Media bias in the United States: Difference between revisions - Wikipedia

Article Images

Line 1:

'''Media bias in the United States''' is the description of systematically non-uniform selection or coverage of news stories in the [[News media (United States)|United States media]]. Claims of bias in the media include claims of liberal bias, conservative bias, claims of mainstream bias,<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=29906|title=www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=29906|accessdate=2007-03-28}}</ref> and claims of corporate bias <ref>[http://projectcensored.org/publications/2001/intro.html Introduction: Project Censored 25th Anniversary]</ref>. There is at least one watchdog group that attempts to find the facts behind both biased reporting and unfounded claims of bias.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=100|title=www.fair.org/index.php?page=100|accessdate=2007-03-28}}</ref>

==History==

Before the rise of [[professional journalism]] in the early [[1900s]], newspapers reflected the opinions of the publisher. Frequently, an area would be served by competing newspapers taking differing — and often radical by today's standards — political views.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.nyu.edu/classes/stephens/Collier's%20page.htm|title=www.nyu.edu/classes/stephens/Collier's%20page.htm|accessdate=2007-03-28}}</ref>

Accusations of media bias have a long history:

In 1728 [[Benjamin Franklin]], writing under the pseudonym "Busy-Body", wrote an article for the ''[[American Weekly Mercury]]'' advocating the printing of more paper money. He did not mention that his own printing company hoped to get the job of printing the money. It is an indication of the complexity of the issue of bias when it is noted that, even though he stood to profit by printing the money, Franklin also seems to have genuinely believed that printing more money would stimulate trade. As his biographer [[Walter Isaacson]] points out, Franklin was never averse to "doing well by doing good".<ref>Walter Isaacson, ''Benjamin Franklin: An American Life'', Simon & Schuster, 2004, ISBN 0-7432-5807-X</ref>

In 1798, the [[Congress of the United States]] passed the [[Alien and Sedition Acts]], which prohibited the publication of "false, scandalous, or malicious writing" against the government, and made it a crime to voice any public opposition to any law or presidential act. This act was in effect until 1801.

In 1861, President [[Abraham Lincoln]] accused newspapers in the [[border states]] of bias in favor of the [[American South|Southern]] cause, and ordered many newspapers closed.

In the [[Nineteenth Century|19th century]], many American newspapers made no pretense to lack of bias, openly advocating one or another political party. Big cities would often have competing newspapers supporting various political parties. To some extent this was mitigated by a separation between ''news'' and ''editorial''. News reporting was expected to be relatively neutral or at least factual, whereas editorial was openly the opinion of the publisher. Editorials might also be accompanied by an [[editorial cartoon]], which would frequently lampoon the publisher's opponents.<ref> W. David Sloan (Editor), Lisa Mullikin Parcell (Editor), ''American Journalism: History, Principles, Practices'', McFarland & Company, April 2002, ISBN 0786413719 ISBN-13 978-0786413713 </ref>

At the start of the [[Twentieth Century|20th century]] many American newspapers engaged in [[yellow journalism]] to increase sales. [[William Randolph Hearst]], publisher of several major-market newspapers, deliberately falsified stories of incidents, which may have contributed to the [[Spanish-American War]].

In the years leading up to [[World War II]], politicians who favored the United States entering the war on the [[Germany|German]] side accused the international media of pro-Jewish bias, and often asserted that newspapers opposing entry of the United States on the German side were controlled by [[Jew]]s. They claimed that reports of German mistreatment of Jews were biased and without foundation. [[Hollywood]] was said to be a hotbed of Jewish bias, and pro-German politicians in the United States called for [[Charlie Chaplin]]’s film ''[[The Great Dictator]]'' to be banned, as an insult to a respected leader.<ref> Louis Pizzitola, ''Hearst Over Hollywood'', Columbia University Press, 2002, ISBN 0-231-11646-2 </ref>

During the [[civil rights]] movement in the 1960s, some White Southerners stated that television was biased against White Southerners and in favor of mixing of the races. In some cases, Southern television stations refused to air programs such as ''[[I Spy]]'' and ''[[Star Trek]]'', because of their racially mixed casts.<ref> Nichelle Nichols, ''Beyond Uhura: Star Trek and Other Memories'', Berkley, 1995, ISBN 1572970111 ISBN-13 978-1572970113 </ref>

