Talk:Media bias in the United States

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Lorenzogut (article contribs).

Archive of prior discussions

Archive 1 through 2005 Archive 2 through June 2006

Trump presidency

This section, needs to be lengthened to include the commentary about alleged media bias against conservative views on social media sites, the attacks on CNN by President Trump as fake news, and the apparent use of fake news by the President to refer to information the President may disagree with. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theoallen1 (talk • contribs) 04:38, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

It is entirely one sided at this point, and is anti-Trump in tone.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:43, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

RightCowLeftCoast, Theoallen1,I found a couple news article directly referencing the bias:

• In September 2018, The Washington Times published an ANALYSIS/OPINION commentary discussing That dishonest anonymous New York Times op-ed which "mirrors the dishonesty in coverage of the Trump administration" that is observed in the media every day. Regarding the op-ed, Michael Goodwin of the New York Post opined that the Times has eliminated "all reporting of facts and is hiding behind a long and pejorative anonymous quote." Bought the farm (talk) 20:06, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

References

MelanieN, do you concur w/ this? ` Bought the farm (talk) 01:01, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Does anybody on wikipedia object to this content? - 5 4 3 2 1 ~ Bought the farm (talk) 01:22, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Yes, neither source is reliable. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 17:47, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

The Washington Times is owned by the Unification Church, and is not a reliable source. The quotes above are not encyclopedic but are propagandistic in tone. The New York Post, once a respected New York daily, was purchased in 1976 by Rupert Murdoch, who turned it into a "tabloid" in the worst sense of the word, publishing sensationalist "news", for example referring to President Obama as "Osama". Rick Norwood (talk) 11:47, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Not certain that these two publications are anymore or less credible than the New York Times, with regards to the opinions discussed of the subject matter. Is NYT really a RS with this op-ed? ~ Bought the farm (talk) 14:23, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Here's another some more content directly referencing the bias:

• In January 2018, The Hill reported that the entire "Mainstream Media" is "reflexively Anti-Trump on all things" Trump per the commentary of Joe Scarborough and further referenced the Pew Research year-end media analysis that showed that President Trump received only 5-percent positive coverage in 2017. Fox News media analyst Howard Kurtz stated media bias toward President Donald Trump, which he refers to as "Trump Trauma", goes beyond political differences and that it is "cultural, it's visceral, it's tribal," while citing an "overwhelming negative tone, the snarkiness, the outright hostility of a lot of the coverage of the president."

Read Newsmax: Howard Kurtz: Media's 'Trump Trauma' Is More Than Political Differences | Newsmax.com

• In June 2018, former CNN producer, Steve Krakauer called out Jim Acosta as "truly an embarrassment, on multiple levels" after he tried to pin blame for the tragic deadly Capital Gazette shooting on Trump. Krakauer, criticized Acosta, saying what he did reinforces the notion that the elite media is biased, tweeting "Acosta tries to shift the blame to Trump, thus validating many Americans’ feelings about the Acela Media."

Steve Krakauer @SteveKrak

On a day journalists could honor the memory of fellow reporters tragically killed due to a deranged person with a vendetta going back years, Acosta tries to shift the blame to Trump, thus validating many Americans’ feelings about the Acela Media (that existed long before Trump).

June 29, 2018

• In September 2018, Newt Gingrich opined that the anonymous op-ed, I Am Part of the Resistance Inside the Trump Administration, posted in the New York Times "happily eschewed basic journalistic standards" and is the most stunning proof we have seen so far of the "liberal media’s aggressive bias". Many other news media outlets also published opinion pieces which discussed the dishonesty in coverage of the Trump administration that is observed in the media every day, in response to the anonymous op-ed. ~ Bought the farm (talk) 22:09, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

References

some older content justifying the bias:

• In August 2016, Jim Rutenberg of the New York Times justified the the mainstream media’s reporters, editors and producers "Trump-basher" coverage, repeating the Times position that Trump’s candidacy is "extraordinary and precedent-shattering" and "to pretend otherwise is to be disingenuous with readers... If you view a Trump presidency as something that’s potentially dangerous, then your reporting is going to reflect that." ~ Bought the farm (talk) 18:45, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

References

Reminder... Townhall is not a RS. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 17:44, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

BullRangifer, OK, about Townhall. still learning. how about the content that is RS? Also, maybe you can find some RS content to contribute... ~ Bought the farm (talk) 18:06, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

The same for Newsmax. On my cellphone now, so difficult to contribute seriously, especially between patients. I get a moment occasionally. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 18:24, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

