Misplaced Pages

Talk:Media bias in the United States

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Rick Norwood (talk | contribs) at 15:52, 11 August 2006 (→opposing views section needs clean up). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 15:52, 11 August 2006 by Rick Norwood (talk | contribs) (→opposing views section needs clean up)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Headline text

Archive 1 through 2005

Meaningless definitions

If Kennedy and Gates are liberals, they must NEOLIBERALS which is a political science term meaning someone who is in favor of capitalist globalization and who doesn't care a whit about the plight of workers. Because that truthfully describes what they are.

I propose that this wikipedia entry should ignore the meaningless term of liberal when speaking about politicians who have a narrow ideological bent.

Phil Donahue's "high" ratings

I think this link speaks for itself: http://us.cnn.com/2003/SHOWBIZ/TV/02/25/donahue.ap/ That example needs to be removed. Also is there any reason why Doonesbury is listed as an example of media bias? it's a freakin cartoon. cartoons tend to express the views of the people who draw them, they're not supposed to be unbiased. agree with the people who say the conclusion is POV.

The Republican party considered Doonesbury biased enough for them to conduct a major and successful effort to have it removed from a large number of papers. I think it goes without saying that when we report accusations of bias, that is not at all the same thing as reporting actual bias. Rick Norwood 20:14, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
i think this article should be addressing news, and not cartoons. otherwise boondocks and mallard fillmore are other cartoons with a political point of view, so might as well mention those too while we're at it(sarcasm). anyways, that is just my opinion, fwliw, i won't make any changes on that. however: do you have any opinion on the Donahue story? that seems clear-cut. since this is a contentious article i won't make any changes until people weigh in on it. but the part about donahue getting canceled despite having good ratings is flat-out incorrect. his ratings were horrendous, that is beyond dispute. RonMexico 21:03, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
"I used to get very tense about that. My mother still does... . It doesn't bother me anymore. You know why? ... The American people don't believe all this stuff. They don't believe it. So I'm saying, why should I be all uptight, when people don't nee a filter, you know?" --George H. W. Bush on Doonesbury. I've never watched Donahue. Rick Norwood 21:22, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
Donahue's ratings were low compared to other channels, but they were higher than anything else on MSNBC at the time. MSNBC had bad ratings across the board at the time. 68.47.234.131 00:05, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Doonesbury comic strip??

Why is this included? The strip is opinion and not news. The fact that some dropped it is not really relevant to the subject of liberal bias. Conservatives have no problem generally with liberal opinion that is supposed to be opinion. I think it should be taken out. --Mccommas

Well this article isn't about the news. It is about media, comic strips being one of them. Now if we could just stop that little Ziggy from spinning his propaganda, we'll be set. --LV 14:25, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
I disagree. Liberal bias refers to news items. A political cartoon is supposed to be opinion and thus it is not proper to be objective in a political opinion cartoon. News is supposed to be objective, political cartoons are supposed to make a point ( which in Doonsbury case I usually don't get it so therefore I don't read it but still just the same..) --mccommas
Not necessarily, I don't think. People have accused sit-coms, news items, radio programs, news commentators, television dramas, fictional movies, documentaries, newspapers, magazines, entire television networks, and just about any other medium you can think of, of having a bias one way or the other. Comic strips included. If it is germane to the article, which it probably is, it should probably belong. --LV 14:34, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
How does an editorial cartoonist expressing an opinion constitute political bias? Personally, I do not think including editorial comics in this article is appropriate. Every cartoon on the opinion page of a newspaper is equally biased as Doonesbury. This isn't about newspapers, magazines, TV networks, sit-coms, etc. Garry Trudeau is a political cartoonist. He won a Pulitzer Prize for "Editorial Cartooning" -- not just comic strip writing. He makes his living by expressing political opinions. How can he (or any other editorial cartoonist) be unbiased? Charging him with bias is akin to claiming an editorial columnist is biased for expressing a political opinion. I don't see any mention in this article of William F. Buckley. Why not? He makes a living by expressing political opinions, just like Trudeau. This article is about media -- not just news. Opinion columns are just as much a part of the media as political cartoons are. Yet it's necessary to devote a entire section not just to cartoons, but specifically to bias in Doonesbury? That's inappropriate. If Doonesbury is biased because it expresses a political opinion, then Mallard Fillmore, Prickly City, and Day by Day (which was removed from mention here after J.smith claimed bringing it up was somehow POV) are all equally guilty of political bias. If it is germane to mention Doonesbury's bias, why is it POV to mention the conservative webcomic Day by Day? Is this a section about biased comics in the media or just a section against Doonesbury? Additionally, why is the first sentence in the "Bias in the comics" section written passively? Precisely who has often accused Doonesbury of liberal bias? An attempted edit saying conservative critics are the ones making these charges was swiftly reverted by J.smith, who claimed saying that was POV. Deliberately choosing to use passive voice is an all-too-easy way to weasel out of providing details. I don't think it's unfair to ask for the name(s) of the group(s) accusing Doonesbury of liberal bias. I feel it's inappropriate to revert an edit that said conservative critics are the ones making these charges. In conclusion, I strongly feel this section needs to be eliminated from this article. Barring that, I'd suggest moving it to it's own page, or at least allowing edits to add mentions of other comics (like Day by Day) to this section and corrections of passive voice sentences without immediate POV claims and reversions. Thank you. User:66.17.118.207 30 January 2006
Actually you bring up a good point. Why is Doonesbury here? Well, it took me a while to figure out why, but here's what I came up with: The mention isn’t' about Doonesbury, it is about contraveral boycott in-regards to the comic. This whole article is about the controversy of "media bias". I agree, there is no expectation of Neutrality in comics and editorials, but that is not the point of the section. It's only there to illustrate that sometimes the debate spills over into other areas. (The change to the beginning of the paragraph is fine "conservative groups" etc... I'd really rather have the name of the group if possible, and a citation.). As for the passive tone…. Err… I’ll let an English major fix that. This article needs more citations in any event and hopefully in that process, that can be fixed.
      • "Political bias has a long history of appearing in the comics." was removed for being irrelevant. (since the subject is not the bias, but the boycott)
      • "It seems clear however, that the dominant U.S. media outlets function as an ancillary wing of the Democratic Party." Obviously POV, right? If you it's true, then I think it's controversial to demand a citation.
All that being said, I would rather have the scope of this article restricted to areas where a neutral bias is expected. (news outlets, textbooks, schools, etc) (Signed: J.Smith) 02:29, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


I agree with He Who Must Not Be Named. After all, one of the most famous accusations of liberal bias was Dan Quayle's attack on Murphy Brown. Rick Norwood 15:49, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
IIRC Dan Quayle's speech about Murphy Brown had more to do with the bad societal message he thought the show sent on the issue of single motherhood rather than a "liberal bias". similar to George Bush I criticizing the Simpsons, Tipper Gore criticizing the music industry, or for that matter Spike Lee criticizing Pulp Fiction. Criticizing a movie or TV show or any other piece of entertainment(ie: cartoon) because you don't think it has a good social message seems(at least to me) to be significantly different than a liberal media bias. I guess I don't understand how this is even a discussion, including Doonsbury here seems like a strawman to me. By the way, I respect Rick Norwood for putting alot of effort into this article, so I hope none of my criticisms are taken as a shot at his work. RonMexico 17:56, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words. You make good points, most of which I agree with. However, the Doonesbury case involved a letter writing campaign by conservatives who demanded that a major printer refuse to print the Doonesbury strip because, they said, of its liberal bias. That seems important to me, especially since the campaign was successful. Rick Norwood 21:57, 8 December 2005 (UTC)


"letter writing campaign by conservatives who demanded that a major printer refuse to print the Doonesbury strip because, they said, of its liberal bias." Was that it or was it because the strip is crap? In any case clearly a strip like that is opinion and its supposed to be such. It is not news. So therefore it need not be here. -- mccommas

Nancy is crap, but I don't notice conservatives conducting a major letter writing campaign to get rid of Nancy. Also, please note the title, not "New bias" but "Media bias". Media include news, television, radio, and, yes, even comic strips. Getting rid of Doonesbury was a conservative victory. Why are conservatives so eager to cover it up? Rick Norwood 14:28, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
If the article is going to use a broad definition of media, then why not also include the internet? The net is littered with conservative blogs, opinion "news" sources, lobby groups, religious groups, and think tanks. Not that there aren't liberal sites, as well. But, the conservative ones seem to have bigger names, closer political ties, and get mentioned in the mainstream, more often. Some of those large Christian groups also have their own radio and television stations. Preaching conservative politics to millions. --3DJay 03:28, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

This conservative isn't in favor of covering it up. If I owned a newspaper I would run it because it is popular, even if my opinion of it is poor. We are all apart of the Great American Debate. Let all voice be heard.

