}} they feature interviews with experts, news analysis and opinion.<ref>[https://contrarian.substack.com/ https://contrarian.substack.com/] ''The Contrarian''.</ref>
*''The Counteroffensive'', founded in 2023 by American journalist Tim Mak, he and his team of Ukrainians do on-the-ground reporting from Ukraine, with a focus on [[Russian invasion of Ukraine|Russia's war against Ukraine]].<ref>[https://www.counteroffensive.news/ ''The Counteroffensive with Tim Mak'']</ref>

Podcasts have similar issues plus an even stronger tendency to share opinions and post about what people have already posted about. Investigative reporting on the ground is slow, expensive, and local but anyone can fire up [[Twitter]] and the Internet Archive and read about the latest Internet drama.

During the late 1960s to early 1970s, there were thriving underground newspapers throughout much of the [[west]]. Their effectiveness can perhaps perhaps be measured by the widespread official harassment (by the [[police]] and [[FBI]]) that they received.<ref>{{wpa|Underground press}}</ref> Retrospectives on the underground press were published in ''Underground Press Anthology'' and ''Blacklisted News''.<ref>''Underground Press Anthology'' by Thomas King Forçade (1972) Ace Books.</ref><ref>''Blacklisted News: Secret history, from Chicago, '68, to 1984, the New Yippie! Book'' (1983) Bleecker Publishing. ISBN 0912873000.</ref>

In principle, independent media that is financially supported by a [[democracy]] could be a workable model. Both the [[BBC]] and [[NPR]] have operated this way; both organizations have editorial independence as part of their foundational principles.<ref>[https://www.theguardian.com/media/2025/aug/20/protect-bbc-independence-in-case-of-farage-government-ex-news-head-urges Protect BBC’s independence in case of Farage government, ex-news head urges] by Michael Savage (20 Aug 2025 14.00 EDT) ''The Guardian''.</ref><ref>[https://www.npr.org/about-npr/688405012/independence NPR Ethics Handbook: Independence] ''NPR''.</ref> The BBC however has a history of government interference,<ref>{{wpa|BBC independence#Interference by the British government}}</ref> and NPR was subjected to sudden and severe budget cuts from the second Trump administration, likely as retaliation for being mocked by the long-running children's TV show ''Sesame Street'', which was broadcast on NPR for much of its existence.<ref>[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-_r6iojNnYg 'Sesame Street's' brutal parodies of Donald Trump] ''Washington Post'' (May 10, 2017) ''YouTube''.</ref><ref>[https://www.npr.org/2025/07/18/nx-s1-5469912/npr-congress-rescission-funding-trump Congress rolls back $9 billion in public media funding and foreign aid] by Scott Neuman & Lexie Schapitl (July 18, 202512:17 AM ET) ''NPR''.</ref>

===Assorted crank claims of bias===
Claims of bias in the media are not just limited to individuals with well-defined political leanings, or even well-defined perspectives. Complaints about the mainstream media often come from sections of society that are relatively apolitical, or who simply care a lot more about something else. This includes groups that are just upset that their pet conspiracy theory or alternative medicine has not been taken sufficiently seriously. After all, [[worldview]]s according to which there exists some great suppressed knowledge which is tragically kept from the people have conspiracism baked into them, which naturally extends to taking a dim view of the "establishment" and mainstream world as a whole, including the mainstream media.{{efn|This is often one thing that cranks of diverse views can agree on, conspiracy theory becoming a common language facilitating [[crank magnetism]], as in the history of how [[conspirituality]] arose. Cranks often support and help spread the messages of other cranks as long as they do not conflict with those of their own they care most about, in a kind of "all of us together against the mainstream" solidarity.}}