So RightCowLeftCoast, Theoallen1, Rick Norwood & BullRangifer, I've added some content for this section, hopefully with better RS's cited. Can we discuss? / find consensus? / add to the article? Lets collaborate! ~ 5 4 3 2 1 ~ Bought the farm (talk) 23:40, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

I had written a multiple paragraph response, but my computer crashed. So I will leave it with this. I am fine with what Bought the farm (talk · contribs) wrote, as well as the sources he utilized.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 02:24, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

RightCowLeftCoast, oh no nice try... I known about it.. so inconsistent ~ 5 4 3 2 1 ~ are we back tto the madness? Bought the farm (talk) 04:13, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

This discussion has gotten so long that it is hard for me to understand what subject is being discussed. It sounds like RightCowLeftCoast is saying he agrees with Bought the farm, and Bought the farm is saying "No you don't!"  ??? I suggest a fresh thread at the bottom of the page where, if there is still a point of disagreement, it will be clearer just that that point is. Rick Norwood (talk) 11:55, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Stealth reversion

@Rick Norwood: I see that including information from an academic survey, The American Journalist, which has been mentioned in the Washington Post (a not alternative media, reliable sources) is insufficient for inclusion here on Wikipedia. Why is that? If that is to be given zero weight, than can it be assumed that the past incarnations of the study (as mentioned in one of the links above, and in this book) will also be reverted if added?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:41, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

You miss the point. I'm sure the story is correct and the source is noteworthy. The problem is that just because someone is a Democrat does not show that they are biased. This article is not about the two political parties per se, but about bias, and the article in question makes no mention of bias. Rick Norwood (talk) 11:15, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Yet the source that was removed, written by Erik Wemple in the Washington Post, gives theories as to why liberal bias occurs in the news media: geography, crusader, school tie. And the political leaning of a journalist does play into alleged bias, as stated in the source. Surely that should be given some weight in the article.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 03:15, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

There are two claims in what you have written above, one about a fact, which is what the deleted sentence stated, one about one person's speculation. That most reporters are Democrats is a fact, but does not mention bias. Based entirely on what you say above, apparently Erik Wemple believes that liberal bias does occur and offers several theories about why, without coming to any conclusion. Whether or not his level of expertise is sufficient for his theories on the subject to be mentioned in the article is a separate question. A very large number of people have theories on the subject. What makes his theories noteworthy? Rick Norwood (talk) 11:59, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Tobby72 edit

The recent edit by Tobby72 cites sources, but offers no evidence of, or even mention of, bias. Do they belong in this article? Rick Norwood (talk) 12:34, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Media bias and the Trump Presidency

some older content justifying the bias:

• In August 2016, Jim Rutenberg of the New York Times justified the the mainstream media’s reporters, editors and producers "Trump-basher" coverage, repeating the Times position that Trump’s candidacy is "extraordinary and precedent-shattering" and "to pretend otherwise is to be disingenuous with readers... If you view a Trump presidency as something that’s potentially dangerous, then your reporting is going to reflect that."

References

Some more recent examples of the bias, using RS:

• In January 2018, The Hill reported that the entire "Mainstream Media" is "reflexively Anti-Trump on all things" Trump per the commentary of Joe Scarborough and further referenced the Pew Research year-end media analysis that showed that President Trump received only 5-percent positive coverage in 2017. Fox News media analyst Howard Kurtz stated media bias toward President Donald Trump, which he refers to as "Trump Trauma", goes beyond political differences and that it is "cultural, it's visceral, it's tribal," while citing an "overwhelming negative tone, the snarkiness, the outright hostility of a lot of the coverage of the president."

• In June 2018, former CNN producer, Steve Krakauer called out Jim Acosta as "truly an embarrassment, on multiple levels" after he tried to pin blame for the tragic deadly Capital Gazette shooting on Trump. Krakauer, criticized Acosta, saying what he did reinforces the notion that the elite media is biased, tweeting "Acosta tries to shift the blame to Trump, thus validating many Americans’ feelings about the Acela Media."

Steve Krakauer @SteveKrak

On a day journalists could honor the memory of fellow reporters tragically killed due to a deranged person with a vendetta going back years, Acosta tries to shift the blame to Trump, thus validating many Americans’ feelings about the Acela Media (that existed long before Trump).

June 29, 2018

• In September 2018, Newt Gingrich opined that the anonymous op-ed, I Am Part of the Resistance Inside the Trump Administration, posted in the New York Times "happily eschewed basic journalistic standards" and is the most stunning proof we have seen so far of the "liberal media’s aggressive bias". Many other news media outlets also published opinion pieces which discussed the dishonesty in coverage of the Trump administration that is observed in the media every day, in response to the anonymous op-ed.)