--Mccommas 18:28, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm glad you feel that way, but clearly a large number of conservatives felt differently. Rick Norwood 21:00, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

I know of no conservatives who favor censorship. The cammanding majority -- as in almost all of us -- are content to vanquish liberals on an open field.--Mccommas 22:52, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

No conservatives? How about the President, who only allows pre-screened audience members into his folksy little "town-hall" meetings, in order to be thrown nothing but softballs by supporters? If it's not censorship, it's at least cowardice. Bush is supposed to be the leader of your party. Why is he afraid to take the field openly in the war of words? -Kasreyn 09:07, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
If only that were true. Maybe it is just because I live in Tennessee, but I cannot pick up a Sunday paper without reading a letter to the editor to the effect that liberal viewpoints should not be published. On the other hand, I have a hunch that what you mean by "conservative" is very different from what my friends and neighbors mean by "conservative". Rick Norwood 02:59, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
Exactly. That's what conservatives get for accepting the religious whacko fringe into their coalition: they also get the anti-free-speech censorship fringe. I think Mccommas is being overly charitable in his estimates of the maturity level of his fellow conservatives. -Kasreyn 09:07, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I know this thread has long been forgotten, but I just found one of the Doonesbury strips people often talk about when describing it's possible bias. This strip uses a study, later shown to be false. Just thought I'd mention it here, as I don't know if anyone has done so yet. --LV 21:12, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

In a later strip, and also in the next reprint book, the writer apologized for the error. Rick Norwood 23:10, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I added those sources to the Doonesbury article, but did not have them at the time I commented here. My apologies. Thanks. --LV 23:11, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

liberal bais vs liberal media

Clearly, both phrases "liberal bias" and "liberal media" are in common use. That doesn't change the fact that "liberal bias" is in common use. Since the subject of this article is "media bias", it makes more sense to refer to the pharse "liberal bias". Maybe if you explained why you want to make this change? Rick Norwood 13:59, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I think I actually like "liberal media" in this sentence. Your way, the sentence reads ""Liberal bias" is a common phrase used in American political discourse to express the view that the American media generally has a liberal bias." That doesn't even make sense. "'Liberal bias' is used to show the media has a liberal bias"? I think "Liberal media" reads better in this context. --LV 15:37, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
I see your point. Rick Norwood 19:48, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

UCLA Study

A UCLA study has been released, and a recap is here. How do we incorporate? --badlydrawnjeff 18:20, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

just go ahead and add it in(make sure to cite)


== Someone needs to remember that news = news. News is NOT Hannity and Colms, Olberman, Scarborough Country, etc. Media bias is misleading, especially since this story talks about news outlets.

If you look purely at news coverage, then yes, the media is biased to the left. Anyone who says otherwise is a liar.

Certainly, the news shows liberal bias. They also show conservative bias. Both are widely reported. The UCLA study, unfortunately, chose the phrase "left wing" and equated "left wing" with the Democratic Party. What, if anything, this has to do wtih liberal and conservative is unclear. But certainly, in the United States, news reports tend to report stories favorable to Democrats and stories unfavorable to Republicans. One possible explanation for this is bias. Another possible explanation would be Republicans behaving badly. : ) Rick Norwood 17:48, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
Reading the press release shows that the study used some adjustments "to compensate for disproportionate representation that the Senate gives to low‑population states" This is a logical thing to do, given the goal was to compare the media to the average citizen and not the average politician. Still, they relied on the assumption that politicians act like the citizens would. This can't be as precise as directly asking citizens on issues and comparing that to the media. --R.H. 07:23, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Media Matters debates the validity of the UCLA study, here. Considering The Wall Street Journal is down as the most liberal, and the rankings of many of the "think tanks", they might be on to something. --3DJay 03:42, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Kerry, Edwards & Gates: Liberals?

Under the heading "Opposing Views" it states that some those who argue that there is a widespread liberal bias also argue that many wealthy business owners are liberal. According to the article, those who argue for this take John Kerry, John Edwards and Bill Gates, amoung others, to be Liberals. Although Kerry and Edwards are both Democrats, the Misplaced Pages article on Kerry states that he is centrist and neoliberal, while the Misplaced Pages article on Edwards says nothing of him being Liberal. Likewise, there is no mention of Gates being Liberal in the Misplaced Pages article on him, although he most likely is a Democrat. Perhaps this possible mis-categorization ought to be mentioned in the article.

Or maybe the articles on Kerry, Edwards, and Gates should be fixed to reflect their ideology, too. While I'm not entirely sure about Gates, I find it difficult to not consider Edwards or Kerry liberal. --badlydrawnjeff 01:12, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Proposal: Move to from "Media bias" to "News-media bias"

I think that would be good to focus the scope of the article. I think the major issue here is about news bias and not general media bias. I may be going out on a limb here, but I think that most people who have a problem with news bias are ok with bias in books, poetry and editorials. I think "news-media" is a better term to capture the essence of the debate and better give it a focused scope. My vote: Move (Signed: J.Smith) 19:33, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I was out of town for a few days, and so missed this. You will notice that even though nobody objected, nobody approved, either. You seem to have made this major change purely to get rid of the Doonesbury section, since the intro does not contain the word "news" and numerous other sections on media bias do not limit themselves to news. Why you want to suppress the info on Doonesbury I don't know, but it is not appropriate. Please change the title back the way it was. Rick Norwood 15:18, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
Sorry that you missed this. I did do this to remove the Doonesbury. (however, the Doonesbury incident is covered in more appropriate sections) My attempt is to narrow the scope of the article to the actual controversy when people refer to "media bias" in the United States. If we were to include bias in all media the topic would be impossible to cover. I think the protest your talking about deserves more then a semi off topic inclusion in an article relay about the news-media and a mention on the Doonesbury and comics articles. (Signed: J.Smith) 17:02, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
I too think the move was a little premature. I think a move back would be appropriate. --LV 15:27, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
- I happen to disagree. I don't want to single out the Doonesbury's controversy, but I think that is completely different topic. Lets focus! Bias in talk shows, comic strips and cave paintings isn't relevant to the real topic of the controversy. Honestly, when you think of "media bias" don't you think of CBS vs Fox News? Anyway... ummm if you guys really want to move it back, tell me why bias on Rush, Mike Savage, Dilbert, every POV book and every editorial page doesnt deserve there own sections too. (Signed: J.Smith) 17:02, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
Maybe they do... but it should be notable. --LV 17:19, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
- So where is the boundry? Where do we "draw the line"? That's all I'm trying to do, give this article scope and boundaries... and since this is an article about a notable debate, I'm using that debate to give it guidelines. I don't think bias where bias is expected is within the scope of the social debate.(Signed: J.Smith) 18:41, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
There is already considerable material in the article about media other than news media. Murphy Brown wasn't a news program. Please change it back. Rick Norwood 17:28, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
- Oh, good call. I'll prune that as well (as soon as this debate is settled...) (Signed: J.Smith) 18:41, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
So far, you are the only one who has voiced approval for you name change. Two people are opposed. Also, note that the article "Media bias" is not called "News-media bias". Are you suggesting that change, also? Commentators on media bias seldom limit their discussion to news media, and so it would artificial to split the article as you suggest.
No-one said anything between the time I posted and the time I changed it. (7 days) In the interest of the concept of Be Bold I took that to mean no-one else cared enough to comment. (Signed: J.Smith) 07:13, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
Question -- when you changed the name, did you change every one of the more than fifty articles that link to "Media bias in the United States" or did you just redirect? Rick Norwood 18:58, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
I got about 10 or so. More left to do, but I started. (When a page is moved a redirect is automatically created) (Signed: J.Smith) 07:13, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

The conclusion redux

According to Reporters Without Borders, the media in the United States are neither as good nor as bad as some with extreme views suggest.

So put it in a section titled "People that don't think there is much wrong with the media" . . . Their analysis supports one of many views.
As a rule, I dislike interpolated comments, but that seems the only way to reply to these many comments efficiently. This is Rick Norwood, and all of my comments have this indentation.
The conclusion does not say that there isn't much wrong with American media, it says that American media could be better but could be worse.

American media are ranked in the top twenty percent of nations, on the same level as media in Belgium, and only slightly below media in Canada, the Czech Republic, France, and Bosnia and Herzegovina, far below media in most European countries, but well above media in most Asian countries.

Popularity doesn't imply lack of bias, only people's blindness to or acceptance of that bias.
The rankings were based on accuracy, not on popularity.

A majority of Americans get their news from commercial media.

I fail to see the point. See above. And please fix the grammar.
The point is that he who pays the piper calls the tune. The grammar error eludes me, please point it out and I will correct it.

No commercial medium long survives that is not profitable. All commercial media are biased in favor of attracting readers, listeners, and advertisers.

Besides this being a fairly cheesy statement, this isn't the issue. People tend to know this. Everyone. We are discussing the bias towards the left or towards the right. Maybe towards other generally held views. Further, I don't know if the sentence really makes sense, that someone can be "biased in favor of attracting readers . . ."
There are many kinds of bias other than left/right bias. In any case, I don't think this sentence is in the article any more. As you say, it is well known.

Thus, they tend to publicize mainstream views and avoid fringe views. According to Noam Chomsky, American commercial media encourage controversy within a narrow range of opinion, in order to give the impression of open debate, but do not report on news that falls outside that range.

Okay, so the entire nation is wrong about bias in the media. Who is to say that just because the media wants to be "mainstream" that they actually are? Maybe they have the potential to make more money? Why has Fox News enjoyed its success since its debut?
I'm not sure what your point is here. Chomsky's point is that all American commercial media, from Fox news to the New York Times, only report stories within a narrow range of opinion.

The media in the United States, for all its faults, is less biased than the media in many parts of the world. . .

Read it, then read it again and again until you understand what our readers see from this. This article seems to be the work of a media apologist. "Even though he has its faults, Bobby really isn't that bad of a person. Look at Butch over there . . . much worse . . ."
This is no longer in the article but -- do you really think American media are as biased as, say, Pravda, for example.

. . . , because of constitutional guarantees of freedom of the press. According to Reporters Without Borders, a free press is generally less biased than a press controlled by government or religious censors'.

Here, we're joining a claim with a fact. What do we have? A research paper.
Also gone from the article but -- a) it is sourced and b) it is true.

Major U.S. news media spin the news in ways they think will make it appealing to their customers and advertisers, but outright lies are rare, and mistakes are usually acknowledged.

We're missing the issue. We are dealing with bias in presentation; we're not talking about lying.
Read Ann Coulter if you do not think that many people are talking about lying. But, the offending sentence is gone.

The major news media do not report the extreme stories of un-confirmable origin found in tabloid news, of which "Elvis kidnapped by Space Aliens" can serve as a typical example.

See the above. This sentence doesn't belong anyway.
Not sure why the tabloid media are exempt from examination.

If the study of media bias is really to develop the rigor of an academic discipline instead of being a tool of bias itself, it will have to adopt better defined categories . . .

Says who? How about this, under the above-proposed section (of the people that believe this information), you have a source who complains about the lack of defined categories?
The offending sentence is gone.

. . . for classifying the implicit assumptions of news stories. Accusations of liberal or conservative bias alike ignore the dictionary meanings of those words.