If you are an aspiring practitioner of [[telekinesis]] or an avid [[Sun gazing|sun gazer]] you might be slightly miffed to find that journalists, academics and newspapers refuse to take you seriously. Businesspeople who make their fortunes selling supplements and "remedies" also often find themselves greatly at odds with ordinary journalism. One explanation of this is that the beliefs and claims are being covered up by an ignorant, indifferent or nefarious media complex. Perhaps powerful individuals are scared that you have uncovered that [[Clickbait|one simple trick that dentists hate]] that will give you perfectly white teeth overnight? Or perhaps, for some reason, the [[government]] thinks it would be better if no one knew about the existence of the [[aliens]]?{{efn|The British sketch comedy "That Mitchell and Webb Look" gave a humorous take of how conspiracy theorists imagine government agencies work.<ref>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lTHB8iC1C0E That Mitchell and Webb Look - The Aliens] (Feb 28, 2012) ''YouTube''.</ref>}} Or maybe you've formulated a unique message that is the best hope for saving the world from almost certain doom, but the forces of ''[[The Matrix]]'' keep it from spreading.

While the apolitically cranky may not have a claim of bias that is explicitly motivated by politics they often borrow from other more political critiques of the media. This can include right wing accusations of Cultural Marxism or liberal bias and left wing accusations of corporate influence or even a mixture of the two. Why the [[globalist]]s are covering up the existence of [[Atlantis]] or how exactly corporate mainstream media benefits from preventing your aunt's [[crystal healing]] business from taking off, is never made quite clear. The claims of bias made by [[woo]] peddlers and garden-variety conspiracy theorists tend to be, much like the positions they hold in general, disorganized.

===Hostile media effect===
The hostile media effect is the tendency for people who have taken a position on an issue to see media coverage of that issue as biased against their position.<ref>Vallone, R.P., Ross, L., & Lepper, M.R. (1985). [http://www.ssc.wisc.edu/~jpiliavi/965/hwang.pdf The hostile media phenomenon: Biased Perception and Perceptions of Media Bias in Coverage of the "Beirut Massacre"] 'Journal of Personality and Social Psychology'' 49:577-585.</ref>

For example, in the first study done on the topic, a number of subjects watched news clips of the coverage of a massacre of Palestinian refugees by a [[Lebanese]] militia during the Lebanese Civil War. The pro-[[Israel]]i subjects were more likely to think that the coverage had a pro-Palestinian bias while the pro-Palestinian subjects thought the opposite. This concept probably explains many of the accusations of [[liberal media|liberal]]/"[[corporate]]"/[[International Jewish conspiracy|Zionist]]/[[FSM]]-biased media. In short, it's impossible to perceive media as unbiased when ''you'', yourself, have a powerful bias.

One should however be careful not to allow the existence of the hostile media effect to draw one to the conclusion of a [[Argument to moderation|golden mean fallacy]]. Just because one side says that the media is left wing and another side says it is right wing, this does not sufficiently prove that the media has achieved a perfect balance that pisses everyone off. It is of course entirely possible that one side has a more legitimate grievance than the other.

==Media influence==
[[File:Mural_sobre_calle_San_Juan_-_Florencio_Varela.JPG|thumb|right]]
Whether it is a moral panic about [[Video game#Violence|violent video games]], [[sexism]] in movies or the possibility that playing Dungeons & Dragons might turn your child into a [[Dungeons & Dragons#religion|wizard or satanist]], there has been plenty of speculation about the effects of media on impressionable minds. Sometimes this is an understandable worry since people do use media to make sense of the world, explore ideas of right and wrong and inform their political beliefs; however it also has a tendency to spiral into [[Mass hysteria|hysteria]]. 

Commonly cited is {{wpl|Albert Bandura||’s}} famous 1961 experiment Bobo the Doll. In which 72 children ages 3-6 were exposed to a video of a model punching a blow up doll. Lo and behold when given a similar blow up doll, the children mimicked the behaviour and punched the doll just as they had seen in the video and generally exhibited more "aggressive" behaviours than the control group.<ref>[https://www.simplypsychology.org/bobo-doll.html McLeod, Saul A. "Bobo Doll Experiment | Simply Psychology"]</ref> Experiments and observations of this nature typically led people to wonder if playing {{wpl|Shooter game|shooter games}} might inspire a disturbed individual to go on a [[Columbine|shooting spree]], or if being exposed to [[Anita Sarkeesian|sexist tropes in fiction]] would eventually result in people taking those sexist tropes for granted in real life. 