During the [[labor union]] movement and the [[civil rights]] movement, newspapers supporting [[liberal]] [[social reform]] were accused by conservative newspapers of [[communist]] bias.<ref>Heather Cox Richardson, ''The Death of Reconstruction: Race, Labor, and Politics in the Post-Civil War North, 1865-1901'', Harvard University Press, 2001, ISBN-10 0674006372, ISBN-13 978-0674006379 </ref><ref> Steve Estes, ''I Am a Man!: Race, Manhood, and the Civil Rights Movement'', The University of North Carolina Press, 2005, ISBN-10 0807829293, ISBN-13 978-0807829295 </ref>

In November 1969, [[Spiro Agnew]], then [[Vice President of the United States|Vice President]] under [[Richard Nixon]], made a landmark speech denouncing what he saw as media bias against the [[Vietnam War]]. He called those opposed to the war the "nattering nabobs of negativism."<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.bartleby.com/63/48/8148.html|title=www.bartleby.com/63/48/8148.html|accessdate=2007-03-28}}</ref>

==Claims of a liberal bias==

<!-- If you change this, make the other definition match it. This helps keep the article NPOV.

It is a definition; it states what liberal bias is, and is has no mention of where it might exist.

-->

Liberal bias in the media is commonly thought to be the result of liberal principles and ideas influencing the coverage or selection of news stories.

Conservative critics of the media say this bias exists within a wide variety of media channels including network news shows of [[CBS]], [[American Broadcasting Company|ABC]], and [[NBC]], [[cable]] channels [[CNN]] and [[MSNBC]] as well as major newspapers, news-wires, and radio outlets, especially [[CBS News]], ''[[Newsweek]]'', the ''[[New York Times]]'', and [[National Public Radio]].<ref name=Mediaresearch.org>{{cite web|url=http://www.mediaresearch.org/biasbasics/biasbasics2admissions.asp|title=Addmissions of Liberal Bias|accessdate=2007-11-26}}</ref>

The academic study cited most frequently by critics of a "liberal media bias" in American journalism is The Media Elite,* a 1986 book co-authored by political scientists Robert Lichter, Stanley Rothman, and Linda Lichter. <ref>R. Lichter, S. Rothman, and L. Lichter, ''The Media Elite.'' New York: Hastings House, 1991.</ref> They surveyed journalists at national media outlets such as the New York Times, Washington Post, and the broadcast networks. The survey which found that most of these journalists were Democratic voters whose attitudes were well to the left of the general public on a variety of topics, including such hot-button social issues such as abortion, affirmative action, and gay rights. Then they compared journalists' attitudes to their coverage of controversial issues such as the safety of nuclear power, school busing to promote racial integration, and the energy crisis of the 1970s.

The authors concluded that journalists' coverage of controversial issues reflected their own attitudes, and the predominance of political liberals in newsrooms therefore pushed news coverage in a liberal direction. They presented this tilt as a mostly unconscious process of like-minded individuals projecting their shared assumptions onto their interpretations of reality. In principle this meant that newsrooms populated mainly by conservatives would produce a similarly skewed perspective toward the political right. Such accusations have been leveled against Fox News. At the time the study was embraced mainly by conservative columnists and politicians, who adopted the findings as "scientific proof" of liberal media bias.

ABC News political director [[Mark Halperin]] supports the concept of a liberal media bias, saying that as individuals most journalists, and news producers, hold liberal political views and that these views affect their reporting.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://hughhewitt.townhall.com/Transcript_Page.aspx?ContentGuid=45b91780-4b5d-48ff-85a3-5c03f3f6119f|title=hughhewitt.townhall.com/Transcript_Page.aspx?ContentGuid=45b91780-4b5d-48ff-85a3-5c03f3f6119f|accessdate=2007-03-28}}</ref> In a survey conducted by the [[American Society of Newspaper Editors]] in 1997, 61% of reporters stated that they were members of or shared the beliefs of the [[Democratic Party (United States)|Democratic Party]]. Only 15% say their beliefs were best represented by the [[Republican Party (United States)|Republican Party]].<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.asne.org/kiosk/reports/97reports/journalists90s/journalists.html|title=ASNE report|accessdate=2007-03-28}}</ref>