Why does this matter? Last time I checked, words have different meanings; language evolves; we don't all check our dictionaries before speaking; if misusage of terms were a felony . . . well, none of us could vote.
Why does it matter that people use words without meaning? It seems to matter a great deal, to me. Misuse of words isn't a felony, but it certainly makes communication difficult.

In fact, in the current political discourse, the words seem to have no well-defined meaning at all. The Oxford American Dictionary defines "liberal" in the political sense as "favoring democratic reform and individual liberty". All major American media are biased in favor of that. The Oxford American Dictionary defines "conservative" in the political sense as "favoring private enterprise and freedom from government control". All major American media are biased in favor of that.

Same as above. Further: We all know what "conservative" and "liberel" practically imply in America, whether right or wrong. The words have changed, but the dictionaries haven't. This is, further still, inconsequential.
This sentence has been toned down and pared down to the bare facts.

Many if not most accusations of "bias" are attempts to sway voters, not objective analysis of facts.

Says who? Is this the thesis of our paper?
Another sentence that has been removed -- though I must ask, do you doubt this?

Comments: I have been blocked (because of an anon vandal) for some time and, in browsing my watchlist, have returned to this article. I see the "Conclusion" and am still very much against it. By definition, we – as encyclopedists – give facts, not analysis. Reread the section; you can't tell me it doesn't have an agenda. Even without reading the section, which is an argument that the media "isn't that bad" (what about those that claim it is all that bad?), the title conveys to the reader: This article is biased; it believes itself to be the final word on the issue. Why do we feel the need to impose our views on our readers? Bottom line: The section is original research. I would propose its removal. - ElAmericano | talk 04:44, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm very sorry to hear that you've been blocked. I trust you can still read this response. As for the statement that the section is "original research" -- no, everything in it is sourced except for the suggestion that tabloid newspapers print unconfirmed news stories, which I think is clear to everyone. Rick Norwood 16:42, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
If we can, let's get the title of the article changed back to what it was and then address the question of the conclusion. When too much is changed at the same time, chaos results. Rick Norwood 13:56, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
There is no need to hold everything on that discussion. This article isn't your baby, it's a wikipedia project. (Signed: J.Smith) 03:04, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

A Comprimise (news-media vs media)

OK, I sat at work and listened to a right-leaning talk show host complain about news bias for 2 hours. His main issue was the news, but he did complain about editorial crap as well. I really think they are two separate issues, but perhaps they are too closely linked in the hearts and minds to be separated. (logic be damned!)

Well, I came to an idea that I would be fine with and I think everyone can agree on. If not, say so and we can play around with it some. I propose we restructure the entire article as follows:

1. Claims that media in the United States show liberal bias

  • 1.1 Bias in the news
  • 1.2 Bias in other media

2. Claims that media in the United States show conservative bias

  • 2.1 Bias in the news
  • 2.2 Bias in other media

3. History

  • 3.1 Revolutionary
  • 3.2 Civil war
  • 3.3 Civil rights movement
  • 3.4 Vietnam war
  • 3.5 Hollywood then and now

I'd remove the "Opposing views" section and the "conclusions" section. I mean, this whole article is about opposing views isn't it? I think it might be a bit redundant, it could be merged with other parts of the article. (as for the conclusion, see previous section of the talk page)

I guess my major problem with the article and the way it was named before is that it had no scope. No boundaries and it looked to me to result in a fairly poor article with no direction. Perhaps a better structure could help and separate the different controversies better? (Signed: J.Smith) 08:07, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I think you have a good idea, though I oppose deleting two sections. Let's leave the question of deleting sections for later, it is really a separate topic. If you will change the name of the article back the way it was (only you know which 10 redirects then have to be fixed) and rearrange the sections as you suggest (with the two you want to delete at the end), I, at least, will be satisfied. One suggestion. I think the history should come right after the introduction, since it gives perspective to a subject on which many people lack perspective. After that is done, we can discuss the proposals to change or eliminate the opposing views and the conclusion. Rick Norwood 13:54, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
Let me reiterate, I'm not talking about deleting opposing views. I want to merge it into the other relevant sections. The conclusion is very POV (as per previous section) as it stands and nearly irrevocably. (thats fine, we can leave them in for now and deal with the deletion latter) History first would be fine. I kinda prefer it last, but I'm not sure why. (Signed: J.Smith) 03:03, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
I was thinking about a structure along those same lines. I agree with Rick that the history section should come first. As to the "Opposing views," yes, this article does cover opposing views, but there are actually three main groupings (from what it looks like), not just two:
  • Claims that the media shows (substantial) bias
  1. Claims that this bias is conservative
  2. Claims that this bias is liberal
  • Claims that the media shows negligible bias
So I would propose this third section, one that discusses those who think the media shows negligible bias. But: This section should not defend the views of these people over others. This would be POV and probably original research. - ElAmericano | talk 14:39, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
Great idea. That realy is a third point of view that should be covered. (Signed: J.Smith) 03:03, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
Once again: let's leave this important subject on the table until after the old title is back. Rick Norwood 20:01, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
How about...we fix the article now. I'm only OK with changing the articles name back if the structure problems are addressed. (Signed: J.Smith) 03:03, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Regarding the comment: "only you know which 10 redirects then have to be fixed." I would like to say that it is simply not true. You can use the link called "What links here" to see EXACTLY what pages I fixed the links on. Alternatively, we can request a bot run to modify all the links to wherever the final home is. --(Signed: J.Smith) 03:03, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
So be it. Having heard no support for the change in title from anyone but J.Smith, who made the change, I'm changing it back. Then we can get on with the discussion of the various sections. Rick Norwood 14:19, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
There, that's done. Now we can move on. I also changed all of the redirects J.Smith had changed, except those on my talk page and ElAmericano's talk page, which he and I can fix if we want to, when we have the time. Rick Norwood 14:30, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Disputed conclusion

My feeling about the conclusion is this. There is a spectrum of reliability in media, from, say, the National Enquirer at one extreme to, say, The World Almanac at the other. Somewhere in there you have Pravda, Al Jazira, and the New York Times. The reason I think the conclusion is necessary is that a person reading this article might get the impression that The New York Times is in the same class with the National Enquirer -- in fact, many of my friends and neighbors believe that the National Enquirer is more reliable than the New York Times -- that is, they believe that the Second Coming is at hand but they do not believe that no weapons of mass destruction were discovered in Iraq.

If this article is to be NPOV, it must have a conclusion that weighs in on the objective question of whether the US news media is, by and large, accurate on matters of fact (e.g. there really was a hurricane in New Orleans, George W. Bush really is the president of the United States) or if it all a pack of lies, and reasonable people can doubt everything they read or see in the media. Rick Norwood 14:42, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm... I just don't think we should be making the readers conclusions for them. What ever happened to just stating the facts and letting the readers think about it themselves? I am unsure at this point in time. --LV 16:37, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
I agree. First, we need to understand that if the reader finishes the article believing that the NY Times never tells the truth, the problem lies with the article. It's not our job to give the reader facts and then interpret them for that reader. I have never seen that in any encylcopedia and certainly never on Misplaced Pages. Second, the conclusion seems completely non-sequitor. Over the course of the article, our dichotomy is based on the thought that
People who use the phrase "(liberal) bias" believe that (liberal) biases are evident in both the choice . . . and coverage. . . . (Remove the word liberal, and you have a good, practical definition of bias in the media.)
None of us thinks the media lies. Obviously, lies are quickly exposed and taken care of in the media. No, we claim bias because of unbalanced choice and coverage of stories, as we say in the article. So basically, the article seems to say, "Some people think the media is biased towards the left. Here's why. Others think the media is biased towards the right. Here's why. But none of it matters, and you – reader – shouldn't think about all of this because what matters is they tell the truth." I don't agree with that setup. I think the outline we talked about a couple sections earlier is much better. - ElAmericano | talk 17:55, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
Rick, if you could, give us your thoughts on what I've said. If I'm missing something, please enlighten me. (I am not opposed to changing my views, but I won't but for a compelling reason or discovery.) - ElAmericano | talk 16:23, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Note that many of the parts that El Americano found offensive have been removed, and that everything that remains is sourced -- except the statement that supermarket tabloids sometimes publish unconfirmed stories. Rick Norwood 16:44, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

My views are obviously shaped by my job: teacher. ElAmericano says, "None of us thinks the media lies." Many of my students think exactly that. We teachers, in our effort to open their minds and help them to grow beyond the blind trust of childhood, may have gone too far. Because it sometimes seems that the only way to get their attention is to shout, we may fall into the error of overstating our case. I see young people today (by young I mean in their late teens and early twenties) frightened by the world, and retreating into the comforting darkness of video games or drink.

They really don't know that the media are largely accurate on matters of fact. They tend to think in black and white. If the media lies, then everything reported in the media is a lie, and so anyone who claims to offer absolute truth, from scientologists to astrologers, is attractive.

