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)

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)

Why was my Talk suggestion deleted?

I just posted a detailed Talk suggestion for the article because the article has absolutely zero info on the topic. It seems like the proverbial elephant (or 600 lb gorilla) in the room that nobody talks about, with few references, so it was rather long: Rush Limbaugh's "World's Greatest Hoax & Conspiracy Theory" about the suppression of respectable journalism and all respectable sources of truth including science, etc, —with a few inline and external links.

Seemingly that Talk comment was deleted by a Wiki bigshot (or his Twinkle bot?) that said only it was "good faith" and he thought it violated a policy. I bet any unusual post could be construed that way. Also, being familiar with wiki guidelines, (they are emphasized as not being laws,) I'm pretty sure discrepancy is allowed here, this is Talk, not a Wiki article. I'm pretty sure the ideas in my post are important, new, and on-topic, and a shorter comment could not give the needed arguments/info/gravitas that any new idea craves to survive.

Probably not related, lately I've been thinking and wondering if regulatory capture will have any effect on Wikipedia? Nobel laureate economist George Stigler says yes, it must. (Especially as corporatocracy grows.)

I'm going to reinstate my post, hopefully it won't be censored again without conversation or consensus. And thanks for the nice comment above! Cheers!
--2602:306:CFCE:1EE0:3044:A2C3:2683:987B (talk) 21:45, 5 November 2018 (UTC)Doug Bashford

• It was deleted by User:BullRangifer. You may want to ask him/her what was objectionable in your post. Dimadick (talk) 00:03, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

• "that said only it was "good faith" " That is an editor reference to Wikipedia:Assume good faith. By BullRangifer's estimate you violated a policy (or you were simply out of topic), but your post was neither malicious, nor an act of vandalism. To be honest, you seem quite a bit more eloquent than the average vandal or troll which our talk pages tend to attract. Dimadick (talk) 00:11, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

• The comment, with which I largely agree, seemed like soapboxing, without a clear and concise proposed edit, backed by RS, that would improve the article. Try again, but simplify and propose a specific improvement using RS. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 00:25, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

• Thanks Dimadick, but I cant ask, I couldn't even undo the undo. I'll take being a bit more eloquent than the average vandal or troll here, as a complement. BullRangifer, yes it has the structure of soapboxing, but it's not, it's a description of something I don't know what the hell it is. An excellent description, too, I used all of my powers. Is it media bias? is it anti-intellectualism, anti-science, political propaganda? It has all that and more, and it's powerful and destructive. As far as I know it has no name, has no articles, but perhaps somebody here can help me. I have info, but I'm not the expert in media bias etc, like what it is, where it fits?

I'm not here to make a proposal, but to ask for help. This is not the same as chewing the fat about a known thing. I was hoping the experts would see this new info(?) as an editing suggestion, or give me one. Also, being a new "topic," somebody might know of rare or obscure reliable sources? Or am I being stupid with something obvious? Like looking up a rare new word, —then you see it all over the place. Without a name obvious things are sometimes invisible. I know this is not normally a forum for explaining things or communication, but this seems important, to make a clear and concise proposed edit, backed by RS, but I need help. —Cheers!
--2602:306:CFCE:1EE0:3044:A2C3:2683:987B (talk) 02:09, 6 November 2018 (UTC)Doug Bashford

• Ah ha! Thanks for the explanation. So, let me make sure I understand you correctly. You are a new user? You would like to see this information on Wikipedia, because the subject isn't covered here? Is that correct?

I just need some clarity before offering any advice or help, and we do try to help when we can. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 03:15, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm not a new user, but I'm inexperienced in some things, like I've never done an Undo, nor know how to send private messgs, I don't know what your "PingMe" is, never created a new article, etc. And never a joiner, I've been avoiding becoming a Wiki Clubber because some abuse that status; sour taste.

Yes, I would like to see this information on Wikipedia, because the subject isn't covered on Wiki, as far as I know. But I feel like the musician whose music isn't country, nor bluegrass, it has no slot in the music store...only worse, I'm not sure this is music even if it seems musical. Or better, it's like a very strong well made rope, but people have only reported on the individual strands and never seen, or never reported on the rope, it has no name. (As I've suggested, it could have taboo aspects.) If I sound confused, it's because I am. —Cheers!
--2602:306:CFCE:1EE0:3044:A2C3:2683:987B (talk) 15:53, 6 November 2018 (UTC)Doug Bashford

I think you'll need to do some research on the subject. All content here must be based on RS, often right down to single words. What you've presented is considered original research.