A [[2002]] study by [[Jim A. Kuypers]] of [[Dartmouth College]], Press Bias and Politics, investigated the issue of media bias. In this study of 116 mainstream US papers, including The New York Times, the Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, and the San Francisco Chronicle, Kuypers found that the mainstream press in America tends to favor liberal viewpoints.<ref name=Kuypers>[http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCulture.asp?Page=/Culture/archive/200209/CUL20020917b.html Professor's Study Shows Liberal Bias in News Media - 09/17/2002]</ref> They found that reporters expressing moderate or conservative points of view were often labeled as holding a minority point of view.<ref name=Kuypers>[http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCulture.asp?Page=/Culture/archive/200209/CUL20020917b.html Professor's Study Shows Liberal Bias in News Media - 09/17/2002]</ref> Kuypers said he found liberal bias in reporting a variety of issues including [[Race (classification of human beings)|race]], [[welfare reform]], [[environmental protection]], and [[gun control]].<ref name=Kuypers>[http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCulture.asp?Page=/Culture/archive/200209/CUL20020917b.html Professor's Study Shows Liberal Bias in News Media - 09/17/2002]</ref>

A poll of likely 2008 United States presidential election voters released on March 14, 2007 by [[Zogby International]] reports that 83% of those surveyed believe that there is a bias in the media, with 64% of respondents of the opinion that this bias favors liberals and 28% of respondents believing that this bias is conservative.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1262|title=www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1262|accessdate=2007-03-28}}</ref>

=== Watchdog groups ===

Conservative organizations [[Accuracy In Media]], [[Media Research Center]] and [[NewsBusters]] support the claim that the media has a liberal bias, and are dedicated, in some cases specifically, to publicizing the issue. The Media Research Center, for example, was founded with the specific intention to "prove ... that liberal bias in the media does exist and undermines traditional American values".<ref>[http://www.aim.org Accuracy In Media official website] - Accessed June 27, 2007.</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.mediaresearch.org/about/aboutwelcome.asp|title=www.mediaresearch.org/about/aboutwelcome.asp|accessdate=2007-03-28}}</ref>

=== Cited cases ===

==== Nixon and Agnew ====

In an [[editorial]] for ''[[The American Conservative]]'', [[Patrick Buchanan|Pat Buchanan]] wrote that the "the liberal media establishment"'s reporting on the [[Watergate scandal]] "played a central role in bringing down a president". Richard Nixon later complained, "I gave them a sword and they ran it right through me."<ref name=nixon>{{cite web|url=http://www.amconmag.com/2005_02_14/buchanan.html|title=www.amconmag.com/2005_02_14/buchanan.html|accessdate=2007-03-28}}</ref>

Nixon's Vice-President [[Spiro Agnew]] attacked the media in a series of speeches--two of the most famous having been written by White House aides [[William Safire]] and Buchanan himself --as "elitist" and "liberal."<ref name=nixon>{{cite web|url=http://www.amconmag.com/2005_02_14/buchanan.html|title=www.amconmag.com/2005_02_14/buchanan.html|accessdate=2007-03-28}}</ref>

==== Lewinsky Scandal ====

The breaking of the [[Lewinsky]] scandal by conservative [[Matt Drudge]], instead of ''[[Newsweek]]'', which originally had the story and did not report it, was cited by the Drudge and other conservative critics as an example of liberal media bias.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.bellaonline.com/articles/art32136.asp|title=www.bellaonline.com/articles/art32136.asp|accessdate=2007-03-28}}</ref>

=== Other allegations ===

[[Kenneth Tomlinson]], while chairman of the [[Corporation for Public Broadcasting]], commissioned a $10,000 government study into [[Bill Moyers]]' [[PBS]] program, "[http://www.pbs.org/now/ Now with Bill Moyers]" without informing the CPB board.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/02/arts/television/02public.html|title=www.nytimes.com/2005/05/02/arts/television/02public.html|accessdate=2007-03-28}}</ref>

Some board members stated that his actions were politically motivated.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/16/politics/16broadcast.html|title=www.nytimes.com/2005/11/16/politics/16broadcast.html|accessdate=2007-03-28}}</ref> Himself a frequent target of claims of bias (in this case, conservative bias), Tomlinson resigned from the CPB board on [[November 4]], [[2005]].

In February 2007, [[Charles Rust-Tierney]], the former head of the Virginia branch of the [[ACLU]] was arrested for possession of violent child pornography. According to [[Bill O'Reilly (commentator)|Bill O'Reilly]], the ''[[Washington Post]]'' was the only "major liberal news organization" to report the story. O'Reilly alleged that other news outlets would not report it because they believed it would hurt the "liberal agenda".<ref>{{cite web

|last=O'Reilly

|first=Bill

|title=A Journalistic Cover-up

|url=http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=19634

|date=March 3, 2007

|accessdate=2007-03-07}}

</ref>

=== Authors ===

Several conservative authors have written books on liberal bias in the media. Some examples include:

* [[John Stossel]] wrote ''Give Me a Break: How I Exposed Hucksters, Cheats, and Scam Artists and Became the Scourge of the Liberal Media'' in 2004 about what he alleged was a liberal bias in the established media.

