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 check the discussion-page dialogue (including archives) 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.

WikiProject Media	(Rated Start-Class, High-importance)	MediaWikipedia:WikiProject MediaTemplate:WikiProject MediaMedia articles
Journalism portal v • d • e This article is within the scope of WikiProject Media, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Media on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.  Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.  High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Media To-do List: Here are some tasks you can do: Requests: Myanmar News Agency, Lisa Sylvester (CNN reporter) Verify: Multimedia, Alternative media, Alternative newspaper Cleanup: Media influence, Video game culture NPOV: Content (media and publishing)

WikiProject Journalism	(Rated Start-Class, High-importance)	JournalismWikipedia:WikiProject JournalismTemplate:WikiProject JournalismJournalism articles
Journalism portal v • d • e This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Journalism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.  Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.  High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

This article has been improved by the Cleanup Taskforce to conform with a higher standard of quality. Please see its Cleanup Taskforce page for more details on this process, and possible ideas on how you can further improve this article!

Archives
Archive 1

Contents 1 Article Needs Re-written 2 Funny 3 Talk Page Archived October 2005 4 Searching "liberal bias" vs. searching "conservative bias" 5 Pompous style 6 UCLA study 7 General rather than specific bias 8 New paragraph about blogs 9 CBC 10 NPOV either impossible or unavoidable 11 more than just journalism 12 removed "political correctness" 13 new section 14 Blogs 15 More on UCLA study and objectivity in studies of bias 16 Studies and theories of media bias 17 Role of Language in Media Bias 18 experimenter bias 19 Editorial on the Chomsky book. 20 Attribution bias 21 International Examples of bias 22 No attributions 23 Experimenter bias and possible argumentative writing 24 Article Extremely POV 24.1 Based on education gap? 25 pro-Western bias of mainstream media 26 A lack of discrimination in the terminology of media coverage and bias 27 What constitutes bias 28 Misperceptions about the Iraq War 29 This Article 30 Other Thoughts On Media Bias 31 VP debate moderator wrote pro-Obama book which is being released on January 20, 2009 32 Internet bias redirect 33 Redundant section taken out 34 Admitted bias 35 Media Matters 36 Anglophone bias 37 Nonpartisan media bias monitoring 38 External links are a mess 39 "Media Cheer Obama's Golf Outings; Criticized Republicans' Trips to Course" 40 Cato sources 41 Deleted material 41.1 Types of bias 41.2 Discussion

[edit] Article Needs Re-written

As is, wikipedia is not a serious encyclopedia. It is left-leaning, at least in regards to the issue of it's media bias coverage. The term "liberal bias" definitely exists in our culture, and to NOT have an article on it amounts to leftist propaganda, albeit on a small scale. Someone here was mentioning that Galileo was so bold and revolutionary for stating plainly what he believed about heavenly bodies even though it wasn't popular at the time. We see that the pursuit of intelligence sometimes means admitting to the existence of things that we ourselves disagree with. It may be unpopular in academia to believe that a liberal bias exists in our media but it is obvious that it either a) exists-or that b) a significant number of people believe it exists. In either case, the concept deserves a page on wikipedia. The validity of its existence is something that should be discussed on the page itself. The idea of having a page simply on media bias is an obvious cop out and left leaning. The term "liberal bias" is common in our culture. There are pages dedicated to all sorts of other cultural beliefs (in a serious encyclopedia I would hope that ALL cultural beliefs would be covered), so why is there no article dedicated to the concept of a liberal bias in the media? At the end of the day, wikipedia needs to admit that the concept of a liberal bias exists, even if it simply perceived to exist. (CaptainNicodemus (talk) 15:25, 26 November 2009 (UTC))

While trying to read through this article, it looks to me like there are many examples of studies that are then questioned at every point, with no real facts being presented anywhere. Looks like an arguing ground for conservative vs. liberal instead of a factual article. I think this entire article should be re-written, and just give an overview of what media bias is instead of disputing and debating various studies. None of this is factual informative information, instead it is argumentative and unecessasary comment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.68.102.230 (talk) 14:33, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

First, let me mention that experienced Wikipedians put their comments at the bottom of the page, because that is where people go to read new comments.

But to address your point, CaptainNicodemus: If there is a subject that you think needs an article, write one. That's how Wikipedia articles are created. Somebody writes an article, with careful references and, as nearly as possible, a neutral tone. It's a lot of hard work, but well worth it.

As for (unsigned)'s post, I would certainly like this article to say: here is what the biased reporting says, but here is the truth. Wikipedia does that in cases where the truth is on a really solid basis: man did evolve, global warming is caused by humans, President Obama was born in the United States. But on other questions we may be too close to the subject to be able to report objective truth, in which case all we can do is give both sides of the story.

Finally, on the subject of "liberal bias", all major modern reporting has liberal bias. You will not find any major source saying good things about slavery, the Ku Klux Klan, or Adolph Hitler. That is because America is a nation founded on liberal principles, and these principles are now accepted throughout the civilized world. Rick Norwood (talk) 21:05, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Funny

It's so funny to see the POV tag on the article "media bias". --Zslevi (talk) 21:04, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Talk Page Archived October 2005

I've archived the talk page for this article. If there are issues in the archived talk page that you feel still need to be addressed, please repost them here. Please do not revert the whole page. Thanks Kerowyn 10:05, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

one organization complains about the liberal media continually, www.newsbusters.org. They do not allow a free discussion. They eventually ban anyone that disagrees their very right wing bias.