References

So RightCowLeftCoast, Theoallen1, Rick Norwood & BullRangifer, here is the proposed content for this in a new talk section, as requested. Lots of content... Can we discuss? / find consensus? / add to the article? Lets collaborate! ~ 5 4 3 2 1 ~ 14:23, 20 September 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bought the farm (talk • contribs)

Sheesh! I never saw this article before, but it is a total mess. Almost all of its sources are just somebody’s opinion. Maybe if it was called “Allegations of media bias” it would be encyclopedic (I might propose that name change), but it provides little or no evidence of ACTUAL bias - at most a sentence or two, like when it identifies MSNBC and Fox News as having a partisan approach to the news. Most of its evidence for media bias is based on partisan opinion (Spiro Agnew, Donald Trump), public opinion polls (demonstrating that public opinion of whether the press is accurate or biased is based entirely on people’s partisan alignment), and a huge academic-sounding section based almost entirely on the work of Noam Chomsky (“Ideologically, he aligns with anarcho-syndicalism and libertarian socialism”).

Well, Bought the farm, it’s not your fault the article is a mess. It appears you want to pile on, with more opinion pieces, from more people with extreme opinions (Joe Scarborough, Newt Gingrich), to go with all the other extremists already quoted here (Ann Coulter, David Brock). I personally don’t see this new material as adding any value to the article, but where in the article were you planning to add it? --MelanieN (talk) 23:36, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

MelanieN, I thought it might be good to add this content under the section Trump Presidency. ~ Bought the farm (talk) 16:22, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Trump quotes

I removed the following passage:

As of December 2017, President Trump has continued to call media outlets, including CNN, "fake news". On 17 February 2017 he tweeted "The FAKE NEWS media (failing @nytimes, @NBCNews, @ABC, @CBS, @CNN) is not my enemy, it is the enemy of the American People!"

On May 9, 2018, President Trump threatened to strip news networks' press credentials over alleged negative coverage of him, "Why do we work so hard in working with the media when it is corrupt? Take away credentials?"

References

These are one person's accusations of bias and "fake news". Although the tweets themselves are verified and widely covered in the media, they do not represent RS coverage and analysis of actual media bias. Rick Norwood please discuss your reversion of this edit. –dlthewave ☎ 15:13, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Although these are only one person’s views, the person being described is the President of the United States. Keep.Theoallen1 (talk) 03:47, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Demographic polling

I removed most of the "Demographic polling" section. The 2013 poll is the only one that explicitly covers bias; prefacing it with older polls which cover things like trust and fairness seems to be a WP:SYN attempt to present unrelated data as a unified trend. RightCowLeftCoast please discuss your reversion. –dlthewave ☎ 15:19, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

The removal appears to follow a pattern of hounding me. My edit to this article on 20 September, was followed not long after with the above editors first edit to this article which was to reverse content which I had added in the 20 September edit, where as I had a history editing this subject prior, dating back to 2012.

Regardless. Trust and fairness are tied into perceived bias of sources. Therefore, inclusion of trust and fairness of sources IMHO falls under the scope of this article, as it is significantly linked to sources perceived bias (whether that bias be politically Left leaning, politically Right leaning, or any other bias for that matter). Thus why the content should be included in this article.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 01:41, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Orwell quote

I removed a George Orwell quote:

The sinister fact about literary censorship in England is that it is largely voluntary. ... [Things are] kept right out of the British press, not because the Government intervened but because of a general tacit agreement that 'it wouldn't do' to mention that particular fact....At this moment what is demanded by the prevailing orthodoxy is an uncritical admiration of Soviet Russia. Everyone knows this, nearly everyone acts on it. Any serious criticism of the Soviet regime, any disclosure of facts which the Soviet Government would prefer to keep hidden, is next door to unprintable.

References

This is about censorship of the British press and does not belong in an article about media bias in the United States. Rjensen please discuss your reversion. –dlthewave ☎ 15:23, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Orwell is often cited in studies of the American media. He's raising an important point. He had a knack for universal truths (as in "Animal Farm") 1) for example, in Mass Media, Mass Propaganda: Examining American News (2008) by Anthony R. Dimaggio - says his Chapter 7 analyzes the ways in which corporate reporting mirrors George Orwell's "Doublethink" propaganda model. 2) In American Media and Mass Culture (1987) Donald Lazere says, "most criticism of mass media in America and Europe took the form of attacks on the "culture industry" as part of an Orwellian mass society." Rjensen (talk) 15:47, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

• This edit introduces two more problems:

- It removes the word "British", which is an important qualifier in an article that mainly focuses on the United States.