* [[Bernard Goldberg]] wrote ''[[Bias (book)|Bias]]'' in 2001, in which he claimed CBS, his former employer, had a liberal bias.

* [[Bob Kohn]] wrote ''[[Journalistic Fraud]]'', a criticism of the ''[[New York Times]]''.

* [[Ann Coulter]] wrote ''[[Slander: Liberal Lies About the American Right]]'' in 2002, in which she claimed the American television and print news had a widespread liberal bias.

* [[Brian C. Anderson]] wrote ''[[South Park Conservatives|South Park Conservatives: The Revolt Against Liberal Media Bias]]''.

==Claims of a conservative bias==

<!-- If you change this, make the other definition match it. This helps keep the article NPOV.

It is a definition; it states what conservative bias is, and is has no mention of where it might exist.

-->

Conservative bias in the media is commonly thought to be the result of conservative principles and ideas influencing the coverage or selection of news stories.

Conservative media bias is claimed to exist for several reasons:

* '''[[Concentration of media ownership#United States|Media Concentration]]''': A handful ([[Disney]], [[CBS Corporation]], [[News Corporation]], [[TimeWarner]], and [[General Electric]]) of corporate [[conglomerate (company)|conglomerates]] own the majority of mass media outlets.{{Fact|date=March 2007}} Such a uniformity of ownership means that stories which might not be to the benefit of these large corporations may not be run.<ref>Eric Alterman, ''What Liberal Media?: The Truth About Bias and the News'', Basic Books, 2004, ISBN 0-465-00177-7 </ref>

* '''Capitalist Model''': In the United States the media is operated for profit, mostly funded through the sale of [[advertisements]]. This tends to drive news, commentary, and public affairs towards supporting industry and [[mercantilism]]. On the other hand state-owned media, such as the TV-channels RAI in Italy and ARD in Germany tend to favour their respective governments and their agendas.{{Fact|date=October 2007}} The capitalist model also creates a healthy competition for fair and quick news coverage, as well as investigative reports, such as the uncovering of the Watergate scandal.<ref>Ben Bagdikian, Media Monopoly</ref>

[[Rupert Murdoch]], the [[CEO]] of [[News Corporation]] (the parent of [[FOX News]]), self-identifies as a libertarian, while Richard Parsons, CEO of [[Time-Warner]], identifies as a liberal Republican. Both CEOs' campaign contributions heavily favor Republican candidates<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.newsmeat.com/billionaire_political_donations/Rupert_Murdoch.php|title=?}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.newsmeat.com/ceo_political_donations/Richard_Parsons.php|title=?}}</ref>.

[[Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting]] (FAIR), a self-described [[Progressivism|progressive]] [[media watch group]] has argued that accusations of liberal media bias are part of a conservative strategy, noting an article in the [[August 20]], [[1992]] ''[[Washington Post]]'', in which Republican party chair [[Richard Bond|Rich Bond]] compared journalists to referees in a sporting match. "If you watch any great coach, what they try to do is 'work the refs.' Maybe the ref will cut you a little slack next time."<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2552|title=www.fair.org/index.php?page=2552|accessdate=2007-03-28}}</ref>

=== Cited cases ===

==== Fox News ====

According to former FOX News producer [[Charlie Reina]], unlike the [[Associated Press|AP]], [[CBS]], or [[American Broadcasting Company|ABC]], FOX News's editorial policy is set from the top down, stating that "The roots of FOX News Channel's day-to-day on-air bias are actual and direct. They come in the form of an executive memo distributed electronically each morning, addressing what stories will be covered and, often, suggesting how they should be covered."<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCommentary.asp?Page=\Commentary\archive\200311\COM20031107b.html|title=www.cnsnews.com/ViewCommentary.asp?Page=\Commentary\archive\200311\COM20031107b.html|accessdate=2007-03-28}}</ref>