[edit] Searching "liberal bias" vs. searching "conservative bias"

Just curious about this... If you type "liberal bias" into the wikipedia search field, it directs you to Media bias in the United States. If you type in "conservative bias," it directs you to this article, Media Bias. Is there any reason for this? Vordabois 05:21, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Obviously a Liberal Bias. PCRRN (talk) 23:18, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Using 'liberal' to mean left-wing is American usage, so 'Liberal bias' is a US-specific term. 'Conservative' has a more universal meaning. 139.80.123.34 (talk) 03:25, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I was also curious about this. The use of the term 'Liberal' on this page is essentially US Biased (and when dealing with bias, surely this is important). I would term it 'Labour' biased, or 'Left-Wing' biased (being a Brit). There must be a more universal way to term this. --KRMike (talk) 00:29, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I think the statement above, that the phrase "liberal bias" is rare outside the Englsih speaking world, is essentially correct. Liberalism is the dominant philosophy of Western Civilization and so a level of ignorance unknown in continental Europe is necessary for such accusations to be effective propaganda. The subject is, however, of worldwide interest, since accusations of "liberal bias" allowed the election of a US president who started two disastrous wars and destroyed the world economy. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:29, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Pompous style

The style of this page is too pompous. Exchgganges on media bias are a dirty, cruel war. Its battlefields are covered with dead bodies (Dan Rather, Mary Mapes, etc). This ain't no salon discussion. This page should be an organized collection of examples of exposed bias and a bibliography of studies on the subject. I tried to add several examples, all from non-US media to adhere to the page theme, but a major style check is needed. BTW, how many readers know what "sycophantic" mean? Emmanuelm 19:44, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

You mean, of course, what "sycophantic" means. Rick Norwood 20:11, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] UCLA study

I believe that Media Matters was able to de-bunk the UCLA study quite effectively. this should be posted: http://mediamatters.org/items/200512220003.

Also the seminal Virginia Commonwealth study should certainly be included. I teach occasional electives on the media, and find many of the “academic” studies listed on this article deeply flawed for reasons I expanded on. -Brit

A UCLA study has been released, and a recap is here. How do we incorporate? --badlydrawnjeff 17:34, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

MSM is truly biased... and bears truly shit in the woods!

Great link. The study seem to focus on US media, and this page is reserved for non-US media bias (not my decision, I am not sure I like it), so I think the article should go as an external link in the "Media bias in the United States" page. If you can get access to the study, you might also want to add key findings in the main article text. Emmanuelm 18:10, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Bah. Go figure. I'll trot my way over there, thanks. --badlydrawnjeff 18:19, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

This is a tricky issue, though. One can certainly argue that claiming that the reporters actually influence the output to a great degree is like saying that the people working the floor of an automanufacturing plant have a say in the construction of a car. This issue is complicated, and worth discussion in how we frame reports like this.

Nonetheless, it is ludircous that Chomsky is not mentioned here at all. Being the progenitor of the idea of a "propagandizing" media, and supposedly one of the most influential people on earth (whatever that means etc.).

We should definitly include East Timor in this discussion (as there were 200,000 people killed and no one reported on it, and the US was complicit in arms deals with Suharto-the invading force in east timor).

This page is not forbidden to mention US media bias -- it just should not focus on that to the exclusion of media bias in general. The UCLA report is too local and too topical, for example, and belong in Media bias in the United States. On the other hand, Chomsky is a major world figure, and should be mentioned here. As for East Timor, it is incorrect to say that "no one" reported on it, though it may not have gotten the coverage it deserved. Rick Norwood 17:39, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Academics, schmackademics. Considering that most of them have never worked in a newsrooom one day in their lives, I find them unqualified to judge editorial decisions. Chomsky's worldview is clouded by his Marxism, and he cannot be taken seriously as an objective source. I am sure those on the Left would find citing Brent Bozell's Media Research Center offensive or non-objective.

>Chomsky, though leftist has in reality little respect for Marxism. Read his works. He also has an objective scientific bent that is quite effective -Brit

If Chomsky goes in, then so-should Bozell's work. --68.45.161.241 14:48, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Media Matters is not a unbiased source of information. Relying on a Media Matters study to 'debunk', the UCLA study seems biased in and of itself. The article itself should be more balanced. ozoneliar 5 October 2006

Media Matters is not a site i would not put much faith in at all. Alot of the things i have heard about Media Matters has been negative, in regard to their facts and sourices. I would do research on it before I used it, to be safe. A vote on deleting it may be needed. this is like pie

[edit] 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.

[edit] New paragraph about blogs

I thought that a page about media bias had to have a chapter about blogs. I also rearranged the external links, dividing them into blogs and others. Feel free to expand on my short chapter and add more links. Emmanuelm 21:04, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I have restored the External links superheader. I really don't have any problem with it. — Ambush Commander^(Talk) 21:06, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] CBC

The article says - "Clearly, CBC editors want their readers to judge these acts differently, depending on the origin of the people targeted for killing. This particular word bias is not unique to the CBC, but can also be found in many western news source."

"Clearly" is a weasel word used to introduce an NPOV comment. Is there evidence that CBC deliberately chose those words to cause their readers to judge the two differently? If so, quote and link the source. There are other possible explanations - for example that Palestinian terrorists only get into the news as suicide bombers, whereas al-Qaida terrorists are more likely to be referred to in relation to the police operations looking for them or investigating potential plots in the US/Canada. Note - I'm not saying this is necessarily true, I'm just proposing an alternate hypothesis to show that it's not "clear". --195.8.190.39 15:24, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I came in here to make the same comment, but I see that it's already been made. I personally say delete it (given that no one has bothered to provide sources since this comment was first posted), particularly since the first sentence is merely that editor's speculation as to the reasons and violates NPOV unless evidence is included showing that that is in fact the reason.