Here's my method for creating a new article or even a paragraph on something not previously covered:

1. Find all the RS which mention the subject. Some subjects are covered by myriad subjects, such as Trump's untruthfulness, while others aren't covered very much at all. If there's isn't much, there may be a problem with notability. That means no article can be created, but it might still be enough for inclusion in an existing article on the subject.
2. Stay away from unreliable sources. I have some resources on this at the beginning of this essay: Reliable sources, Trump, and his editors here
3. Treat the bits of information in them, by topic, like puzzle pieces (all the similar light blue sky ones in one pile, all the others in their piles, etc.) Some references will be used multiple times.
4. Then see if there is an actual narrative, theme, or story told by those sources. There are often some red threads running through most of the sources which tell a story. Sometimes there are several narratives, such as mainstream and fringe POV. Even the fringe POV must be documented using RS, not fringe sources. If mainstream sources don't mention them, we don't document them.
5. Let that determine your content. We must let the sources dictate such things. We can't create our own narrative and force the sources into that narrative.
6. Then write your prose, with the properly formatted references in the right places.
7. If you have never done this before, seek advice from experienced editors. Have them look over your sources and "product", and get their advice.
8. Use a subpage to do this. I strongly advise you to create an anonymous username. That's a good thing to do anyway, because IPs rarely get much respect around here, and you'd have more rights and abilities if you register a username.
9. When you think you're ready to "go public" (and lose all control over it), let it sit for a while. Let it percolate and keep tweaking it. Then hold pauses, often for a week or more, and come back to it with fresh eyes. You'll discover things that need to be fixed, things that will have doomed it if you had gone public too soon. You don't want it to get AFDed immediately.

I hope that gives you a way to start on the project. The subject is interesting, so keep me informed. Good luck. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 03:28, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! And I love your essay, I was surprised to find it much harsher than anything I would write (audience targeting). I know how you would feel if an Admin deleted it. And of course I see early Fox quite differently, as another Limbaugh imitator...he gave them all their bullet points...they had no opinions on weekends! Did you know early MSNBC and early Air America were against the Fairness Doctrine? Early leftist attempts to bring it back, Limbaugh called the Hush Rush campaigns. Poor Rush, 15 million Limbaughtomized dittohead parrots, and they are all in the closet where they belong, never met one. ...or they were...

I always feel a bit punched in the gut when I reread in Wiki they don't give a damn about finding Truth, they prefer a stale aggregate of RS. Won't we feel silly when they sell it?. But now's a great time to be a writer! Cheers!
--2602:306:CFCE:1EE0:3044:A2C3:2683:987B (talk) 08:54, 9 November 2018 (UTC)Doug Bashford

National Bias

The lede paragraph says:

"Claims of media bias in the United States include claims of conservative bias, corporate bias, liberal bias, and mainstream bias."

But I don't see anything on mainstream bias.     ("Claims!?")

Perhaps a subset of that is national bias or national cultural bias? Difficult topics. Those often involve taboo, which itself is a taboo subject; —Certainly nothing for intelligent civilized, rational Americans to be concerned with, Right?

Perhaps the best known is mainstream's well known disgrace of the run-up to the Iraq war, and beyond. That was so taboo, challenges got good people fired, top rated Phil Donehue is one example. "Mr. Donahue's show had been growing slightly over the past few months, and he was actually attracting more viewers than any other show on MSNBC,... "

And an even worse case, and it continues to this day is American coverage of anything regarding Israel or Palestine, and especially that conflict. I don't have the words to describe how biased and distorted it is. The UK is often much better, but still biased. (It's often said that discussions of this are more open and diverse in the Israel press than they are in the US press.) The sources of this American taboo are several and complex, but include America's most feared Lobby: AIPAC and the Israel lobby in the United States. That's so taboo it's considered to be a political third rail, as well as just plain unspeakable. (Just ask Jimmy Carter, see backlash against Carter's book "Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid," such as: "the national director of the Anti-Defamation League, initially accused Carter of "engaging in anti-Semitism" in the book;".) Did I say difficult, and mention taboo? Wanna put yer hand into a can of hot scorpions? Not me. Give up. They win. Next topic.

Another bias that is difficult to see without following foreign news is America's lack of coverage of outside...anything! This includes often pretty good solutions to human and government problems, Americans must re-invent the wheel on everything. The list of lack of coverage is endless, as if America were alone in the world, excluding war. Or: Every body knows we're not really alone, just the best. Fish can see air, but not the water. Quick! What's the capital of Canada?

Oops. Almost forgot. And in case the Wikipedia itchy finger all-knowing deaf tin star censors are watching, I must treat you like you are stupid and explicitly say, "These things are my reasons why these topics should be considered for inclusion in the article. Comments?" Duh. Sometimes I hate this shit.   —Cheers!
--2602:306:CFCE:1EE0:3044:A2C3:2683:987B (talk) 13:41, 10 November 2018 (UTC)—Doug Bashford