==== Televised political news talk shows ====

[[David Brock]], a former Republican speechwriter, finds conservative bias in television political talk. In Media Matters for America's 2006 survey of four televised political news talk shows, "If it's Sunday, It's Still Conservative", it is reported that all four major network Sunday-morning talk shows gave Republicans and conservatives significantly more airtime than Democrats and progressives during 2005 and 2006.<ref> http://mediamatters.org/items/200602140002 "If It's Sunday, It's Conservative: An analysis of the Sunday talk show guests on ABC, CBS, and NBC, 1997 - 2005",Media Matters for America, February 14, 2006 </ref>

=== Watchdog groups ===

A 1998 study from [[Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting|FAIR]] found that journalists are "mostly centrist in their political orientation";<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2447|title=www.fair.org/index.php?page=2447|accessdate=2007-03-28}}</ref> 30% considered themselves to the left on social issues compared to 9% on the right, while 11% considered themselves to the left on economic issues compared to 19% on the right. The report explained that since journalists considered themselves to be centrists, "perhaps this is why an earlier survey found that they tended to vote for Bill Clinton in large numbers." FAIR uses this study to support the claim that media bias is propagated down from the management, and that individual journalists are relatively neutral in their work.

=== Authors ===

Several authors have written books on conservative bias in the media, including:

* [[Eric Alterman]] wrote ''[[What Liberal Media?|What Liberal Media? The Truth About Bias and the News]]'', in which he disputes the belief in liberal media bias, and suggests that over-correcting for this belief resulted in conservative media bias.<ref>[http://www.ericalterman.com/work3.htm Eric Alterman - '''''The Book on Bush: How George W. (Mis)Leads America''''' (2004)<br>]</ref>

* Liberal humorist [[Al Franken]] wrote "[[Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them]]", in which he argues that mainstream media organizations have neither a liberal nor a conservative political bias, but there exists a right-wing media that seeks to promote conservative ideology rather than report the news.<ref>Al Franken. ''Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them: A Fair and Balanced Look at the Right''. Dutton, 2003. Pages 1-3.</ref>

* [[Jim Hightower]] in ''There's Nothing in the Middle of the Road but Yellow Stripes and Dead Armadillos'' (1997; ISBN 0-06-092949-9) disputes these claims.

* [[David Brock]] wrote "[[The Republican Noise Machine]]"

==Pro-government and power bias==

The pressure to create a stable, profitable business invariably distorts the kinds of news items reported, as well as the manner and emphasis in which they are reported, according to Professors Noam Chomsky and Edward Herman in their book "[[Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media]]."

In their book, Chomsky and Herman say that the pro-power bias occurs not as a result of conscious design but simply as a consequence of market selection: those businesses who favor profits over news quality survive, while those that present a more accurate picture of the world tend to become marginalized. They also say that several filters, such as the drive for advertising revenue and the dependency of mass media news outlets upon major sources of news, particularly the government, work to create a "[[propaganda model]]" of the mainstream media. To minimize the possibilities of lost revenue, therefore, outlets will tend to report news in a tone more favorable to the government and giving unfavorable news about the government less emphasis. The book and related works by the authors provide numerous examples of what they see as bias in the leading US media, most prominently in the New York Times.{{Fact|date=July 2007}}

An example of pro-corporate or establishment bias is alleged to be the marginalization of insurgent political candidates. According to [[Fairness and Accuracry in Reporting]], a Democratic candidate like John Edwards has been falsely maligned and has not been given coverage commensurate with his standing in presidential campaign coverage because his message questions corporate power.<ref>FAIR, December 21, 2007, "USA Today Squeezes Edwards Out of the Race," http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=3234 , also archived at http://www.commondreams.org/news2007/1221-03.htm </ref>

==Claimed effects of profit motive==

==="Infotainment"===

Academics such as McKay, Jamieson, and Hudson have described private U.S. media outlets as profit-driven. For the private media, profits are dependent on viewing figures, regardless of whether the viewers found the programs adequate or outstanding. The strong profit-making incentive of the American media leads them to seek a simplified format and uncontroversial position which will be adequate for the largest possible audience. The market mechanism only rewards numbers of viewers, not how informed the viewers were, how good the analysis was, or how impressed they were.