Furthermore, since I haven't run into it often, would the sentence before it ("For example, searching the CBC web site, […]") violate WP:NOR? (If it's a study by an organisation, it's not cited, so as is it looks to me like someone just went and searched on CBC for themselves and then typed it up.) 156.34.208.152 08:13, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV either impossible or unavoidable

because the article is about pov, it is self referential making it unavoidable. John wesley 17:55, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] more than just journalism

The introductory sentence defines media bais as being limited to journalism, but it also includes non-journalistic media -- movies, television shows, and music. Unless I am mistaken, those are also "(mainstream) media" and I know that I've heard complaints about how "liberal" pop media tend to be. I think that journalistic bias should be handled on its own page...at least this page should acknowledge that there is more to "the media" than just journalism, and direct readers to the proper articles. AdamRetchless 05:07, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] removed "political correctness"

I removed the following because it is heavily POV, and not really to the point:

Political correctness is a bias inherent in the Western world's standards of journalism. In an effort to be fair and impartial, many reporters present radical views with credence equal to that which they give to mainstream views, which have been proven over time or are widely accepted.

I replaced it with an item called "exaggerated influence of minority views". AdamRetchless 05:12, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Good call, AdamRetchless. Political correctness is really something else entirely. Rick Norwood 12:39, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I have worked in two mainstream newsrooms in Virginia and Pennsylvania, and can anyone explain to me why I was the only person who was remotely conservative? The editorial standards I have been forced to work under have been so PC that I have been forced to put up and shut up. Saying media culture is skewed to the Left is pretty accurate from my personal experience, not to mention my interactions with reporters from other news organizations. I have been routinely harassed by my secular, liberal co-workers because I am a practicing traditional Greek Catholic, at times for years. I have had my faith mocked to my face and have even suffered discrimination for my faith because I didn't want to go along with PC rules. The AP style manual, the Bible of Journalism, is skewed to the left. You can say a person who opposes abortion rights is anti-abortion, but you can't refer to someone who supports abortion rights as pro-abortion. I could list many others. I think the problem lies in the fact Liberals who have worked in journalism find everyone else in the newsroom shares their worldview, so they come to believe being Liberal=being objective. Being objective means you set aside your feelings and even go to the extent of writing your stories in the Third person. User:Pravknight--146.145.70.200 17:44, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I think you are in a better position to answer your question than anyone else is. Why are journalists, academics, and big city people overwhelmingly Democrats, while southerners and small town people are overwhelmingly Republican? Many people have observed this fact, few offer explanations. Rick Norwood 12:47, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

What the heck is your source for that? The South was the heartland of the Democratic party and its roots, and it's recent shift still only has part of the South voting more towards the right. In addition while journalists do lean left, Academics are divided sharply by field. Science, Buisness, Math, and Engineering for example all are far more right leaning then the almost exclusively liberal social science fields. While their is some minor truth to the generalization you say, you vastly overstate those generalization myths by calling them 'overwhelmingly'. Aside from a few exceptions, most cities, counties, and states don't split more then 40/30 or so towards either party, with the remaining 30 undecided or middle of the road voters who occasionally lean eithr way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.11.132.73 (talk) 08:16, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I wish I knew the answer. I don't want to paint with too broad of a brush, but my experience has been city dwellers tend to be more self-absorbed and uncaring of how their actions affect their neighbors. Rural folks tend to be more community-oriented as a whole and be more sensitive of how their bad behaviors negatively impact their neighbors. In a city, you have the luxury of anonymity, but not in the country, hence the conservatism.

From my experience, my liberal co-workers have been more attracted to hedonistic pursuits than in the conservative, rural Pennsylvania community where I grew up. User:Pravknight--68.45.161.241 14:37, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

You sound like the kind of conservative I get along with just fine. Most of my friends and neighbors here in Tennessee are conservative for the reasons you cite -- family and community above the pleasures of the flesh. But what your explanation does not cover is the other kind of conservatism. Why are the "hedonistic" city dwellers more concerned about the working class and the disadvantaged than the "sensitive" rural folks. Why does the supposedly sensitive side support corporations over workers, tax cuts that primarily benefit the rich over raising the minimum wage. And why does a hedonistic city person become a bleeding heart liberal? Rick Norwood 16:03, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd say it's more that city folks are accustomed to being told what to do, and liberalism being an offshot of communism/socialism is all 'just let the government decide for you' which they can live with. It's main failing, great promises that fall short in the real world don't really get noticed by them because too much is going on for them to keep track of wasted projects. It's doubtful most city people know more then 1 person connected in any way to politics. Country folk on the other hand by the very nature of the lifestyle are more independant. They want to keep what they work for, make their own decisions, and stupid programs get noticed and are harder to hide when everyone knows someone on the planning commitee. So conservative thought which keeps the government out of their lives and as small as possible reigns. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.11.132.73 (talk) 08:21, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Pravknight, "Liberalism" is usually associated with an excessive concern for others' well-being, to the extent of passing laws mandating good behavior. "Conservative Republicans" in the US are small-government individualists who believe in leaving individuals to fend for themselves and make their own choices. How does that make liberals self-centered, and conservatives caring, doting communalists? Aren't hippies and marxists and communists lefty liberals? Don't conservatives oppose welfare and socialized healthcare? Have you spent any time in a big city? I've not seen very much hedonism, and I left Sodom (New York) to move to Gomorrah (San Francisco.) This is a major problem with the media bias -- it's almost impossible to tell if it's pushing a large agenda, or just a small contingent's!

Incidentally, the AP style manual discourages "pro-abortion" because many "pro-choice" folks are against abortion, just also against the laws. Finally, being objective and writing in the third person have almost nothing to do with one another.

that's kind of his point —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.160.102.251 (talk) 21:32, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

[edit] new section

While it is nice to have some hard data, this new section really belongs in Media bias in the United States rather than here. Rick Norwood 13:24, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blogs

I find it hard to believe that blogs are 'reliable' news outlets. Therefore I removed the blog section, should you return it, then we'll need some sources to back up your claims that major news stations use them.