We must, as adults and encyclopedists, put the effect of media bias in context, using adult judgement and quoting our sources. Rick Norwood 17:18, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Your last statement proves my point. In fact, it goes further. Now, not only are we creating original research; we are promoting POV? Faulty though the world's thinking may be, we are not here to tell everyone what's the "right" thing to think. How is this different from any other article? If I were to go into the Christianity article and edit out all the bad things some Christians have done, promote Christianity there, and tell the readers to convert (based on factual analysis), I would get shot down for sure. And rightfully so. We can include three points of view in the article, as I outlined above, but the readers get to decide which they believe. We can't do their thinking, their analysis, their judgment for them. That isn't Misplaced Pages. - ElAmericano | talk 01:43, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages is intended to provide information. It seems to me that there are five criteria for inclusion of a paragraph. 1) Is it true? 2) Is it sourced? 3) Is it on topic? 4) Is it important? 5) Is it well written? I still think the conclusion meets all of those criteria. NPOV does not mean that we must totally suspend our judgment. The astrology article is very NPOV, but it states clearly "astrology is not to be considered a science". Rick Norwood 18:42, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
NPOV means we show all viewpoints. We don't support one. We can show who supports each viewpoint, however, and let the reader decide who is most credible. I'm not sure about those criteria, though. If they were the only criteria, again, I could go into the Christianity article and write that it was the exclusively correct and right religion. I don't do that because not everyone understands that or agrees. - ElAmericano | talk 20:49, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
I think we may have to agree to disagree on this subject. Rick Norwood 22:10, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
That's well and good, but we still need to reach a consensus. More opinions are necessary. - ElAmericano | talk 03:54, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Good. I hope some of the people who have contributed to this article will contribute to this discussion, which seems for a while now to have been just between the two of us. I had hoped that the removal of many of the sentences you objected to, which cut the section down to about half its previous size, would be a satisfactory compromise. Rick Norwood 15:51, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
I want you to understand that I respect you and your work here. And I appreciate the compromise effort. Here, it's just that it seems a violation of Misplaced Pages spirit to me. More opinions will, hopefully, shed light on the situation. - ElAmericano | talk 23:14, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I think that one way to fix the "conclusions" section would be to rename it to "perspectives" or "analyses", and chopping the third and possibly the fourth subsection. Alternatively, perhaps those subsections (first, second, and possibly fouth) could be better placed in separate sections? I understand the goal behind the current arrangement is to come to a conclusion, but any such conclusion is both likely to be contentious and would commit wikipedia to a particular POV. This type of article is by its nature difficult to handle cleanly with regards to POV -- hopefully we can do it! --Improv 04:20, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I think your suggestion is a reasonable compromise, Improv, keeping in mind that the current conclusion is itself a compromise. The important thing is, I think, to rise above politics, in so far as we are able. At least it seems to me that many of the talking points in the body of the article are designed to win elections, not to take a detached view of the actual extent of bias in U.S. media. Rick Norwood 14:49, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

  • It's important also to note that what we're shooting for is not a comprimise, it's to get NPOV right. If we had a number of POV-pushers on it, we should not immediately be looking to find middle ground, because that would still not produce a good article, we should instead work on talking with them to give up on the POV-pushing, and failing that, bringing in some admins to get involved and override the POV-pushing, if need be. --Improv 15:03, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Right, because we all know that no Admin pushes any POV. ;-) --LV 15:50, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly. Rick Norwood 15:18, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

The history section

Reading over the article, it seems to me that the history section should come right after the introduction, to provide perspective. What do others think about this? Rick Norwood 16:48, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

It needs to be rewriten somewhat, but I'm fine with wherever. (Signed: J.Smith) 17:23, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
I agree with you, Rick. That seems to be the natural pattern and is consistent with other Misplaced Pages articles. - ElAmericano | talk 17:56, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Unless I hear an objection, I will make the change later on today. Rick Norwood 18:43, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Edits made to conclusion

I removed the following lines, because they are not-NPOV and unsupported by any references or evidence: "Pervasive and duplicitous liberal bias in the American media is undeniable. The media functions to promote morally narcissistic center-left viewpoint and to influence American political outcomes through a relentless hostility to Republican initiatives and personalities." I also removed a description of Noam Chomsky as a 'viciously anti-American, leftist propagandist', for the some reason. - Terraxos, 02:29, 29 January 2006

I concur. These sentences were not NPOV. Rick Norwood 14:33, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Allegations of war crimes, abuse, and so forth

With Lord Voldemorts revertion of my edit, I feel a need to justify my rather minor edit to the examples section. The edit in question is changing the word allegations "Critics point to a perceived obsession with coalition and civilian body counts, with threats of a draft, and with allegations of war crimes, abuse and mismanagement." into heavy coverage. An alleged war crime has no proof. There is no evidence. There would have been no convictions. By definition, an allegation is best described by exaple of an antonym, here certain is a good example of one such. If there had been nothing but alleged war crimes and allegations of abuse and mismanagement, then something tells me Lynndie England, for one, would not have been convicted. Robert Stein would not have admitted to rather extraordinary claims of corruption and theft . I can admit to the documents claiming that US troops kidnapped wives of enemy fighters to force them into surrender are nothing but allegations, but this is exclusively because there have been no convictions, and nobody has taken the blame.

Short version, allegations is going again. It's not an allegation anymore when someone has confessed, or has been convicted. If that's just my POV, it also happens to be that of the US legal system. Controlled by, oh wait, republicans. --TVPR 22:04, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm... You may be correct. I was under the impression that "war crimes" had a very limited definition, and that in the context of the article was being used as a cheap shot at the Bush administration. Perhaps it should stay, but with a little more explanation, like you have done here on the talk page. And I wasn't reverting because of any political bias, because I'm, oh wait, not Republican. --LV 22:16, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Well, this looks much better already :) Hm, and my apologies as I did sound a tad harsh, I've just had the Ann Coulter fanatic conspiracy theory type up to well above my head, so I may have let this spill over in here. What I meant to say was simply that "alleged" has a very limited definition, and documented events the Abu Ghraib incidents (as well as several like it) does not count as "alleged abuse" - it is rather thoroughly documented, I would say. And zealots require quite a lot of gunpowder to silence, so I suppose I loaded somewhat too powerful a charge in my arguments in favour of a change. As for Rep\Dem stuff, I'm not even American, but pointing out how republicans hold the supreme court usually silences those right-wingers claiming the legal system to be leftist or whatnot - which I mistook you for. Disarming my adversary before he has the opportunity to strike and all that. (Also, I'm riddled with disease these days, souring my mood, which should tell me to get off WP till I recover). Um. Okay, I'll shut up now :P --TVPR 23:37, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Quite alright, my friend. It doesn't hurt to be prepared, and while it may have came off as a bit harsh, it wasn't overly so. No problems. 8^) Cheers. --LV 23:53, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Archive...

Can we archive the top half of this discussions page? How is that done? (Signed: J.Smith) 00:14, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:How to archive a talk page... hope this helps. :-) --LV 00:30, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Well, I seem to have archived my first page. Thanks for the advice, he who cannot be named. Rick Norwood 01:26, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

The bias of this article...

This article is bias too... Now now, let me explain before you flame me:) This article is only discussing political bias. There are some critics who have widely claimed that the media has a bias in the areas of race. There is even a whole article about "pretty white girl" bias in the news. I think other biases deserve mention as well... such as the bias towards bad-news. We all know why bad news is reported more then good, but it would still be good to that with references. What about religious bias? What about the bias towards sex and sexual themes in programming and commercials? I think there is a lot of uncovered ground here. (Signed: J.Smith) 00:20, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

{{sofixit}} ;-) --LV 00:31, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Just making the suggustion so someone who knows more about the ideas can chime in. (Signed: J.Smith) 03:05, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Well, it's certainly a good point. A very good one, and I must admit I had not even considered this until you mentioned it. But yes, more knowledgeable people need to toss in for this. Not having access to media in the United States, I can really just play mediator.--TVPR 15:39, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
i've heard of all these biases, but i think they would water down the article, just my opinion. also, i don't think the universal truth that sex sells qualifies as "bias". RonMexico 23:15, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Why not? It's a societal bias and the media reflects that. Water-down? Maybe, but noone wants to narrow the scope here. :p Ohh... here's another one: Corporate bias. Meaning, pro-individual businesses, or general anti-business-ness. (yes, I can make up words) (Signed: J.Smith) 08:38, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I think some of these topics would add to this article. I have also heard that there is a pro-woman bias due to advertisers pushing for that demographic, so the networks abide. My thoughts. --LV 20:03, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


So... Heres a list of topics:

  • Gender Bias
  • Political Bias
  • "missing white girl" bias (covered under a different article, but still relevant here)
  • Negative news bias
  • Sex-sells bias
  • Regional

To address the "watered down" comment, perhaps all these should get it's own article? "Media_bias_in_the_United_States_(gender)" etc. Maybe even convert this page into a disamiguration? Well, just my thoughts. (Signed: J.Smith) 07:43, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I ask this question because I don't know the answer to it. Do we want Media bias in the United States (gender) or do we want Gender bias in the media. The latter would be more general, and cover worldwide gender bias in the media. Rick Norwood 13:11, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Hm, I think the latter would be a more viable alternative. More general biases are better covered in more general articles. IMHO, anyway.--TVPR 15:24, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

recent edit

Good edit, Lord V. Rick Norwood 17:29, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

P.S. This edit got me a message "Your edit includes new URL links" None that I'm aware of except for the four tildes. Is there something hidden here that I can't see and didn't put here? Rick Norwood 17:29, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Funny, I had just tried to edit an article too, and it said the same thing with one of those words you had to confirm in a box (I forget what they're called, but I assume you know what I mean). And like you, I wasn't adding any links or anything. It was very odd. I hit cancel and tried again and it wasn't there. Maybe it was some MediaWiki thing to be implemented in the future to prevent spambots and other unauthorized bots from editing. Who knows? I'll look into it. Thanks. --LV 18:27, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

non-factual use of memogate as an example

These specific allegations are not supported by the sources cited:

During the 2004 elections, CBS reported they had a memo that proved Bush had ignored a direct order to take a physical. The memo used as the source in the report was latter proven to be a fabrication by both independent analysis and a statement by the supposed author of the document. It is unknown to this day who actually produced the document, however Bill Burkett has admitted to providing the fake documents to CBS . Talk show host Rush Limbaugh uses this event to support his theory that the media is biased to the left.

specifically, the sources do not confirm that the memo in question was ever "proven to be a fabrication," nor that Knox was "the supposed author of the document," nor that the documents provided by Burkett are "fake." What CBS said was, approximately, that it could not prove that the documents were not fake. Bowing to political pressure to pull a story critical of an incumbent Republican during an election year is hardly evidence of "liberal bias."