The question of how media relates to topics such as [[Terrorism|radicalisation]], violence or [[bigotry]] is undoubtedly a thorny and nebulous one. While it may be difficult in some cases to establish a perfect causal link between someone consuming a type of media and that media transforming their attitudes and beliefs enough for them to engage in extreme or anti-social behaviour, it is reasonable to postulate that media has ''some'' kind of effect. Media, almost since its inception, has been produced to persuade others of a particular worldview, moral claim or pragmatic course of action. Culture does influence humans and media makes up a big part of that so it does seem rash to completely discount it, this however needs to be tempered by an understanding of just how complex and multifaceted humans are as consumers of media and agents capable of exercising [[free will]]. Overall though, psychological studies over the years have confirmed that media does actually have some effect on our attitudes, beliefs and actions.

Some have argued that media that features discriminatory tropes or [[stereotypes]] emboldens and encourages individuals to act on their more [[taboo]] inclinations by creating a sense of normalcy and acceptability. For example, a person who holds sexist beliefs might be more willing to act in a discriminatory manner if they have just overheard co-workers making sexist jokes, even worse it may lead them to be more inclined to [[rape]]!<ref>https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2001-05964-005, Ford, T. E., Wentzel, E. R., & Lorion, J. (2001). Effects of exposure to sexist humor on perceptions of normative tolerance of sexism. ''European Journal of Social Psychology'', 31(6):677–691. doi:10.1002/ejsp.56.</ref><ref>https://psycnet.apa.org/fulltext/2013-41944-005.html Thomae, M., & Viki, G. T. (2013). Why did the woman cross the road? The effect of sexist humor on men's rape proclivity. ''Journal of Social, Evolutionary, and Cultural Psychology'', 7(3):250–269. doi:10.1037/h0099198.</ref>

Likewise, there is some evidence to suggests that people may treat ethnic minorities with more suspicion if they have just consumed media that presents them as criminal.<ref>https://www.jstor.org/stable/41819017, Oliver, M.B. African American men as “criminal and dangerous”: Implications of media portrayals of crime on the “criminalization” of African American men. ''Journal of African American Studies'' 7:3–18 (2003). doi:10.1007/s12111-003-1006-5.</ref> and as with sexist humour there is evidence to suggest that racial humour can result in a higher tolerance and acceptance of racist attitudes.<ref>https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1207/S15327957PSPR0801_4 Ford, T. E., & Ferguson, M. A. (2004). Social Consequences of Disparagement Humor: A Prejudiced Norm Theory. ''Personality and Social Psychology Review'' 8(1):79–94. doi:10.1207/S15327957PSPR0801_4.</ref>

In some cases, however, the relationship may be more complex than one of "give and take" where the media reinforces the behaviour while the individual's attitudes cause the individual to seek out that media, creating a feedback loop. For example, an unbalanced individual obsessed with the thought of sexually abusing women may be more prone to watching [[BDSM]] and violent fetish films, but that does not mean that the [[pornography]] brought about the violence since [[correlation does not equal causation]].

==Media and science==
{{main|1=Popular science|3=Medical misconceptions and the media}}
[[Science]] is sometimes difficult to properly understand if you lack the relevant scientific training. This training is however relatively rare among the ranks of journalists, authors and script-writers who often have a humanities background. This can cause problems. 