- The quote "is not so in the United States today" is taken out of context. In the source, it does not describe "this sort of self-censorship". The full sentence is "In our country—it is not the same in all countries: it was not so in Republican France, and it is not so in the United States today—it is the liberals who fear liberty and the intellectuals who want to do dirt on the intellect: it is to draw attention to that fact I have written this preface." This is a standalone thought that should not be construed to describe the overall concept of self-censorship. –dlthewave ☎ 16:34, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Bought the Farm edits

In the past few days, Bought the Farm has made eighty comments here on Talk about a section of this article that is only ten lines long. I would like to suggest that hasty comments are seldom productive, and that few people have sufficient spare time to read eighty comments. I suggest a "time out" while everyone takes a deep breath, and thinks about what they really want to say. Rick Norwood (talk) 19:48, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Rick Norwood, breathing deeply here... the only way to learn wiki formating is to edit on the Talk page. However, I know enough to do it in MSword or Wordpad and do a bulk one-shot dump. Is Wikipedia interested in metadata? 80-edits to clarify and learn, OK maybe that's excessive, I save a lot, but the content is there for review. 5 4 3 2 1 ~ Bought the farm (talk) 21:09, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Bought the farm Editing talk pages is very definitely not the only way to learn wiki formatting. Wikipedia:Sandbox is set up specifically to let users play around with formatting, and you can also create pretty much any pages you want within your own user space. -- Fyrael (talk) 14:50, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Harvard Study

I think even mentioning the Harvard study on this page is completely misguided. That was a study about tone of news, not bias. The way the Harvard study is performed, a news story saying the Detroit Lions lost their last game would be counted as negative in tone towards the Lions. It's a fact; it is negative. It is not biased. To fail to report on the game, or to report on it and fail to mention the loss, could be construed as bias. It is not bias to report negatively on things that are negative, from the subject's point of view. The right-wing media trumpeted from the rooftops that this study proved media bias. Nothing could be further from the truth, and it is disappointing to see this Wikipedia article fall for that trick. Honestly, that whole section about Trump is very non-encyclopedic, and biased towards current events. Sorry, I am not bold enough to make the change, since this article seems to be a troll magnet. W0lfie (talk) 16:07, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

This is the first time I've seen such an obvious problem so well enunciated, Bravo! I had to smile. "the Detroit Lions lost their last game would be counted as negative in tone towards the Lions." = "the Detroit Lions lost their last game is proof of Media Bias against the Lions." = "Evidence Trump is a compulsive Liar (or whatever) is proof of Liberal Media Bias."

The crippling taboo elephant in the room is that no matter how lopsided the evidence, no respected polling service would ever ask, and no respected journalist would ever report that "Party A tells more lies (is stupid, racist, frightened, or whatever) than Party B."   So where is the dividing line from: "An objective journalist would never report "the Detroit Lions lost their last game"?" Are these questions of "false balance?" If not, is it in the article?   —Cheers!
--2602:306:CFCE:1EE0:3044:A2C3:2683:987B (talk) 23:06, 4 November 2018 (UTC)Doug Bashford

I second Doug Bashford's assessment. WOlfie's comment is exactly correct, and well-reasoned. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:53, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

World's Greatest Hoax & Conspiracy Theory

The greatest hoax in the USA exploded onto the scene around 1988, and rapidly continues growing as a meme today. It is perhaps the main root cause and nutrition of a growing and intensifying anti-intellectualism in the USA today, —an attack on Journalism and the creation and the dissemination of Knowledge of all kinds. The perpetrators (or megaphone) of this meme grew from one person or a small group into a well organized, well funded movement. The basic hoax/meme is that all formerly respected institutions and sources of truth and knowledge, (including universities and academia, television news, newspapers, magazines, science itself, even Encyclopedia Britannica,) are not to just be mistrusted, —but are intentionally destructive,— they are all the enemy. They intentionally lie. Less obvious but perhaps just as important is Part Two; factual relativism: There is no Truth, but if there there were, we couldn't find it. Everything is just a matter of (political) opinion. (Implied: so why not choose the easy and entertaining versions of the world?)   In the mix; is derision of the educated and the polite as effeminate PC elitists and nincompoops, —while openly offensive rudeness is for us cool and manly producers, the real and hard working Americans.   Side stories included new criteria for the veracity of evidence, ozone hole denial, and the birth of environment-as-partisan & open, popular anti-environmentalism.