The paragraph could not be easily edited to correct the problem, so it has been removed. 24.22.58.51 22:36, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

    • She flew to New York Wednesday afternoon to tell 60 Minutes that she believes the documents we obtained are not authentic.
    • Knox says she didn’t type these memos
Knox was the person who typed up those types of memos for that guy. She said she didn't type it. She in fact said she typed one like it, but not those. I'm not really sure how you define fabrication... but that seems to qualify. Fill out this sentence: If it's not real, it's _____. ---J.Smith 23:38, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
    • CBS News, Dan Rather, Apologize for Using Fake Documents
That's the title of the second source.
    • Burkett, a retired National Guard lieutenant colonel, also admitted that he deliberately misled the CBS News producer working on the report, giving her a false account of the documents' origins
Ummm yeah, that backs up fact that it is there to verify.
I think your just getting confused by the political-speek of "those" people. (by "those" I mean political figures...) ---J.Smith 23:38, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Doonesbury

Come on guys, the section on Doonesbury really has to go. Why? Here are the reasons.

  1. There is actually no necessity, and no tradition, of newspapers being unbaised. Newspapers have been openly and clearly partisan since the dawn of - well newspapers. There's nothing wrong with this. What is required that they clearly separate out their news reporting from their comment - or editorialising. That's where the word comes from, when it's used to mean 'biased reporting' - it's the sort of thing that should appear in an editorial, not as news. Doonsebury obviously counts as editorial. It won an award for editorial cartooning.
  2. It's a cartoon! How stupid have we got when we are complaining about bias in our cartoons? Next we'll be complaining that politicians are only taking the side of their own party!

DJ Clayworth 22:37, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Please note the title of the article "Media_bias_in_the_United_States". It includes everything from cave paintings to the logos on gum wrappers. So why, do you ask, is the comic in this article? Because of the controversy around it. Because of the controversy it is now notable. This article isn't a "complaint" or judgement and should never been seen as such. It should only be seen as a neutral explanation of a phenomenon. This subject has been debated befor, btw:) ---J.Smith 23:50, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Plus, the article isn't Hidden media bias in the United States. If something is openly biased, that would deserve a mention here too. --LV 23:54, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Only if the bias is notable. ---J.Smith
But of course. Thanks, Justin. --LV 00:12, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I did not come to this article expecting it to cover all sorts of bias, but only bias where there should not be bias. To cover bias where bias is expected and appropriate is silly. If what was written above is really true then we need to cover all kinds of bias, such as:

  • Thousands of editorial cartoons are drawn every week which portray political figures in an unkind light, and often in a 'biased' way.
  • Newspapers openly write editorials supporting or condemning an action, frequently favouring some party
  • Election flyers support only one party (election flyers are media)
  • American Olympic coverage centres very heavily on American athletes
  • News programmes on local stations concentrate on local news items
  • Programmes on Christian media are biased towards Christianity
  • Will and Grace is flagrantly biased in favour of gay equality
  • ER paints a biased picture of healthcare in the US

If that list is ridiculous then that is my point. Bias is a normal and healthy part of the media in most areas. It should only be notable when it is inappropriate, and it is not inappropriate in a cartoon. DJ Clayworth 14:33, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Here are just a few of the examples you listed. "To cover bias where bias is expected and appropriate is silly."? Why would this be silly? We often explain the obvious here. It is an encyclopedia. What is obvious and expected to you might not be so to others. It is our goal here to provide complete coverage of a specific topic, expected or otherwise. <Insert straw man about something very obvious and expected being covered here, perhaps mentioning the fact that Will and Grace often deals with gay themes even though it is fairly obvious> I think we need to be thorough and explaining what would otherwise be obvious is part of it. --LV 15:38, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
But we aren't describing it in that tone. We don't describe the places where there is clearly bias, nor do we say that it is to be expected. Particularly we are lumping Doonesbury in with accusations of bias in reporting, as though a cartoon was expected to maintain the same standards of neutrality as a news reporter. On second thoughts, maybe this should stay as a reminder of the level of idiocy that the 'media bias accusation' circus has reached. DJ Clayworth 17:52, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
I'll repeat this only one more time: That section isn't about Doonsbury, it is about the boycott around it. If it wasn't for the boycott, it wouldn't be here. The reason we don't include bias in Will and Grace is that the bias is expected and is thus non-notable. If some right-wing group organised a national boycott of Will+Grace then it would suddenly rise to pass the notability test. Otherwise, it's non-notable for the exact reason you say: It's expected. ---J.Smith 18:06, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Was there an early distinction between news and editorial?

A recent edit, which I reverted, claimed that there was an early distinction between news and editorial content of newspapers. I would like to see a reference for that. My own impression is that the distinction beween news and editorial is relatively recent -- I cannot think of any examples before the 20th century. Rick Norwood 15:52, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I'll have to check that. In the meantime do you have any objections to the rest of the text I added? DJ Clayworth 17:38, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
I found some quotes to indicate that the newspaper editorial was common practice in North America through the nineteenth century. This page describes an issue of a Boston newspaper of 1868 as 'loaded with editorial comment'. Here's another that seems to imply that newspaper editorials were common in the nineteenth century. . And another giving links to copies of nineteenth century editorials. . This mentions editorials of 1890. I rest my case. But I'll edit since I can't find any references before 19thC. DJ Clayworth 18:15, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

My point was not that newspapers did not run editorials. Of course they did. But rather that newspapers did not keep a firewall between the editorial department, the news department, and the advertising department -- even in theory. The news was often written to support advertizers and the political affiliation of the editor. Rick Norwood 19:12, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Why are there two sections covering claims of conservative bias?

There's a section on claims of conservative bias, and there's a section on opposing views. One would expect the latter section to discuss claims of non-bias, but instead it primarily focuses on further evidence of a conservative bias. Shouldn't the conservative bias information in Opposing Views be moved to the section on claims of conservative bias?

I think you have a good point. The first and last paragraphs are genuinely opposing views, the first that the media is unbiased and the second that the media is biased within a narrow range that overlaps both liberal and conservative views but excludes all non-mainstream views. But several of the middle paragraphs belong in the Claims of Conservative Bias section. Rick Norwood 13:39, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

FAIR.org

A request was made to reference that FAIR.org is a liberal organization. I provided a link to their webpage where you can pick any of their links on all of the info to which they believe is wrong in the media. All the positions that they take are liberal. Actually try and find a conservative viewpoint on FAIR! It doesn't exist. ER MD 20:03, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

The link is a big help. I agree that FAIR is liberal, and congratulate you on bending over backwards to be "fair" yourself by using their own self-description "progressive". Rick Norwood 01:09, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, it would depend on the medium. Radio has become slanted to the right (liberal radio just cannot seem to catch on), as well as the Internet. These New media are slightly biased conservative. But the "old media" (newspapers, network television, etc.) are slightly biased liberal. --LV 04:28, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
IworkforNASA jumped on my talk page and accused me of violating wikipedia's NPOV policy simply because I want a verifiable citation, whether to the FAIR website or anywhere else, that shows that FAIR is a "liberal organization." My whole point is if you're going to provide a link, make sure it goes somewhere that verifies what you've written. The page that was linked did NOT say anything of the kind. For the record, I believe that FAIR is inarguably liberal in their viewpoint, although they describe themselves somewhere on their website as "progressive" (and, yes, I agree that's the same thing). Hal Raglan 03:39, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
I've just tried a compromise, with my new edit noting that FAIR is a "self described 'progressive' media watch group", followed by an actual link to a page on the FAIR website that shows they really do describe themselves in this matter. Is this satisfactory?Hal Raglan 03:52, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
"progessive" is less precise and is an Orwellian (sp) attempt to control language. It obviously implies that if you disagree with them you are "regressive." I find it laughable that liberals can't come and and agree that FAIR is liberal! Does the TRUTH hurt? Its just as bad as when conservatives argue that the Fox Network is not conservative (although in my experience I have yet to run across a conserative who does not agree that Fox is conservative). The funny thing is that FAIR is neither fair nor accurate--they are probably one of the most biased organizations after the retards at PETA.
rolls eyes Oh, give me a break. If you want to talk about language that controls debate, how about how "pro-life" obviously implies that if you disagree you must be "pro-death"? Manipulative political language is not something new, by any stretch of the imagination (for instance, it was used to great effect by Lenin's Bolsheviks). For you to pretend it's somehow an invention of the modern liberal/progressive movement only reveals your laughable ignorance of history. -Kasreyn 12:27, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

No need to get upset -- I'm a liberal and I agreed that FAIR was liberal (see my comment above). As to whether or not they are accurate, that's another question. Maybe you could point out an inaccuracy or two? Rick Norwood 13:36, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

No, if he/she wants to do that it should be done in the FAIR article, not here. Things are getting too silly as it is. Hal Raglan 14:38, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