Blogs do have an effect on mainstream media, the provided link to the Killian documents verifies that. Furthermore, the blog section doesn't claim that blogs are reliable. I have reverted your edit accordingly. — Edward Z. Yang^(Talk) 21:25, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Note that the magazines Time and The Week, and the webzine Slate regularly quote blogs. They aren't relieable, but they are news. Rick Norwood 13:34, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I believe that Media Matters was able to de-bunk the UCLA study quite effectively. this should be posted: http://mediamatters.org/items/200512220003.

Also the seminal Virginia Commonwealth study should certainly be included. I teach occasional electives on the media, and find many of the “academic” studies listed on this article deeply flawed for reasons I expanded on.

Chomsky, though leftist has in reality little respect for Marxism. Read his works. He also has an objective scientific bent that is quite effective

[edit] More on UCLA study and objectivity in studies of bias

I believe that Media Matters was able to de-bunk the UCLA study quite effectively. This should be posted: http://mediamatters.org/items/200512220003. i also thought that in order to make a statement such as the following quote, one should define “liberal” and “conservative” and the context –compared to WHAT?: “A major problem in studies is experimentor bias. Studies of US Media Bias studies show that A) Liberal experimentors tend to get results that say the media has a conservative bias, B) conservative experimentors get results indicating a liberal bias, and C) experimentors that do not identify themselves as either liberal or conservative do not detect any bias.”

Objective analysis does exist. So when Galileo suggested that the earth went around the sun, the Church considered him “biased”, biased enough to be put under house arrest. He was a “liberal” for his time and place (or even a “radical” since “liberal” means reformist.) His evidence was objective – advanced optics in his new telescope that allowed fairly conclusive study of the sky.

What I am getting at is that many of these studies draw the line so far to the right in what is considered moderation in the real world ( For instance poll after poll have shown that a vast majority of global moderates do not agree with the Iraq occupation or approve of government sponsored health care. Indeed theses days most of the American “public’ do as well (e.g http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2003-10-19-health-poll_x.htm ), yet even the “liberal’s” – US Democrats as defined by the many studies above voted for the war and have failed to pass policies that provide public health care fro all.) –Brit Bunkley

I agree. Thanks for dropping in, Brit. Rlitwin 18:07, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Partially agree and disagree, the international media was againt the Iraqi war from the word go but public reaction was mixed. It is only as the war has gone on that with continual feeding by anti war media that public reaction has followed and reached the state that it has now. I do not have sources present to cite this however. omricon

I added another small piece of evidence on how media bias works: http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2595). Students of mine are always asking me "how it works". I think that this article illustrates one element of the propaganda model effectively.Bunkley 02:14, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Good link. Rick Norwood 14:42, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Media Matters is not a site i would not put much faith in at all. Alot of the things i have heard about Media Matters has been negative, in regard to their facts and sourices. I would do research on it before I used it, to be safe. A vote on deleting it may be needed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.177.160.61 (talk) 04:39, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Studies and theories of media bias

This section has become totally unprofessional. It agures with itself, abounds in bad grammar, rambles at great length, lacks focus. It needs a complete rewrite. Rick Norwood 13:40, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

You dont seem to be getting any objection Rick why dont you rewrite it? consensus reached surely? - Omricon

[edit] Role of Language in Media Bias

This section seems to lack a neutral POV in places:

Another example of language bias would be using the phrase "freedom fighters" instead of "insurgents or terrorists." The former phrase creates an image of a noble struggle, while the latter is more neutral and true.

I think it's especially inappropriate for an article discussing Media Bias to espouse the opinion that "terrorists" better describes insurgents than does "freedom fighters." Isn't that exactly the kind of bias this section is attempting to explain in the first place?

I'll try to make the same point in a more value neutral way. Rick Norwood 13:50, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

This page needs many corrections but they have the issues that need corrected locked down so they can not be corrected, more and more I am finding this out on many wikipedia pages as if some expert has ruled his words are perfect and need no correction are addition to help bring truth to the matter and I am find this happens on the liberal agenda pages as if they are trying to lock out any other perpective.

[edit] experimenter bias

Someone recently reworded the section on "experimenter bias", and supported the rewording by adding one new reference and deleting two old references. I have tried to restore a NPOV wording.

The new reference, which I have left in place, says that the NAACP is a "left leaning" organization, which shows the difficulty of quantifying bias in an unbiased way. If racial integration is leftist, then certainly the media are leftist, since almost all American media are in favor of racial integration. Rick Norwood 13:38, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

It looks like someone once again reworded the section on "experimenter bias". I returned some of the wording and included the deleted Media Matters study that firmly debunked the Timothy J. Groseclose of UCLA and economist Jeffrey D. Milyo study who planted the line of left-right far to the right (using the same logic as saying New York is in the West… because it is west of Maine). . http://mediamatters.org/items/200512220003

It looks like someone once again reworded the section on "experimenter bias". I returned some of the wording and included the deleted Media Matters study that firmly debunked the Timothy J. Groseclose of UCLA and economist Jeffrey D. Milyo study who planted the line of left-right far to the right (using the same logic as saying New York is in the West… because it is west of Maine). . http://mediamatters.org/items/200512220003 Bunkley 23:30, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Editorial on the Chomsky book.

I reverted the recent deletion of material on the Chomsky book and the editorial that replaced that deletion on two grounds: first, that it is generally not a good idea to replace referenced material with unreferenced material, and second, because the new material contained a large number of errors in grammar and usage. Rick Norwood 13:41, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Attribution bias

I removed the section on unattributed quotes and all that because, ironically, it had no attribution. I don't know what proof the author had that any journalists use "no comment" to not include points of view contrary to their own rather than using it to indicate that the person declined to comment or didn't return messages. Also, what proof is there that journalists use unattributed comments to push their agenda rather than to indicate that those sources didn't want to be named? Fianlly, were any of this true, it would be a tecnique of propagating bias rather than a type of bias. Stardog101 21:06, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] International Examples of bias

It seems that this article is too focused on US media, and international examples would be good.