This hoax grew in acceptance largely unnoticed by the general population because all the above disseminators of knowledge consider the source of the hoax as invisible as being shunned, worse than inconsequential, they consider it foolish, laughable, only worthy of the butt of a joke, of derision and a jaded sardonic smile.   That source is talk radio.   If the above meme was not invented by Rush Limbaugh, he was the first to popularize it, making it highly amusing by using Rock n Roll, humor, sportscaster and cartoon voices, corrosive nationalistic populism, derision and attacks on minorities, gays, and women, the environment, and so forth, —a real good time— politics like sports entertainment, a fun new Team Sport;   "Rah Rah! Kill the umpire!".

This hoax also grew in acceptance largely unnoticed by the general population because TV avoids mentioning Radio for business as well as elitist cultural reasons. "If it's not on TV it doesn't exist."

Limbaugh explains the dirty reason why all formerly respected institutions of truth and knowledge are so evil. It's because these powerful elitists are all either victims of, or in on The Mighty Liberal Conspiracy! (to ruin America). Everything wrong with America springs from those evil-doers. Conservatives (and America) are their perpetually suffering victims. This is Limbaugh's main Teaching, his #1, and is possibly the greatest, most believed conspiracy theory in the world.

Mikhail Gorbachev had moved to end the Cold War which signaled the fall of the Soviet Union. This demoralized the Republican Party because they no longer had anybody to hate/fear, which was one of their organizing principles from before McCarthyism. So Limbaugh had an unusual hatred of the popular Gorbachev who was helping with that fall. But Limbaugh did solve that emptiness. Right out of Orwell's novel; 1984, Limbaugh transformed the frightened Republican; "an evil Commie under every bush!!!!" into; "an evil Liberal/Democrat under every bush!!!!"   ("...yet the rage that one felt was an abstract, undirected emotion which could be switched from one object to another like the flame of a blowlamp.")   If we can no longer fear Russians, we'll fear Americans! Lib-Dems want to steal or ruin what we have; our home, job, freedom, etc.   "Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia!"   This has changed the tenor of American politics to this day.

Limbaugh's formula was so popular it quickly changed the nature of talk radio via imitators and saved AM radio. Within two or three years talk radio had been fully transformed, unrecognizable. The November 1, 1993 TIME cover carried Limbaugh and Howard Stern blowing fire over the masses with the headline: "Voice of America?". From there the formula spread to politicians such as Newt Gingrich's famous 1996 GOPAC "hate word list" to be used against the "pathetic," Democratic "traitors,"   —and that same year, we saw the birth of Fox News with it's superior flashy graphics and the above feels-good memes of hate/fear and propaganda. From the Republican firebrands it finally became Republican mainstream. Today The Mighty Evil Liberal Conspiracy! is swallowed by perhaps 40% of the U.S.A., and it has brought us the current U.S. President/Entertainer with his motto; It's all Fake News.

What has remained constant through all this can be discovered by turning on the radio or TV. Consistent Limbaugh, and the painfully repetitive Sean Hannity Show may be the most pure in this regard, (of the "respectable" talk shows). At times it seems like their main mission is to destroy all former respected institutions of truth and knowledge —and that promoting this new Republicanism is secondary.

In my mind, Limbaugh is unquestionably the King of American Anti-Journalism & Anti-intellectualism. By far his greatest crime is his organized attack on truth-seeking, journalism, education, and clear thinking. Without reliable sources of truth, the crooks & liars rein supreme and utterly unopposed. Who would want to kill truth? It seems unforgivable that Wikipedia has downplayed this story. Not one word here about Limbaugh here. But the stereotype of talk radio as silly therefore trivial, almost taboo, remains. To a large degree, I'm certain it's how we got into this mess. ..........

For a change of pace, I found a humorous confirmation of my claims on YouTube: Excerpts of Limbaugh himself attacking lying NASA data regarding their discovery of water on Mars. "They make it all up anyway!" (It's all part of the Great Liberal Agenda!) It's a slow 13 minute video, but the Limbaugh clips start around minute 4:30 and the strongest evidence concludes around 7:50. This isn't a partisan issue, so what is this? Is this pure anti-intellectualism? (This is the first time I've heard him claim he knows science, usually he admits the opposite.)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ug_h3P6CQYg title: "Rush Limbaugh: Big Time Science Guy"   "Water on Mars! Or if you're Rush Limbaugh, more tiring evidence of NASA's left-wing agenda of lies that goes against everything he learned in the esteemed "Science 101" course that's guided his life as a Science Expert. This clip is from the Majority Report,"

I posted this a few days ago on Talk Anti-intellectualism because I was there, but it belongs here. (It was two posts) I'm sure the topic is not really taboo. Everybody prolly just forgot.   —Cheers!
--2602:306:CFCE:1EE0:3044:A2C3:2683:987B (talk) 16:37, 5 November 2018 (UTC)—Doug Bashford