===Science in the news===
If a news network is wealthy enough, it may have enough money on hand to hire a dedicated science correspondent&nbsp;— someone with both journalistic flair and scientific training. In the age of falling media revenues however this is increasingly not the case and now many newspapers and channels just get someone else to do it. This results in complex scientific breakthroughs and cautious findings being oversimplified and exaggerated by, possibly well-meaning, journalists who often misunderstand simple concepts like [[statistical significance]]&nbsp;— or it could be that the media outlet wants to sensationalize stories to get more [[clickbait]].

This issue is compounded by the {{wpl|attention-economy}} that requires every news headline to be as exciting as possible.{{efn|Which is itself already [[publication bias|somewhat of an issue in the scientific publishing world.]]}} So a study that finds that one particular chemical found in fermented grapes, extracted carefully and administered to 20 lab mice, reduced the growth of [[cancer]]ous tumors by around 4%, gets turned into: DRINKING WINE CURES CANCER!!!11!ONE1!

The [[physician]] and epidemiologist [[Ben Goldacre]] has written a number of brilliant books and articles on this topic.<ref>Goldacre, B. (2009). ''Bad Science''. HarperPerennial.</ref> Goldacre believes that poor science reporting is the product of uppity humanities obsessed journalists who don't adequately respect science, however it may be more likely that [[Hanlon's razor|ignorance rather than malice]] is the root cause.

===Science in fiction===
{{main|Science fiction}}
A lack of scientific training is often present in the [[art]]s, which can lead to some [[Science fiction|fun speculation]] about how [[quantum mechanics]] operates and what that might mean for the future. More often than not though bad science in the media at its worst misleads the public about what it is that scientists actually do, and at its best just makes for some headache inducing movies.{{efn|''2012'', the disaster movie about the [[2012 apocalypse]], in more ways than one<ref>{{wpa|2012 (film)|2012}}</ref> was a particularly bad example of this. Comedian Dara Ó Briain mocked it in his stand up performance.<ref>[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bXdBzpRDR5I Dara Ó Briain about the movie 2012] by Byronic Tonic (Oct 24, 2016) ''YouTube''.</ref>}}

==Fake news==
[[File:Fox osama obama.jpg|thumb|right|[[Fox News|"America's Election HQ"]]]]
{{main|Fake news}}
[[Fake news]] platforms are sometimes run as crank [[truthy]] 'alternatives' to mainstream media, though at other times, they are just propaganda for larger organized political interests or unscrupulous businesses. On a smaller scale, fake news can also stem from mere carelessness or [[Yellow journalism|the rush to sell]] [[clickbait|attention-grabbing stories]], including at times in mainstream outlets.

So-called alternative media platforms come in various sizes and shapes, and often aggregate content from multiple sources, producing only a smaller portion of original content; what is copied can in large part be from mainstream media sources, some selection which is approved of even if mainstream media as a whole is criticized. Other stories tend to be copied between different 'alternative' websites, who reinforce and validate (even if only subjectively) the messages of one another. Crank outlets at times end up mixing and matching all manner of low-quality material, whatever its original sense and purpose or lack thereof, though sometimes they stay more focused on a particular message.

==See also==
*[[Mainstream media]]
*[[Propaganda]]
*[[Media was wrong before]]
*[[Science fiction]]
*[[Video_game#Violence|Violence in video games]]
*[[Video_game#Sexism|Sexism in video games]]

==External links==
*[https://www.niemanlab.org/ NiemanLab]
*[https://www.cjr.org/ Columbia Journalism Review]
*[https://journals.sagepub.com/home/MCS Media, Culture & Society]
*[https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rdij20 Digital Journalism]
*[https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rjos20 Journalism Studies]
*[https://digiday.com/ Digiday]
*[https://observer.com/media/ Observer,] media section
*[https://reviewofjournalism.ca/ The Review of Journalism,] a Canadian outlet
*[https://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch Media Watch,] a TV series by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation

==Notes==
{{reflist|group=note}}

==References==
{{reflist|2|80%}}

[[Category:Media| ]]

Categories: Media