In Australia, for example, the row over left-wing bias in the ABC (Australian Broadcasting Corporation, an entirely government funded network) would be good. See http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&q=abc+bias&btnG=Search&meta=cr%3DcountryAU Wmoisis 04:06, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

agreed, we could do with more international examples, Oz, NZ, UK and France particularly. France has a unique set of privacy laws which someone may want to explore. - omricon

[edit] No attributions

Holy crap, now that I look at this, much of this article is without attribution. The history of bias section, for example -- Carl Sagan once criticized the Flintstones? Is there a source for this, let alone the rest of the assertions in this article? These sections without attribution should be fixed or deleted. Stardog101 02:22, 28 November 2006 (UTC)stardog101

[edit] Experimenter bias and possible argumentative writing

Hi all. I like this article. I have noticed some argumentative writing though [1] and will collaborate with any editor on clearing any undue arguments up. If they are actual arguments from the literature then quotes can be added. Thanks AlanBarnet 04:41, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Several of us put in a few hours a month trying to keep this article encyclopedic. We are delighted to have you join us. Rick Norwood 13:47, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Great to hear - Rick. I'm also going to be doing some research on this one as it is an interesting subject. If you know of any core texts any pointers will be much appreciated. Looking forward to collaborate. AlanBarnet 02:18, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

There are a large number of sources. Sadly, conservative researchers tend to find liberal bias and liberal researchers tend to find conservative bias. Noam Chomsky finds middle of the road bias. There are also meta-studies of the studies, which tend to find all of the studies flawed.

The problem is that what is to the left and what is to the right is entirely dependent on where you stand. Rick Norwood 13:33, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Rick. Thats a helpful assessment. It looks like a great deal of care is needed and probably with reference to what is corroboratively considered to be the most reliable sources. I'll look into it. AlanBarnet 08:43, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Article Extremely POV

"Democrats are centrists (or even center right) in real world perspectives; that is -most counties outside of the USA."

Nope, not POV at all. The real world is every country outside of the US? This is just one particularly gross example, the whole article is a mess. I think it should be nominated for clean-up. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.170.202.142 (talk) 03:23, 10 January 2007 (UTC).

On an admittedly brief scan - I don't think the article is extremely POV. But I do think it can be made more neutral. I am happy to work with others on improving it. The NPOV tutorial is a good place to look for solutions (though I don't wish to patronize any experts here) [2]. So we may have to "negotiate neutrality" - reliable sources are needed for practical improvements. I do think the article has quite a lot of good information there already - so its probably just a matter of using it and refining it for NPOV. So this line from the tutorial is good to keep in mind "It is important that the various views and the subject as a whole are presented in a balanced manner and that each is summarized as if by its proponents to their best ability".

Judging by the article as it stands - I imagine some editors here have at least partially done what I have suggested so I'm fairly sure progress can be made. I'm not expecting major changes to make the article encyclopedic. Any suggestions are welcome. AlanBarnet 07:24, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

70.69.54.146 removed "This article or section is in need of attention from an expert on the subject." And said, "Anyone who contributes to Wikipedia is an expert in this area!"

I am not sure if 70.69.54.146 was being facetious or not, but just in case he was serious -- no, the area of "media bias" is one that has been studied objectively by serious experts and few if any writers for Wikipedia are experts in this field. Rick Norwood 13:29, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Based on education gap?

Hi there, I'm from Germany and to me it seems like the article pretty much entirely focusses on the situation in the USA. Also, the greater part of it deals with the so-called "liberal" (not: conservative etc.) media bias.

Now, if over 80% of journalism students consider themselves to be liberal (as was said before, some of your "liberal" is our "common sense" or "conservative"), the whole thing doesn't seem so miraculous. My thoughts about that: It's a matter of education. You'll probably find more liberals among college students and graduates overall.

Now without sounding too condescending or "elitist", this may explain why "media bias" is percieved in the USA stronger than in most other democracies. I'm not an expert as concerns the American education system, but judging by what my American friends tell me, there are relativley gross differences between the standards of education provided by ordinary high schools on the one hand, and highly acclaimed universities and colleges on the other hand. This indeed leads to a situation in which those people who constitute the (assumably) vast majority of at least TV jounalists represent an elite.

To me, and probably most Europeans, that result seems less than spectacular. Having achieved a university degree is a highly respected thing here, and whoever has one is likely to be percieved as a person who just knows a bit more than others, even as someone who "knows better" than you and I and Joe Sixpack do, so you'd better listen to them. Hence, those folks dominate political opinion-making.

Whether this may be the false or the right approach, I don't want to evaluate here, there are probably as many pros as there are cons none of which are accaptable to anyone but me (j/k). What I'd like to point out is that "media bias" surprisingly might just not be a media issue, but a social issue; particularly a phenomenon of the U.S. society. Accusations of "elitism" in politics, and thus in terms of political media, are strange to most Europeans I know. From "our" point of view, that American problem, if you want to call it a problem, is not subjective or unbalanced media, but it's based on a vast education gap, combined with a disproportionately (to other countries) strong political influence of citizens with lower education. The latter, by the way, makes me wonder whether the liberal "mainstream" media are really so mainstream, as they seem to have little influence on roughly half of the population. Thanks for your attention.

--Kräuter-Oliven (talk) 21:37, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Most US mass media are in business to make a profit, and so they dare not alienate any large portion of their viewers, listeners, or readers. This means they are written (very well written) for an eight year old mentality, and are careful to say something nice about every side of every question. Rick Norwood (talk) 00:44, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] pro-Western bias of mainstream media

About three weeks ago, I added some (sourced) information about how mainstream media often focuses more on Western disasters.