The above comments by an anonymous contributor (the one who refers to PETA as "retards") are indicative of how things are spinning out of control here within the rabid anti-liberal faction. If you read the first paragraphs of both the Accuracy in Media and Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting wikipedia articles, you'll see that various editors have taken great care against labelling these watchdog groups. This was done in an attempt to maintain wikipedia's NPOV policy. The same care should be taken here, or in any article on wikipedia. Yes, probably everybody agrees that Accuracy in Media is a conservative group, and FAIR can justifiably be said to be liberal. But you can't just say "everybody says they are" and leave it at that in an encyclopedic article. And to follow the term "a liberal organization" with a link that leads nowhere justifying that description is simply absurd. Especially since that term was inserted in an attempt to diminish their findings.Hal Raglan 14:38, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Here's another example that should help some of you folks out: "Everybody knows" that Bill O'Reilly is a conservative. But if you read the wikipedia article on O'Reilly you'll note that all the contributors, from both the right and the left, have gone through great contortions in paragraph after paragraph to not label him in that manner. Why? Because O'Reilly himself claims he is not a conservative, wikipedia editors feel (correctly) that it would be simple POV to straight out call him that. They simply proffer details prefaced by "Some critics say..." or "Many liberal commentators believe...", etc. This absolutely should be the case here. There's nothing wrong with FAIR being described as a liberal media watch group except that it is not factual, its opinion. And whether that opinion is generally held or not is not an issue in an encyclopedic article. FAIR describes itself as "progressive", and it doesn't matter if you personally think that referring to itself in this manner is part of a conspiracy by demonic liberals to control the language. Your opinion isn't important, facts are. Read wikipedia articles on controversial individuals with a political bent and you'll see that most of them attempt to follow wikipedia's NPOV policy in this way. Its as simple as that. Hal Raglan 18:44, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
Applause Well said. -Kasreyn 23:48, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
I second the motion. Let's move on. Rick Norwood 00:03, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
I must beg to differ, the phrase "Some critics say" is usually unacceptable. It is bad form and is often subtly bias in it's own right. Read "weasel words" for why. Were better off naming someone who sais they are liberal and provide a source so they reader can judge the validity on there own. ---J.Smith 03:05, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Actually, I agree with you. I probably didn't make it clear that if an editor chooses to use "Some critics say..." (or similar wording), that should be followed by at least two links to verify whatever it is you claim critics are saying. Since my whole point here has been about verifiable links and citations backing up assertions, I thought I didn't have to say that. I do think it would be best to say "Some critics, such as Anne Coulter and Rush Limbaugh, say that Bill Clinton is the most evil and depraved monster in the history of the planet", followed by links to quotes indicating they said exactly that. Thanks for helping to clarify the issue.Hal Raglan 06:47, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
So if the KKK describes them as a civil rights organization we should refer to them as that? If FAIR describes themselves as completely unbiased media watch group you would blindly follow? I can't speak for people who claim that O'Reily is not a conservative, and if there are people who state that he is not conservative they are retarded. As for O'Reily's self-description, I'd bet that he states his positions to differentiate him from the conservative PARTY, not from conservative ideals. Think about it. ER MD 03:57, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Wait a second. Let me get this straight. So when FAIR describes themselves as unbiased, they're being hypocritical liars comparable to the KKK, but when O'Reilly describes himself as unconservative, he's just trying to differentiate himself from the party? Honestly - do you even listen to yourself? How about you try judging both sides by the same standard for a change? -Kasreyn 05:01, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Kasreyn: Only if you understood my argument... its not that complex. If you asked O'Reily if he believes in conservative IDEALS he would answer "yes." If you ask if he is a conservative as in follows the conservative PARTY he answers "no." And yes, FAIR is a hypocritical liberal-biased organization. If O'Reily denies that he has conservative ideas, then he is a hypocrital retard as well. Calling O'Reily a conservative commentator is a correct descriptor even if he takes a pompous position as a "populist." Do you understand now? ER MD 07:41, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

are people seriously saying that FAIR is not a liberal organization? wow, just wow. RonMexico 13:42, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

are you seriously saying that's what you believe this whole discussion has been about? wow, maaaan. like, wow.Hal Raglan 23:39, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Thats not the issue. The point is to call them "libral" is pov. Thats the point. ---J.Smith 19:41, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
the "POV" argument is the biggest load of crap. If you can't argue the position, then its "POV." It almost sounds like the little brat on the school grounds who gets his ass kicked every day. Everyone here agrees that FAIR is a liberal organization, but for some reason you can't say it? Makes no sense. If that is the case the absolute everything is POV. The Moon landing is POV depending on if you believe that it was actually done since some claim that it happened in Burbank. In my opinion, the POV argument is being distorted. If it is a generally accepted fact, such as the Moon landing did occur, then it should be presented as a fact. FAIR is generally accepted and agreed by everyone here that FAIR is liberal and it should be regarded as liberal. They describe themselves as "progressive" which is accepted as meaning the same thing as "liberal" but just with an Orwellian slant. Why people are scared to descibe it as liberal just proves the fact that some liberals are willing to lie to hide the truth.ER MD 20:20, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Again, you are either unwilling, or unable, to understand the discussion at hand. Don't label anything or anyone without a verifiable source. This is an encyclopedia, not a gathering place for conservative or liberal editorialists. Keep your POV out of the articles. What is so complex about that?Hal Raglan 23:36, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Writing for Misplaced Pages has been good for my mental processes, because it has forced me to bend over backwards to consider ideas I usually dismiss, and to dig out sources for ideas sitting unsourced in my head. For an eye-opening experience, read the Misplaced Pages article on the Ku Klux Klan.
It isn't Orwellian to describe FAIR as "progressive", it is NPOV to take their own self-description at face value. It is a question of assuming good will.
For a real eye-opener, in the article on evil I made a statement to the effect that "Some Moslem groups endorce terrorism," and that got taken out as POV. Rick Norwood 20:57, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
LOL... yeah, some muslim groups support terrorism is just "fringe" thinking. HAMAS is actually a peace-loving organization. Maybe the liberals should edit the KKK wikipedia entry as well to make it NPOV because "white supremacist" is just too derogatory! Maybe it should read "the KKK is an organization dedicated to the advancement of american civil rights of people of european decent against defamation, racism, and economic segregation." (that was sarcasm if you didn't figure it out). Another stupid POV argument, again proving the point that NPOV for liberals is only their point of view. Maybe Hal will understand now how stupid his argument sounds... ER MD 23:07, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
ER MD, just because you have extreme difficulty comprehending wikipedia's NPOV policy doesn't mean its a "stupid" policy.Hal Raglan 23:29, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Your suggestion that liberals are more likely to make silly edits than others -- well, I'll just say that has not been my experience. There are plenty of people on both sides of the aisle who forget to put their minds in gear before they start typing. As for the examples I gave, they are a two edged sword. Rick Norwood 23:56, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

MD, I'll accept your arguement that "liberal" is an acceptable adjective to use for FAIR if you'll agree that "idiotic" is an equally acceptable adjective for George W. Bush. Do you see why this NPOV policy exists now? Amibidhrohi 04:42, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I would reserve "idiotic" just for Hal right now. Okay and throw Bush in there as well because he is an idiot, but it was a nice attempt at humor Amibidhrodi... work on it a little. Take a look at the KKK page it states that the KKK is "considered an extreme hate group." By your twisted logic this would be POV! Does the KKK describe themselves as an "extreme hate group." I don't think so. Obviously the KKK is a hate group and should be characterized as such or maybe you should go change the page and call them a civil rights group. You see, your logic makes no sense and you haven't addressed the issue and only stated that I don't understand the policy...which is a load of crap..which part of the policy. I looked at it and the label is not distorting the truth. If FAIR supports only liberal positions and opposes only conservative positions, then anybody with half a brain would conclude that they are a liberal organization. Nobody here has disputed it. In reality, everything is POV... Just have some common sense about what is fricking obvious, and stop hiding behind a "policy" which you have interpreted to support your viewpoint. ER MD 08:30, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I have a simple question: why are you here? You don't seem very interested in writing a neutral and encyclopedic text. I just recently was involved in editing an article on a racist, hatemongering white supremacist band called "Prussian Blue". The trouble was, the band did not self-identify as racist, and the majority of editors (against my objections) reached a consensus that it was a loaded word, and so should not be used without sourcing. I was in the minority, but I abided by the decision and reverted several people who added the "racist" language to the article. That is what being a wikipedian requires. If you're not willing to put neutrality and consensus ahead of your own viewpoint, you really should start a blog or join a forum, where you can be free to do all the soapbox editorializing you want.
I don't believe "liberal" is quite as loaded a term as "racist" - at least, not yet; give FOX a few more years to work on it - but it's unencyclopedic to add original research to our articles. If FAIR has been described as liberal by other groups, then a case could certainly be made for citing those organizations' viewpoints, providing they are reliable sources. It's not Misplaced Pages's place to judge FAIR's political leanings, no matter how "obvious" you personally may think the matter is. "Common sense" is not good enough. "Generally accepted and agreed" is also not good enough. This is an encyclopedia - as in, a real one, for grown-up people. Cite it and source it, or can it.
Your opinion is not wanted on the article page. If you can't accept that reality, then you won't be able to abide by the editing policies in place here, and probably shouldn't be an editor here. -Kasreyn 12:40, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
ER MD, I'll repeat myself here since you are still having such astounding basic comprehension problems with the issue being discussed. Just because you have extreme difficulty understanding wikipedia's NPOV policy doesn't mean its a "stupid" policy. And just because others try to conform to that policy doesn't make them "idiots". By the way, in addition to NPOV policy, try familiarizing yourself with wikipedia's No personal attacks policy. Also, very important: All information must be verifiable. Hal Raglan 23:29, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

First, let me say I hope that ER MD listens to the comments above and profits from them.

Second, let me point out that Bush is not an idiot. He has degrees from both Harvard and Yale, and has been very successful in getting exactly what he wants. He only pretends to be an idiot so that people will underestimate him. Rick Norwood 14:51, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I believe you mean "He only pretends to be an idiot so that people will misunderestimate him". See, that's how humour works. Let's all just calm down and take a deep breath. --LV 17:05, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Reporters Without Borders in conclusion

The paragraph about Reporters Without Borders in the conclusion needs to be removed or changed, because it contains data from the 2004 report, and the 2005 report ranks the US much lower (because of the Judith Miller case and other legal limits on journalistic freedom). I started to change it, but realise that what had changed in the last year wasn't really media bias, but press freedom, which is related but really not the same. So, since the Reporters Without Borders index measures freedom not bias, should it be mentioned here at all? Moszczynski 08:43, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

My impression is that Reporters Without Borders measures several variables, not just freedom, but also reliability and scope. And, yes, the section should be updated to 2006. Rick Norwood 00:11, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

"conservative bias"

don't you think we're giving undo weight to fringe views, ask 9/10 Americans and I think you'll get a pretty clear consensus the media leans left--Ham and jelly butter 17:27, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Nothing is being given undue weight that I see. It has not been my experience that nine out of ten Americans feel the way you claim they do. But then again, you might only be sampling people from Crawford, TX, for all I know. Kasreyn 05:11, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Conservatives will tell you that 9 out of 10 Americans think media shows liberal bias, but when put a vote, elections are still very close to fifty fifty, which indicates that about half of all American voters believe what the mainstream media tell them. Of course, according to Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh, the fifty percent of the voters who vote Democratic are traitors, a good example of how fair and balanced media can be. Rick Norwood 20:38, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

