|↓||Skip to table of contents||↓|
|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Media bias article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
|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.
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).
The section scholarly treatment in the United States and the United Kingdom repeatedly asserts that the media has a liberal bias. Whether or not this is true, I believe the point of the article should be about what media bias is, not whether media has a bias.--ATMJR (talk) 04:02, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
Media Bias Article Critique
Critiquing the Efforts to correct bias: One thing about this section of the article is that they start off this section almost blindly. There is no introduction or anything really to lead into how to correct bias. This part of the article had tons of relative information to the media bias topic, but in this specific part it gave more examples of how media bias occurs than how to correct it. It supplies examples of things that need to be fixed in order to correct media bias, but doesn't give full answers on how we are supposed to correct it as a whole. While it does give some ways to correct bias, I feel as though there could be more. It talks mainly about just news organizations and how they can correct bias, but not all media outlets. It may not include all media outlets that can be bias, such as social media and things as the like, but they may be because a lot of the information is outdated in this section. The information provided dates back to 2005 and 1991. There are no examples of how to correct media bias that is dated within the last 10 years. It also only brings up other country's media bias briefly. I feel as though this section could have a lot more up to date information. Other than the downsides of this article that I have stated, there is a substantial amount of useful and reliable information with good sources and direct quotes from organizations and people. There are just some aspects that could make this article better. BriSprague (talk) 00:59, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
In its effort to be neutral, the article posts an image that leaves the impression that media is uniformly biased between liberal and conservative in US (the PEW research image), but in fact more recent source from same research organization paints a different image - the bias is real.  In itself, since this is an encyclopedia with a long term view, this is not a major concern. A second point: US is not the only place that has media; this article could use input from sources that reflect other countries, and I'm wondering if this article should not be linked to Freedom of the press article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 15:04, 2 January 2017 (UTC)