(For example, when the Virginia Tech massacre occured, many news sources presented detailed coverage of the incident. However, when Baghdad was bombed just two days later, there was very little coverage. In just a few days, there was no more mention of the April 18 bombings. Several months later, there is still sporadic coverage on the Virginia Tech shootings. Similarly, while numerous blog and forum posts offered condolences to Virginia Tech victims, very few posts offered condolences to victims of violence in Iraq.)

However, Rick Norwood (talk · contribs) reverted my edit, citing that it was "only of topical interest." However, this has become an important issue in recent times, since more and more people are becoming concerned about it. Thus, it should be mentioned in the article.

Does anyone else agree with me? --Ixfd64 03:57, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I certainly agree with your point that Western media are most apt to report events close to home. Whether this should be called 'bias', or whether it simply reflects the fact that most people are more interested in local news, is open to debate. How much coverage did Baghdad newspapers give to the Virginia Tech shootings?

I do think this is an important topic, but I think that there are better examples than bombings in Baghdad, which occur almost daily, and which are reported in the Western press. I think a good paragraph could be written on how, in reporting an event, the Western media usually give only the Western interpretation of the event. Rick Norwood 15:12, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Thanks for your input. :) --Ixfd64 21:04, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Possibly because the Iraq War has already endured a heavy and long saturation into Western media. Stations aren't talking about it because people are just sick of hearing it. You may find that offensive or anti-Eastern, but that is a personal judgment call. This.machinery (talk) 05:00, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

It is not a "pro-western" bias, it is a pro-target audience bias, combined with heavy cut'n'paste bias. The later means something heavily reported in one country is likely to be overreported in nearby countries as well. Take a look at the hurricanes that hit the US here in August and September 2008, despite being relatively small (category 2-3) they were covered intensely. The very same hurricanes all also hit Haiti, but at category 5. This was hardly reported until several weeks later. Carewolf (talk) 11:29, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

This "pro-western" bias in media is a well known and discussed problem. For example, see New World Information and Communication Order. Offliner (talk) 19:49, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] A lack of discrimination in the terminology of media coverage and bias

I typed in the words "Liberal media" into the search box and it brought me here. To equate liberal media with media bias is a grave, unsubtle mistake. There are both conservative and liberal media institutions in America as well as many other countries, and by equating the acknowledgment of metaphysical facts to NPOV or bias itself is both ignorant and sad. Liberal media should take me to a page with a picture of Keith Olbermann and conservative media a picture of Sean Hannity. This ain't rocket surgery, people. This.machinery (talk) 04:55, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. When people use the term 'liberal media' it is almost always used with negative connotations implying media bias. The same is true of the term 'conservative media'. The aim of using both those two terms is to deride their sources by implying they are more liberal/conservative than the objective 'truth'. Strathglen (talk) 00:26, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Also, just because this page is a major discussion of "liberal media" does not mean that the page does not also discuss "conservative media" -- it does. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:26, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] What constitutes bias

Bias is not the same as disagreement. If I say a person is lying because I dislike that person, or because I dislike what that person is saying, that is bias. If I say a person is lying because that person is, in fact, lying, that is reporting the truth, not bias.

It is often hard to tell when a person is lying, but when a person writes a book and says, "I lied," that is pretty good evidence.

While we were being lied to, anyone who did not believe the lies was accused of liberal bias. Now that yet another major Republican admits to lying, we are told that anyone who accepts that admission does so out of bias. This shows a misunderstanding of the meaning of the word "bias".

Rick Norwood (talk) 01:36, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Making the claim "We now know that Halperin was right, not biased" based on the assertions in McClellans book is problematic (not to mention a perfect example of plain old overly simplistic conclusion-jumping). The problems with basing this conclusion on the assertions made in the book are multi-fold:

1.) There is no way to verify the assertions in the book. The best you can do to support it is to say "when a person writes a book and says they lied, thats pretty good evidence". HOW is that good evidence? The book was obviously written in an effort to discredit the Bush administration, and it was written by somebody who is:

A.) Reportedly a disgruntled employee of that administration.

B.) Funded (ie paid to say these things) by George Soros, who is known to have a long history of anti-Republican (and CERTAINLY anti-Bush activity, like his website moveon.org directly comparing George Bush to Hitler in 2004).

Those facts are enough to raise reasonable doubt about what is said in the book.

2.) Even IF every single thing written by McClellan were 100% true, it STILL does not allow the conclusion "Halperin was right, not biased", because the two have nothing to do with each other. McClellans book is irrelevant to the question "was Halperin being biased when he released that memo?". It's like saying "well, this special forces guy came out and said Clinton refused to give him the okay to take out Bin Laden when he could have, so that proves Clinton was pro terrorist!!!" It proves no such thing. It's all incidental.

Drawing conclusions from un-provable assertions by questionable sources is the kind of thing we need to avoid. It's exactly the kind of thing that fuels the fire of "media bias" assertions, and rightfully so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Manderson71 (talk • contribs) 16:30, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Tell ya what, Rick. If you want to mention McClellan's book in reference to Halperin's situation, I would accept it in this format:

"With the release of the 2008 book by George W. Bush's press secretary Scott McClellan, there are some who contend that this is evidence of Mark Halperin being correct instead of biased. In his book, McClellan admits to lying to the media, and describes the contempt he felt for reporters who so easily believed his lies, and were cowed by the fear that if they exposed the lies, they would be accused of "liberal bias".^[1]"

THAT is a statement of FACT. The way you have it written with the words "we now know that Halperin was right", you are stating an opinion as fact. Lets be intellectually honest.

