|↓||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.
- Are you surprised? You're talking to Wikipedia users, who are some of the most liberal cretins on earth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 04:29, 1 June 2013 (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)
- Yeah like (MS)NBC right? Regardless, this is not a forum, so unless this somehow relates to editing the article, what is your point? MidnightRequestLine (talk) 06:17, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
Does anyone know of any accepted technical metric for measuring bias in prose?
I've seen some metrics concerning readability for educational & promulagtion purposes; it seems a disinterested measure of bias ought to be possible.
At the moment all we seem to have to go on is a to-and-fro of "authoritative opinion", and psychological assessments (which could themselves be biased).