|↓||Skip to table of contents||↓|
|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Media bias article.|
|Archives: Index, 1, 2|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
|NOTE: This is the general article on media bias; avoid adding region-specific information here. Instead add such information to the appropriate article, such as Media bias in the United States, Media bias in South Asia, Media coverage of the Arab-Israeli conflict, etc.|
|This topic contains controversial issues, some of which have reached a consensus for approach and neutrality, and some of which may be disputed. Before making any potentially controversial changes to the article, please carefully read the discussion-page dialogue to see if the issue has been raised before, and ensure that your edit meets all of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Please also ensure you use an accurate and concise edit summary.|
|This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot I. Any threads with no replies in 90 days may be automatically moved. Sections without timestamps are not archived. An archive index is available here.|
General rather than specific bias
I believe this article focuses too strongly on whether there is political or other type of bias in the media rather than the way it is biased. For example in the British Newspapers, particularly the tabloids bias and outright lies are introducable as fact and opinion are mixed without any notice. For example a paper might proclaim 'Child molester on trial' and if he were shown to be innocent might proclaim: 'child molester freed' rather than sperating the facts about a man on trial and their opinion of whether he did it in a later editorial.
Regardless of politics I think it is clear (from the below) that the media is biased, following the definition that their own journalistic standards are not followed (eg fact checking). This is shown to be the case (UK) in that most libel trials go against (British) newspapers (If this were added I would find the source but for a period in the 80's the paper 'The Sun' was infamous for never having won a libel trial in its history). In my own sphere of work also which is very specialised the papers usually get their facts wrong when reporting it which results on various 'calls' being made by them to fix issues which dont exist. - omricon posted 2 January 2007.
Media bias is an argument that an imaginary collective "media" favors one side in political debates and therefore twists facts to suit an agenda; the concept is as broad and amorphous as "corporate bias," "religious bias" or "human bias."
This article makes no acknowledgment of the fact that "media bias" is a construct of pundits, politicians and ideologues who want to sound scholarly when proclaiming their point of view as the only truth; alleging media bias should be considered a form of prejudice, a pseudo-objective attack on mass communication in the same way "intelligent design" adherents attack science.
The article has no substance unless it documents the rise of "media bias" as an argument promoting a political point of view -- and nearly always alleged by right-wing politicians against journalism itself. 126.96.36.199 (talk) 19:39, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
- Media bias does not necessarily refer to bias of the entire media, but often refers to bias in one particular medium or one particular individual. If, for example, the anchorman for World News thinks New Yorkers are better than Californians, and slants stories to show how great New Yorkers are and what fools Californians are, that's an example of media bias.
- There is considerable evidence that everybody is biased, and that media bias is impossible to overcome, but at least we should be aware of the problem.
You guys never explain why Obama's "corpse man" didn't make him as dumb as Palin (who you all know by one name because you most certainly do use your websites to coordinate attacks against conservatives--see Journolist which still exists just with new names). No one asked how Obama got into Harvard without even having command of common English pronunciations. This is the essence of bias. When an "anchor" gets tingles over Ibama, that's bias. Everyone has bias sure. So make a general bias page. Then let the 75-85% of people who believe in MSM leftist bias make another page. It can't be any worse than the pathetic attempt at propaganda you have up right now! This party won't go on forever my teen leftist friends. Eventually someone's going to make a better online encyclopedia if you guys keep messing this one up! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 12:48, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
FYI, some quotes on media total-support of Democrat president Obama: “Obama’s ongoing project is to stay above responsibility and appeal to low-information voters.” ... “There's not a Republican who can pull that off because to pull this kind of thing off as Obama is, you need a totally compliant and slavish media, totally on your side and willing to carry your water and your message and your talking points each and every day. And then you need no conscience.” [EIB quotes] — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 14:55, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
Speaking to the PREMISE of the article, media bias is liberal bias that is bigger than media. Here is an example of media propping up Liberal views of AGW:  "... Just this week, 35,000 activists marched in Washington D.C. to protest Keystone for its contrived environmental impact and its alleged effect on global warming (never mind the fact that 31,000 scientists have signed a public petition saying there is no scientific basis for human gas emissions causing catastrophic global warming)."
- The article is entitled, "Obama Killing Jobs For Fake Science" and postulates that media bias props up Obama and the Liberal view of manmade global warming. Carrie Lynnette Sims Shipp (talk) 15:42, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
The point is media bias (and improving this article.) Here is another. "Juan Williams on Lib Media..." . The first sentence of this thread ("Premise?") asked. Carrie Lynnette Sims Shipp (talk) 23:45, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
- Media widely viewed as biased is not an authoritative sourse for a statement that everybody else but them is biased. Flying saucer watchers are convinced the media is baised against flying saucers; psychics are convinced the media is biased against psychics. It isn't easy, but somehow Wikipedia has to sort out all the special claims of subcultures and find authoritative sources, which are usually academic. Of course, Fox News reports that all academics are biased. Nevertheless, Wikipedia has made a choice to go with the academics. You will probably be happier reading Conservapedia. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:02, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
- This excellent column  explains the liberal bias and its effect. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 01:06, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
Great article! When any of my liberal friends says that W. Bush is stupid, I tell them, "He arranged to give almost a trillion dollars in free money to his Wall Street buddies and left you paying the bill, and you think he's stupid?" Rick Norwood (talk) 12:13, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
- Americans get what they deserve — same w/Obama. At least 'W' protected us for a decade. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 23:03, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
- Are you surprised? You're talking to Wikipedia users, who are some of the most liberal cretins on earth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 04:29, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
- Wow. I concur. If Fox has a liberal bias, I wonder what media outlets would be described as having a conservative bias.
- Perhaps the whole Scholarly treatment of media bias in the United States and United Kingdom section violates NPOV. --Andrewaskew (talk) 02:04, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
Here is the question. On the one hand, the study that found that Fox News had a liberal bias is an academic study. On the other hand, it is not a reproducible result, and other academics have strongly criticized the study's methodology. So, does Wikipedia follow the standard that, to be significant, a result must be reproducible? If the answer is "yes", then that whole section should go.Rick Norwood (talk) 12:07, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
- I agree, to a point. My suspicion is that this study is given undue weight, because it is a questionable source. That is, it has one of more of the following:
- a poor reputation among the experts in the field
- a lack of meaningful editorial oversight
- an apparent conflict of interest.
- Reproducability is important to a study's academic reputation. Also, if other studies can not reproduce the results, this can imply a conflict of interest. But reproducibility is not our deciding factor, there may be cases where a study is difficult to reproduce, but has a positive reputation.
- If, as you say, this study has attracted strong criticism, then I think it is fairly clear that the page is giving it undue weight. --Andrewaskew (talk) 01:11, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
Because it is impossible to report everything, selectivity is inevitable.
The section on selectivity in the media contains the sentence "Because it is impossible to report everything, selectivity is inevitable." An editor objects to and has removed that sentence. My thinking is that the sentence is important to distinguish between selectivity, which is necessary, and bias, which is the subject of this article. This sentence makes it clear that not all selectivity is evidence of bias, as several editors of this article have asserted. Thus the importance of noting that it proves no such thing. But the sentence is obvious, even though the person who deleted it first claimed it was nonsense. Comments? Rick Norwood (talk) 18:40, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
All the bullshit about the media having a "liberal bias" is an intentional distraction from the fact that the media is run by large corporations representing fiscally-conservative interests. There is and never has been a "liberal media" in the US. A cursory glance at the US media shows that it supports and promotes the establishment POV, a POV that is decidedly conservative and risk-averse. Viriditas (talk) 01:16, 1 December 2013 (UTC)