I haven't read McClellan's book. Here's a question, though. Did McClellan say in the book that he lied about the stuff that Halperin said he/they were lying about? If McClellan was talking about different lies, then the two aren't connected closely enough to use this way. Cretog8 (talk) 00:54, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Is there a page number, or page numbers to look for these statements in McClellan's book? Cretog8 (talk) 17:32, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the unsigned version above, beginning "With the release..." is better and should replace the current version in the article. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:11, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Misperceptions about the Iraq War

What does the study on Fox News Viewership have to do with Media Bias? Let me guess. Republicans are big fat liars, and Fox News is full of Republicans, so people believe their lies? Seems a lot less to me to be about "Media bias" and more about attacking an instituition. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.30.66.15 (talk) 06:20, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

One form of bias is misrepresenting the facts. And I recently reverted a deletion of the reference to this study, because the study is referenced and deletion unexplained.

On the other hand, as a teacher of Probability and Statistics, I have my doubts about this study: there may be a confounding variable. Fox viewers tend to be younger than those who get their news elsewhere, and young people may have less basic knowledge than older people, just because they've had less time to learn. The study shows that Fox viewers tend to be less well informed about Iraq, but it does not show that they are less well informed because they watch Fox news. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:40, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

The study clearly shows that networks accused of liberal bias is more informative and their opinions more in sync with reality, than networks accused of conservative bias. This demonstrates that reality has a clearly liberal bias. Carewolf (talk) 11:24, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

The study shows no such thing. It examines one specific issue. More recent surveys show that those who watch Fox News or listen to conservative talk radio were more likely than those who cited CNN/MSNBC/etc. as their primary news sources to know things like which party controlled Congress, the name of the Speaker of the House, etc. Heck, in a Zogby poll, only 48% of CNN viewers knew that Democrats controlled Congress at the time, and they could have guessed that 50/50! Glynth (talk) 20:23, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Honestly, the transparency of the study's bias is astounding. The manner in which the study assumes...yes assumes...FOX News is the origin and cause of people's misperception is academically and intellectually dishonest. Furthermore, to not research even one alleged misconception from the opposite side of the political aisle was disingenuous, at best. The study was political theater at its most partisan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Analytical (talk • contribs) 03:10, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

The presence and defense of the aforementioned study as a legitimate study in bias rather than an example of bias points to the problem with Wikipedia, spare time often trumps integrity. This ironically mirrors the mainstream media; sheer volume is the obstacle and opposition of the truth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.171.37.63 (talk) 00:11, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Random Wikipedia editors' thoughts about a peer-reviewed study are not in themselves peer review. If you think the study was biased or inaccurate you (or a qualified expert) should attempt to replicate the results or otherwise do the research necessary to show the study is flawed. Then publish those results and go through the peer-review process yourself, and then this information should find its way into Wikipedia through the normal channels. But random complaints about bias really don't belong in the article. csloat (talk) 05:00, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] This Article

The impression I get after reading this (long, painfully disorganized) article is that there is no liberal bias at all; the mass media is really suffering from a conservative bias! Silly me, all this time I thought that there was a liberal bias. I guess "left-wing" really does mean "centrist". I know there are more liberals than conservatives on Wikipedia, but seriously, friends, the tone and overall sense of this article takes credibility away from all of us. InFairness (talk) 04:36, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not for personal opinions or research. This merely a collection of references to what documented 3rd-parties thinks. Which is why both points of view are represented Carewolf (talk) 12:04, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

The direction of the bias depends on where you are standing. The media are more liberal than the average citizen because the media are more cosmopolitan than the average citizen, but the media also bend over backwards to please the conservatives because the conservatives are customers of the media who need to be kept happy. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:36, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Carewolf and In Fairness' discussion is a perfect snapshot of the problem with this article. If I were of a conservative bent, this would be my take. InFairness is a political moderate or maybe even conservative who thinks the article is liberal in its bias. Carewolf is liberal and likes this, as such is representing the article as representing both sides. If I were liberal I might chime in and say something like "InFairness not only ar you wrong, but I think this article has a conservative bias!", and go on to sight spots in the article and so on and so forth. So long as this article contains as much content as it does, this will always be a massive problem. I think the article would be better served by trimming much of the discussion of what is contained within studies and books regarding media bias. I'm speaking about all of it, the studies and books from both sides of any particular type of bias. Better to reference examples where media bias was blatantly exposed as being media slant. Reference organizations that study media bias, being sure to note the general perception of that organization's political leanings as well. Avoid detailed descriptions of their studies, as many Wikipedia readers taking the time to look at this article probably already have strongly formed opinion about these organizations. By detailing too much the contents of the studies it only makes readers think the article is biased itself. People will think that one particular side (normally not theirs) didn't get as much article space as the other. I think a better way to summarize the various studies and books regarding media bias would be a brief paragraph describing their methods and findings, as well as criticisms of said studies or books. Don't think that there are any definitive studies, as an axiom that will always hold true is that there will one day be a better study that comes out and shows something contrary to the results of the study you're citing. I also think that it might be best to remove the Chomsky quote. He's too polarizing as many people not of a liberal bent already seem to think he comes across as a bit pompous, to put it mildly. There are people who may be able to swallow the section regarding his work if the quote were removed, that otherwise, upon seeing a Chomsky quote, would navigate away in disgust. If it would get more people to read the section all the way through, it might be better to remove it, as it just rehashes what is said anyways. Musing Sojourner (talk) 16:19, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Other Thoughts On Media Bias

Some have reported bias in the media. This has been attributed to presumptuous news reporting, in other countries as well as the United States. This has been a controversial issue for a number of reasons. Measures are currently being taken to develop a better understanding of what constitutes "media bias." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.22.81.124 (talk) 20:25, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] VP debate moderator wrote pro-Obama book which is being released on January 20, 2009

[edit] Internet bias redirect

This article redirects from Internet bias but doesn't seem to discuss it. The only occurence of "internet" is at the top in the redirect statement. 203.129.142.40 (talk) 21:36, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Redundant section taken out

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Media_bias&diff=prev&oldid=244115525