And I might add how Americans may not be in a position to judge a bias in their own media, being as they are under its influence. Comparatively, a large amount of Europeans feel US media is blatantly biased to the right, and shocked how not all Americans see this. --TVPR 08:54, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Thank you. This discussion desperately needed an injection of common sense. Of course, now you're going to get the typical childish "We're Americans, we don't care what other countries think" brush-off from someone. Kasreyn 21:32, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure "less liberal" necessarily equals "slanted to the right"

Article needs an overhaul

This article reads like a huge list of complaints against liberal bias, and then another list against conservative bias, with new complaints just being tacked on and a counter-complaint to preserve "balance". Not to mention the fact that it is just structured poorly and the writing is very awkward. If there are no objections, I will add a cleanup tag to help attract other experienced editors, and will start rewriting the article. Please respond in a timely manner... 10 days should be acceptable. Thanks. Rexmorgan 01:46, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

A "cleanup" would be nice, but keep in mind that this article is a fragile balance between people who think that obviously (OBVIOUSLY!!!) US media show exclusively liberal bias and people who think that obviously (OBVIOUSLY!!!) US media show exclusively conservative bias. Through long hours of debate, enough people have respected the NPOV rule and the "assume good will" rule to get this article to its current imperfect state. A "cleanup" tag might only result in more wide mood swings in the article. Maybe, rather than a "cleanup" tag, the solution is for a small number of people, all dedicated to NPOV, to work through the article. Rick Norwood 17:24, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
I can definitely see the merit to your argument. I'll revise my original post to say that anyone who is interested in a collaborative effort to make the change, please make note here. It will be done through a project page and each section should probably be approved on the project page by a majority of the project editors before going to the live article. Thoughts? Rexmorgan 17:31, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
That's just it. That's the nature of the issue: at minimum, in my opinion, about 90%+ of claims of bias for the other side are just special pleading. They're laundry lists of whines from people who aren't winning by debate. For what it's worth, though, I agree about the poor writing quality. The cleanup tag is a good idea. Kasreyn 00:23, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Why Not Separate Pages for Conservative and Liberal Bias?

Shouldn't we have separate pages, each devoted to the perceived biases from each side? It seems silly to lump them together and then watch each sides's proponents try to add validity to each claim. The two subjects should stand on their own merits.Dubc0724 14:32, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Two problems with this. Most important, there are many kinds of bias that do not fit neatly into either category. Second, the same factoid can be attacked as an example of conservative bias and as an example of liberal bias.
I do think the article should include Cobert's great quote at the Bush roast: "Reality shows liberal bias." Rick Norwood 21:40, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I think either way it's difficult to read. This way is as good as it'll get. Dubc0724 23:15, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Clinton v. Reagan?

"Some observers of conservative bias cite as an example the contrast between the press coverage of president Bill Clinton, which hit a new low with the rush to sensationalize every lurid detail of his marital infidelity, with that of, for example, Ronald Reagan, who was known as the "Teflon President."

Was Reagan accused of marital infidelity? This should be deleted or heavily reworked, as it seems like apples vs. oranges. Could be reworded to address more similar areas of criticism (criticism of Clinton policy v. those of Reagan policy, etc).

Dubc0724 14:38, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I think it's more the fact that a case of marital infidelity is hardly a matter of national concern, and is completely unrelated to policy (or politics itself, for that matter), while the policies of the Raygun were barely criticized at all - and not, in any case, to such a degree. --TVPR 06:31, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
It's debatable whether the Lewinsky affair was a "matter of national concern". But the issue is whether Reagan got any more good press or (less bad press) than Clinton. Clinton's only heavy criticism was over the Lewinsky scandal. If you want to say that the media failed to ask hard questions of Reagan's policies, you must also consider the media's silence in the face of Clinton's more important blunders - Waco, Elian Gonzales, Ruby Ridge. The Clinton administration didn't catch nearly the flak that they should have. Just like Reagan didn't take the heat on AIDS, Iran contra, etc. All that being said, we've got to remain neutral; we can't pick and choose the instances of media bias that suit our ideologiesDubc0724 12:59, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

What's this doing here?

"According to a signed article by Max Blumenthal in the liberal magazine The Nation, July 8, 2005, the chair of the Board of Directors of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, Kenneth Tomlinson, investigated his own corporation for liberal bias, using government funds, and did not find any evidence of liberal bias."

First of all, it's in a section about claims of conservative bias. This doesn't assert conservative bias at all, but rather a lack of bias.

Second, is it really noteworthy that someone investigated *their own corporation* and didn't find any evidence of bias? I don't see what government funds has to do with it, either. Ken Arromdee 16:47, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I think you're right. The paragraph in question should be under "Claims of liberal bias". The fact that none was found is certainly important. The point about using government funds is that there is a law against using government funds for this purpose. Rick Norwood 14:01, 28 May 2006 (UTC)


Conservative v. Liberal

Okay, the examples of Conservative bias are in need of a cleanup. To my eyes, the main example listed is Fox News. Fine, I think we all agree on that one. CBS not airing the Reagans miniseries is not media bias. That was a corporation caving to censorship and not having the backbone to show the movie. I agree it was a lousy way to handle the situation, but it was not an example of news media bias. It seems like those with an axe to grind are stretching for examples other than Fox News. This needs reworking. Dubc0724 13:37, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

One example that immediately comes to my mind is from the 2004 election, when CBS refused to air the "Child's Play" ad critical of Bush administration fiscal policy sponsored by Moveon.org because it "violated the network's policy against accepting advocacy advertising" - and yet had no problem with airing an ad paid for by the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy, advocating the War on Drugs during the Superbowl. Apparently it's not advocacy if the gubmint is talking! This sort of two-facedness is exactly what is meant by claims of bias in the media. Kasreyn 21:06, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Fine, add it and cite it. I'm not saying all media bias is liberal. I'm just saying many of the examples were lame, and it weakened the article. However, you're comparing apples to oranges in YOUR example. I think the difference is that MoveOn was advocating a candidate, while the NDCP was advocating a policy/public awareness, yadda yadda yadda. Far as I can see, they've both failed.Dubc0724 23:13, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
The more I think about it, I don't necessarily agree with this as an example of media bias. CBS couldn't advocate a political party (MoveOn.org is essentially a tool of the DNC). But the Anti-Drug piece wasn't a political campaign spot. It was a public service announcement. I think this needs to be taken out and replaced with a better example of 'conservative media bias'. Dubc0724 13:17, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
What about those who disagree that anti-drug ads are, in fact, a public service? What if they are seen as a message pushing, not the best interests of the people, but an issue dear to a particular political party? I'm not saying it was a policial campaign spot, or that the analogy to Moveon's ad is perfect. But there is certainly a political aspect to the anti-drug ad (it is advocating something), and it came from a conservative White House. I don't have any poll numbers to back me up, but I'm pretty sure that conservatives are more in favor of the nation's current drug policy than liberals are. Kasreyn 14:10, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
I guess my take on the "war on drugs" was more of a legal (or even moral?) issue rather than a political one. I see your point though. Dubc0724 14:43, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Other Criticisms

Other than the internal debate over conservative/liberal bias, there are other forms of bias that deserve attention. There's plenty of international criticism of American news for not putting much emphasis on events around the World, and excessive focus on things others might consider 'trivial'. Im considering adding a few sections to detail some of these views. "Coverage of Iraq", "International Criticism of American News Channels", etc. Hope there's consensus that such additions are necessary here. Also, on "Corporate Bias", the alleged allegience networks have to corporations is mentioned; isn't the fact that the News channels themselves behave as corporations deserve attention? Amibidhrohi 21:36, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Behave as corporations? They ARE corporations!Dubc0724 23:14, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Well, yes, that's what I meant. The article seems to reflect only their bias towards other corporations. It doesn't really speak of their biases that are rooted in the fact that they themselves are corporations, and therefore the need to produce marketable and high-demand news takes precedence over the quality and variety of news.Take how complex issues are reduced to sound bites, dumbed down to the point where the coverage of the news no longer reflects the reality of what's being covered. This is a form of bias, the most serious and harmful one IMO, and yet cannot be explained by any rhetoric stemming from the 'left versus right'debate. Amibidhrohi 00:09, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Since you seem to be thinking very well and clearly, I'd like to suggest something else for your consideration: what could be better for ratings than endless, furious back-and-forth accusations of bias and distortion? Qui bono from a left-right war of words? The news corporations, of course. So who comes up with leftist/rightist political ideas - are they decided by the masses and passed upwards to the leaders, as some would have us believe? Are they decided by the leaders? Or are they, in fact, decided by political manipulators, disseminated to the masses, and executed by figureheads? I submit that the entire left-right "controversy" may be nothing more than a game of "let's you and him fight" invented by the media corporations. It's certainly very profitable for them. Kasreyn 00:36, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Those are interesting points. If you have some sources that could be used to reflect them in the article...I definitely think this article is in major need of a rewrite. While the right-versus-left thing is a big part of the bias allegation, it isn't everything. In the big picture, taking into consideration worldwide criticism for US news services, the right/left arguement isn't even the most prominent charge against the US media. I guess we can agree that the other criticisms of the media need to be more prominently featured. Amibidhrohi 05:14, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
As long as we're entertaining my wild notions, I wouldn't mind extrapolating a bit further, and seeing where my line of reasoning leads. I'd say the biggest bias in popular media is the one that's going almost wholly unnoticed: the biased assumption that everything is about left-vs-right, that everything is a two-sided issue. It is a deliberate oversimplification of every issue of importance to the public. No issue has merely two facets to it. This oversimplification keeps ratings high (it's entertaining and easy to understand), plus it prevents any of the public's problems from ever being solved (since oversimplifying a problem prevents understanding it well enough to fix it). Since the problems are made eternal in this manner (a la 1984), there is no danger of the infotainers ever running out of grist for their mill.
This has nothing to do with contemporary politics or specific political arrangements. My personal opinion is that the media organizations tilt this false dichotomy in favor of one "side" because everyone understands a war between "us" (the winners) and "them" (the losers). The contrast between the noble and true "good guys" against the venal and treacherous "bad guys" (currently starring the Republicans and the Democrats) is a human drama. It is exciting and gripping, resonates well with deep emotions everyone feels. It is pure Hollywood. Therefore the media do not want an equal representation of both imaginary "sides": they want an imbalance, one side constantly portrayed as good, the other as bad, because that is what their viewers want to see, and the modern organs of media have elevated pandering to an art form. The "winner" role has been arbitrarily granted to the conservatives, while the "loser" role has been slapped on the liberals - for now. Because the news corps don't really care about specific political situations, as long as their power is undisturbed. They could just as easily do it the other way around and support the left and crush the right, and there would be "liberal" pundits in the same vein as Bill O'Reilly, and a "liberal" TV channel as one-sided as FOX; after all, both "liberal" and "conservative", according to this theory, are simply imaginary distinctions invented by the media in order to misdirect the public's attention from the fact that none of their real problems are getting solved. It's very easy to declare the winner between two sides when you are controlling both sides as well as the public perception of what the lines of battle are.
But to be honest, these are just my opinions, and few others seem to share them. They're based on my observations and analysis of the data, but my opinions and analyses are not particularly notable. I know of no reputable sources supporting my theories, so they should not be included in the article. Kasreyn 17:55, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Very interesting, indeed. Dubc0724 15:45, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