According to some, the profit-driven quest for high numbers of viewers, rather than high quality for viewers, has resulted in a slide from serious news and analysis to entertainment, sometimes called [[infotainment]]:

<blockquote> "Imitating the rhythm of sports reports, exciting live coverage of major political crises and foreign wars was now available for viewers in the safety of their own homes. By the late-1980s, this combination of information and entertainment in news programmes was known as infotainment." [Barbrook, Media Freedom, (London, Pluto Press, 1995) part 14] </blockquote>

===Oversimplification===

Kathleen Jamieson claims that most television news stories are made to fit into one of five categories<ref>Kathleen Jamieson, The interplay of influence, (Belmont, London, Wadsworth, 2000)</ref> :

*Appearance versus reality

*Little guys versus big guys

*Good versus evil

*Efficiency versus inefficiency

*Unique and bizarre events versus ordinary events.

In these five categories, Jamieson sees a tendency towards an unrealistic black/white mentality, in which the media simplifies the world into comfortingly easily understood opposites. She says the media provides an over-simplified skeleton of information which is more easily commercialised.

==Coverage of Iraq==

Concerns have been raised{{weasel-inline}} of insufficiently critical coverage of the activities of U.S. forces during the 2003 invasion and subsequent occupation of Iraq. However, the argument has also been made that coverage has been unfair to US forces, and has failed to send a message adequately supportive of US forces.

===Suggestions of insufficiently critical media coverage===

Some critics{{weasel-inline}} suggest that the US news media is extremely reluctant to criticize the conduct of American soldiers, for fear of upsetting their viewers and thus losing profits. This could hypothetically keep certain concerns over soldiers' conduct off the US political agenda.

Thus it has been often reported{{weasel-inline}} in European media, including countries involved in operations in Iraq, that a large minority of American soldiers and Marines in Iraq have been able to behave irresponsibly in Iraq, causing unnecessary deaths of civilians. At the same time, many believe {{weasel-inline}}that US forces have come under little US media scrutiny, except in the most extreme cases.

Even in the most extreme cases, such as the [[Haditha massacre]], US media coverage has been considerably less than in European countries such as the [[United Kingdom]].{{Fact|date=October 2007}}

The killing of [[Nicola Calipari]] by an American soldier, which Italian prosecutors are now classifying murder, received U.S. media coverage because the victim was an Italian Major-General. However, the killing fits a pattern of widespread unprovoked fatal incidents which has been suggested by most of the mainstream European media for some time (e.g. among many others, in the British [[The Guardian|Guardian newspaper]] and French [[Le Monde]] newspaper).

Another example of such a killing is the killing of British reporter [[Terry Lloyd]], who was (according to the report of the British [[coroner]] hearing the inquest into his death) unlawfully killed by US Marines in Iraq.

In February 2004, a [http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1167 study was released] by the national media watchdog group [[Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting|FAIR]]. According to the study, which took place during October of 2003, current or former government or military officials accounted for 76 percent of all 319 sources for news stories about Iraq which aired on network news channels.

On [[March 23]], [[2006]], under pressure from [[American Israel Public Affairs Committee|AIPAC]],<ref>[http://www.aipac.org/about_AIPAC/default.asp AIPAC]</ref> the US designated the [[Hezbollah]] affiliated media, [[Al-Nour]] Radio and [[Al-Manar]] TV station, as "[[terrorism|terrorist]] entities" through legislative language as well as support of a letter to President Bush signed by 51 senators.<ref>http://www.treas.gov/press/releases/js4134.htm</ref>

===Suggestions of overly critical media coverage===

Some critics believe that, on the contrary, the American media have been too critical of U.S. forces. [[Rick Mullen]], a former journalist, Vietnam veteran, and U.S. Marine Corps reserve officer, has suggested that American media coverage has been unfair, and has failed to send a message adequately supportive of U.S. forces. Mullen calls for a lesser reporting of transgressions by US forces (condemning "American media pouncing on every transgression"), and a more extensive reporting of US forces' positive actions, which Mullen feels are inadequately reported (condemning the media for "ignoring the legions of good and noble deeds by US and coalition forces"). Mullen compares critical media reports to the 9/11 terrorist attacks:

<blockquote> "I have got used to our American media pouncing on every transgression by U.S. Forces while ignoring the legions of good and noble deeds performed by U.S. and coalition forces in both Iraq and Afghanistan... This sort of thing is akin to the evening news focusing on the few bad things that happen in Los Angeles or London and ignoring the millions of good news items each day... I am sure that you are aware that it is not the enemy's objective to defeat us on the battlefield but to defeat our national will to prevail. That battle is fought in the living rooms of America and England and the medium used is the TV news and newspapers. The enemy is not stupid. As on 9/11, they plan to use our "systems" against us, the news media being the most important "system" in their pursuit to break our national will." [''Rick Mullen, Letter to ''[[The Times]]'', June 5 2006] <ref> This source can also be found online: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,59-2210973.html</ref> </blockquote>

==Alleged effects on elections==

Various critics, particularly Hudson, have shown concern at the link between the news media reporting and what they see as the trivialised nature of American elections.