I felt that it did not bring anything to the article, resembled a "how to" guide and asserted certain values without sourcing them. forestPIG^(grunt) 12:31, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Admitted bias

"[http://abcnews.go.com/Business/Story?id=6099188&page=1 Media's Presidential Bias and Decline; Columnist Michael Malone Looks at Slanted Election Coverage and the Reasons Why]": In my opinion, this article is entirely relevant to this wiki page. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 13:19, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

And The Washington Post just admitted bias. And recall in the past The New York Times admitted it is biased. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 19:09, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Media Matters

Media Matters is identified in the article as a progressive (that is, liberal) organization. Thus, the article presents first the conservative point of view, then the liberal point of view, each identified as such. Rick Norwood (talk) 18:38, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Anglophone bias

I removed User:Katana0182 's addition to this section. I have two reasons: firstly, it seems to talk about a different thing than the first part. The first part is about "anglophone bias in the world media", which means "bias towards english-speaking countries." The part added by Katana0182 talks about use of the english language in general; it is not really about media bias. Secondly, I couldn't find support for its claims in the sources given. For example:

Some have suggested that any "anglophone bias" results from the fact that English is the one of the world's most widely spoken languages (by number of first and second language speakers) and one of the few languages, aside from French (Agence France-Press), Arabic (Al Jazeera, Al Arabiya), and Spanish to be commonly spoken in multiple countries and regions throughout the world.[38]

Who have suggested? I couldn't find this suggestion in the sources given. For this claim I also could find no support in the sources: "Anglophone bias, such as it is, could also be described as a product of distrust, as news sources published in non-international languages are often products of governmental media agencies, some of whom do not have a firewall between governmental propaganda and news."

No offense to the contributor at all, but to me this addition seemed both badly sourced and irrelevant, so I decided to remove it. Offliner (talk) 20:42, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Nonpartisan media bias monitoring

Isn't it just sad that under the section Organizations monitoring media bias, there is only a list of partisan groups? mcornelius (talk) 09:24, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Good point. I'll add factcheck.com.Rick Norwood (talk) 14:12, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

[edit] External links are a mess

All I did for now is reorganize them, but some of them need to be used as sources for specific assertions in the article, and the ones that violate Wikipedia:External links need to be removed. 67.100.125.140 (talk) 07:56, 10 May 2009 (UTC).

[edit] "Media Cheer Obama's Golf Outings; Criticized Republicans' Trips to Course"

link I think this is a good source for the article. Grundle2600 (talk) 15:28, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

CNS News is not really a good source for any article. csloat (talk) 18:50, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

If this article reported every trivial, topical example of bias, it would quickly become longer than the whole rest of Wikipedia put together. The article needs to focus on examples of bias that will be remembered ten years from now. Rick Norwood (talk) 11:45, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Cato sources

Hilarious that someone's using the Cato Institute as sources on an article about media bias. This article has no hope of being unbiased if the sources are from the people who create the bias in the first place. You might as well also cite 'studies' by the Socialist Worker to balance them out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.83.6.63 (talk) 01:48, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

In my experience Cato is no more biased and has similiar quality of aggregated statistics to MediaMatter.org which is heavily referenced here as well. The reality is that most sources for this article will have a heavy bent one way or another. Denying this is quite silly. Musing Sojourner (talk) 15:37, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Deleted material

[edit] Types of bias

This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding reliable references. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (February 2007)

• Political bias, including bias in favor of or against a particular political party, candidate, or policy.
• Advertising bias, corporate media depends on advertising revenue for funding. This relationship promotes a bias to please the advertisers.
• Ethnic or racial bias, including racism, nationalism.
• Corporate bias, coverage' of political campaigns in such a way as to favor or oppose corporate interests, and the reporting of issues to favor the interests of the owners of the news media or its advertisers. Some critics view the financing of news outlets through advertisers as an inherent bias.
• Class bias, including bias favoring one social class and bias ignoring (or exaggerating) social or class divisions.
• Mainstream bias, a tendency to report what everyone else is reporting, and to gather news from a relatively small number of easily available sources.
• Religious and cultural bias, including bias in which one religious or nonreligious viewpoint is given preference over others.
• Bias based on sex, age, background, education, language, among others. (For instance woman's issues are rarely featured in mainstream news, and a poorly written letter won't make it into the Letters to the Editor section.)
• Sensationalism, bias in favor of the exceptional over the ordinary. This includes the practice whereby exceptional news may be overemphasized, distorted or fabricated to boost commercial ratings; entertainment news is often subjected to sensationalism.
• Exaggerated influence of minority views.
• Bias toward ease or expediency: This can be a tendency to present information which is already widely reported in other news media, i.e. "jumping on the bandwagon" or "following the leader", presentation of "fluff pieces" which are of questionable journalistic merit (such as coverage in news media of the personal lives of celebrities, or "news you can use"-style reporting which offers consumer advice which is widely viewed as common sense), and over representation of crime reporting, particularly street crime. This type of bias is largely attributed to the relatively low cost of presenting these stories (compared to investigative journalism which tends to require more time and research, and thus more money, to produce), competition between commercial news media for consumers, ratings and ad revenue, and a 24-hour news cycle which demands constant output.
• "Accidental bias" which could include errors and misinformation (re: expediency) or editors accidentally reinterpreting a reporter's work.

[edit] Discussion

The material above was just deleted by an anon. Since it's been tagged since 2007 I'm not going to restore it. If sources can be found it would be worthwhile to include.   Will Beback  talk  00:38, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the deleted material should be restored, except for accidental bias -- accidents happen, but are not bias, unless what is intended is "unconscious bias", in which case it should say that. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:34, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I restored the list, but greatly shortened it. The examples given now seem so obvious as not to need references -- everybody knows about these kinds of bias. I would like to remove the flag, but will wait on comments. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:57, 30 September 2009 (UTC)