BBC/Florida

For example, when the BBC ran revelations that the state of Florida had been over-aggressive about removing alleged criminals from the voter register (which many argue probably delivered the state and therefore the White House to George W. Bush in the contentious 2000 election)

Do you have a source for that? Please cite it. Besides, I'm intrigued. :-) Dubc0724 15:44, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

ER MD (→Research - noam chompsky is not reasearch

ER MD, you continue to delete sections you disagree with. It is established Misplaced Pages policy that Misplaced Pages shall present all points of view. Your point of view is well represented here. Other points of view should be represented also. Here is what Misplaced Pages says about Noam Chomsky:

"Avram Noam Chomsky (b. December 7, 1928) is the Institute Professor Emeritus of linguistics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. ... He is generally considered to be a key intellectual figure within the left wing of the United States politics. According to the Arts and Humanities Citation Index, between 1980 and 1992 Chomsky was cited as a source more often than any other living scholar, and the eighth most cited scholar overall."

Rick Norwood 15:23, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Rick to ER MD. It just occurred to me that there is a basic principle of Misplaced Pages that may help you understand why your deletions are not appropriate: In Misplaced Pages, even wrong ideas, if they are believed by a large number of people, or even by one famous person, have a right to be heard. As examples, take a look at the following articles, where ideas that are clearly wrong are treated respectuflly: Scientology, Shroud of Turin, and Ku Klux Klan. Rick Norwood 15:58, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

This reasearch section is a farce. The UCLA reference has been distorted, while media matters a liberal organization moves to the first paragraph. Media matters is called a watchdog groups, whereas the UCLA reference is described as right-wing. There is so much distortion on this subject that the section probably needs a complete re-write and not by people with bias such ar Norwood. The second paragraph that you put in is by PBS investigating itself??? Are you serious??? That's like Rush Limbaugh saying he investigated himself and he did not find evidence of oxycotin abuse! You accuse me of bias for deletions, yet when it is the other way around, when insertions that disagree with your point are distorted and removed and then liberal "research" by dedicated liberal organizations such as media matters are inserted as the first reference. In my opinion, if I was writer of an encyclopedia, I would include research that is accepted in the research communty that is as non-biased as possible, which the UCLA study did and has been hailed for. I would not include media matters, nor accuracy in media. They are political organization who do not conduct research, and instead distort statistics. At a level of common sense, people on the left state that FOX news and talk radio is conservative, yet the rest of the media outlets are not biased. Obviously there is a spectrum there and print news and most of TV news tends to be liberal, especially when it has been shown that about 94% of those in newspaper and television news vote for democrats. As a deltionist, I remove distortions of fact. The wiki policy does not allow inclusion of information on a equal basis. Some evidence is better that others. Some sources are more reliable than others. Putting media matters in as "research" is a farce. Putting accuracy in media is a farce. Surely you can understand that. And therefore also understand that the inclusion of PBS investigating itself is a ridiculous inclusion. ED MD 19:47, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

The point about the PBS investigation is this. George W. Bush appointed a conservative to administrate the corporation for public broadcasting. This conservative then used government funds to investigate his own corporation for liberal bias. None was found. This is more newsworthy than if a liberal had not found liberal bias or if a conservative had not found conservative bias. Rick Norwood 12:58, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

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)
I have to disagree with you here, Rick, but not for the same reason ED MD does. While it is true that, compared to world politics, the Democratic Party of the United States is not particularly leftist (much more of a centrist), the title of the article includes "in the United States", which means when we refer to "right-wing" and "left-wing" we have to do so within the context of the nation under discussion. And while the Democratic Party is certainly not the most leftist party in America, it must be considered part of the left-wing, from the American point of view. Now, what you said about statistics, and beginning a report on specifics and ending with generalities, that I can agree with. Kasreyn 20:18, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Am I an expert on studies? Well, yes. Are you an expert on on medicine? I assume you are. I have a Ph.D. in mathematics, and teach statistics, and so, yes, I have a certain expertise in the correct way to conduct a statistical study.

I can't track you next sentence at all. You seem to say that the CEO of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting conducted the study himself, but obviously he hired a team of statisticians to do the research, and presumably, since he paid good, taxpayer money, he hired people who did valid research.

You keep accusing me of bias. I'm not sure what you mean by that. I have opinions that I arrived at through study and observation. You make it sound like somebody is paying me to hold those opinions, or as if I had something to gain (other than, perhaps, good government) by holding those opinions. I call them as I see them. And about half the time, my opinions coincide with yours -- but nobody says, "You're only agreeing with me because you're biased." People always reserve accusations of bias for occasions when people disagree with them. Rick Norwood 19:48, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

RN to Kasreyn: Thanks for your comments. Most of what passes for public discourse is hopelessly muddled, and here I am, sinking beneath the waves for the third time, trying to use words to mean something. The Democratic Party is to the left of the Republican Party, yes. But most people who describe the Democratic Party as "left-wing" are Republicans. I remember all too well the fifties, when "lefty" was a synonym for "commie". So, at a time when most Democrats try to position themselves as in the center, I think identifying the Democratic party as "left wing" is more political than accurate.

I just listened to a "man in the street" interview on NPR, and one person said, "I'm voting for (the Republican candidate) because he is a Christian. That's the only reason." Well, it is very likely that the Democratic candidate is also a Christian, but attack ads have obviously convinced some voters otherwise. Ann Coulter's new book is a best seller, and it starts out by saying that liberals like to brag that they have no religion. Now, from a point of view of logic, that is absurd. But it is very powerful semantics. Liberals = leftists = godless communists = no religion.

To me, "liberal" means favoring freedom, "conservative" means favoring tradition, "left wing" means favoring socialism or communism, and "right wing" means favoring the establishment. And "Democrat" and "Republican" means favoring anything that will win an election. Rick Norwood 21:17, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

i disagree with pretty much that whole comment, rick. except maybe the part about republicans & democrats. that was funny, and unfortunately resembles the current situation. but you seem to be on a mission to imply that conservatives want to turn the clock back 50 (or 250!) years while liberals are setting everyone free. i don't buy it. and i certainly don't see an expanding and intrusive government as freeing in any sense of the word. and by that standard, bush's civil liberties record is as tarnished as bill clinton's. so i fail to see why liberals want to categorize him as "conservative." maybe a nutjob or a lightweight, but i don't see what's conservative in much of his "legacy". just my two cents. -- LoudMouth 01:40, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Of course, Rick is right about the meanings of liberalism and conservatism (hey Loudmouth: we're at an encyclopedia. Go look 'em up.)
And I agree about the "commie" slur. It's not the fault of the Democratic Party that the average American these days has such a one-dimensional (if that) political awareness that such gross misrepresentations as "Democrat = commie" can pass muster.
I also find it strange that the "man on the street" thought the Democrat in the race was no Christian... it seems every time I watch an ad for a Democratic candidate, they're busy spouting off about their freakin' private beliefs instead of something I care about, like maybe what they're going to do for the economy, the education system, and foreign relations. Democrats are getting into the "pandering to the religious right" game, only the Republicans are holding the perceptual trump card on that issue. Just another example of the Democrats' complete political ineptitude. They have ceded the strategic initiative on almost every issue, and seem completely ignorant of how reframing and other forms of manipulation are used in modern times.
The way I see it: Democrats have modern ideas but use archaic political methods. Republicans have archaic ideas but push them with modern methods of politics, which is why they're winning. Maybe I'm a cynic, but most people seem so gullible to me that I really don't think the actual message being pushed matters to the success; only the effectiveness of the political spin-doctoring. And the Republicans are currently the masters of that art.
As for Democrat and Republican meaning "favoring anyone who will win an election": that's just the nature of a plurality voting system. See Duverger's Law. It's a natural result of a plurality system that a duopoly will form. If the Greens actually managed to pull off some sort of coup and overthrow the Democrats, don't kid yourself that they would do something sane, like institute approval voting to end the duopoly. The Greens, or whoever, would simply become the new member of the duopoly, and would resort to the same dirty tricks to keep third parties down, because that is the nature of a plurality system. A popular grassroots amendment would be able to institute approval voting against the wishes of the duopoly, but the average American is far too politically ignorant for it to ever pass, and no elected official would ever vote for it. Therefore it would appear we're stuck with the duopoly in this country.
OK, enough ramble from me. Sorry. Kasreyn 03:50, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

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 embrage 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)

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 Misplaced Pages. 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

  1. ^ Oxford American Dictionary, Eugene Ehrlich, editor, Avon, 1986 ISBN 0-380-60772-7 paperback dictionary

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)

Talk:Media bias in the United States Add topic