Hudson <ref>Hudson, American Democracy in Peril: Eight Challenges to America’s Future (Washington, D.C., CQ Press, 2004)</ref> argues that America’s news media elections damage the democratic process.

He argues that elections are centered on candidates, whose advancement depends on funds, personality and sound-bites, rather than serious political discussion or policies offered by parties. His argument is that it is on the media which Americans are dependent for information about politics (this is of course true almost by definition) and that they are therefore greatly influenced by the way the media report, which concentrates on short sound-bites, gaffes by candidates, and scandals. The reporting of elections avoids complex issues or issues which are time-consuming to explain. Of course, important political issues are generally both complex and time-consuming to explain, so are avoided.

Hudson blames this style of media coverage, at least partly, for trivialised elections:

<blockquote> "The bites of information voters receive from both print and electronic media are simply insufficient for constructive political discourse… candidates for office have adjusted their style of campaigning in response to this tabloid style of media coverage… modern campaigns are exercises in image manipulation... Elections decided on sound bites, negative campaign commercials, and sensationalised exposure of personal character flaws provide no meaningful direction for government". <ref>Hudson, American Democracy in Peril: Eight Challenges to America’s Future (Washington, D.C., CQ Press, 2004) pp 195-6</ref> </blockquote>

==Bias in the comics==

The ''[[Doonesbury]]'' [[comic strip]], a topical daily cartoon, has often been accused of liberal bias. In 2004 a conservative letter writing campaign was successful in convincing Continental Features, a company that prints many Sunday comics sections, to refuse to print the strip, causing ''Doonesbury'' to disappear from the Sunday comics in 38 newspapers. Of the 38, only one editor, Troy Turner, executive editor of the ''Anniston Star'' in Alabama, continued to run the Sunday ''Doonesbury'', albeit necessarily in black and white. ''[[Doonesbury]]'' was briefly dropped from ''[[The Guardian]]'' (UK) in September 2005, but this decision was based on space issues brought about by the then recently adopted format change and the perceived unpopularity of the strip with the readership. An immediate negative response to its disappearance by many readers caused the strip to be swiftly reinstated.<ref> http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,,1569255,00.html "My Doonesbury Hell",The Guardian, September 14, 2005 </ref>

''Doonesbury'' is not the first cartoon to blur the distinction between the comics and editorial cartoons. ''[[Li'l Abner]]'' by [[Al Capp]] routinely parodied southern democrats through the character of Senator [[Jack S. Phogbound]]. ''[[Pogo]]'' by [[Walt Kelly]] caricaturized a wide range of political figures including [[Joseph McCarthy]], [[Richard Nixon]], [[Hubert Humphrey]], [[George Wallace]], [[Robert F. Kennedy]], and [[Eugene McCarthy]]. [[Little Orphan Annie]] espoused a strong anti-union pro-business stance in the story "Eonite" from 1935, where union agitators destroy a business that would have benefited the entire human race.

Modern comic strips routinely take political stands. ''[[Mallard Fillmore]]'' by Bruce Tinsley and ''[[Prickly City]]'' by Scott Stantis are both proudly conservative in their views. In addition to ''Doonesbury'', some believe that ''[[Non Sequitur (comic strip)|Non Sequitur]]'' and ''[[Opus]]'' promote liberal views.

==Research==

Steve Ansolabehere, Rebecca Lessem and Jim Snyder of the [[Massachusetts Institute of Technology]] analyze the political orientation of endorsements by U.S. newspapers;<ref> http://econ-www.mit.edu/faculty/download_pdf.php?id=1148 working paper version </ref> (the paper is forthcoming on the Quarterly Journal of Political Science). They find an upward trend in the average propensity to endorse a candidate, and in particular an incumbent one. There are also some changes in the average ideological slant of endorsements: while in the 1940s and in the 1950s there was a clear advantage to Republican candidates, this advantage continuously eroded in subsequent decades, to the extent that in the 1990s the authors find a slight Democrats' lead in the average endorsement choice.

Self-described as "the first successful attempt at objectively quantifying bias in a range of media outlets and ranking them accordingly,<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.polisci.ucla.edu/faculty/groseclose/Media.Bias.pdf|title=www.polisci.ucla.edu/faculty/groseclose/Media.Bias.pdf|format=PDF|accessdate=2007-03-28}}</ref> a study by political scientists Tim Groseclose of UCLA and Jeff Milyo of the University of Missouri at Columbia, both of whom have written for conservative [[think tanks]] ([[American Enterprise Institute]]), advocacy groups ([[Federalist Society]]), and periodicals ([[The American Spectator]]),<ref name="Boehlert">Boehlert, Eric. ''Lapdogs: How the Press Rolled Over for Bush'', Free Press, 2006. ISBN 0-7432-8931-5</ref> was published in December 2005 in the [[Quarterly Journal of Economics]]. The study's stated purpose was to document the range of bias among news outlets.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.newsroom.ucla.edu/page.asp?RelNum=6664|title=www.newsroom.ucla.edu/page.asp?RelNum=6664|accessdate=2007-03-28}}</ref> The research concluded that of the major 20 news outlets studied "18 scored left of the average U.S. voter, with ''[[CBS Evening News]]'', ''[[The New York Times]]'' and ''[[The Los Angeles Times]]'' ranking second, third and fourth most liberal behind the news pages of ''[[The Wall Street Journal]]'', while only the [[Fox News]] "Special Report With Brit Hume" and ''[[The Washington Times]]'' scored right of the average U.S. voter." The study also showed that the [[Drudge Report]] was "left of center". In this study, "left" and "liberal" are treated as synonyms, and are identified with think tanks cited by Congressional members of the [[Democratic Party (United States)|Democratic Party]], while "right" is identified with think tanks cited by Congressional members of the [[Republican Party (United States)|Republican Party]]. The report also states, however, that the news media show a remarkable degree of centrism, since all but one of the outlets studied are, from an ideological point of view, between the average Democrat and average Republican in Congress. The methods used to calculate this bias have been shown to posses faults as explained by [[Mark Liberman]], a professor of Computer Science and the Director of [[Linguistic Data Consortium]] at the [[University of Pennsylvania]].<ref name="Language Log">{{cite web| last = Liberman| first = Mark| title = Multiplying ideologies considered harmful| publisher = Language Log|date=2005-12-23| url = http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/002724.html| accessdate = 2006-11-06}}</ref><ref name="Language Log.">{{cite web| last = Liberman| first = Mark| title = Linguistics, politics, mathematics| publisher = Language Log|date=2005-12-22| url = http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/002723.html| accessdate = 2006-11-06}}</ref> Prof. Liberman states that the model chosen leads to "very implausible psychological claims, for which no evidence is presented." and concludes by saying he thinks "that many if not most of the complaints directed against G&M are motivated in part by ideological disagreement -- just as much of the praise for their work is motivated by ideological agreement. It would be nice if there were a less politically fraught body of data on which such modeling exercises could be explored."<ref name="Language Log">{{cite web| last = Liberman| first = Mark| title = Multiplying ideologies considered harmful| publisher = Language Log|date=2005-12-23| url = http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/002724.html| accessdate = 2006-11-06}}</ref>

John Lott and Kevin Hassett of the conservative think tank [[American Enterprise Institute]] studied the coverage of economic news by looking at a panel of 389 U.S. newspapers from 1991 to 2004, and at a subsample of the two ten newspapers and the Associated Press from 1985 to 2004.<ref>Lott, John R. and Hassett, Kevin A. ([[October 19]], [[2004]]) ''Is Newspaper Coverage of Economic Events Politically Biased?'' {{SSRN|588453}}</ref> For each release of official data about a set of economic indicators, the authors analyze how newspapers decide to report on them, as reflected by the tone of the related headlines. The idea is to check whether newspapers display partisan bias, by giving more positive or negative coverage to the same economic figure, as a function of the political affiliation of the incumbent President. Controlling for the economic data being released, the authors find that there are between 9.6 and 14.7% fewer positive stories when the incumbent President is a Republican.

Riccardo Puglisi of the [[Massachusetts Institute of Technology]] looks at the editorial choices of the ''New York Times'' from 1946 to 1997.<ref> http://ssrn.com/abstract=573801, (link to the abstract) </ref> He finds that the ''Times'' displays Democratic partisanship, with some [[watchdog]] aspects. This is the case, because during presidential campaigns the Times systematically gives more coverage to Democratic topics of civil rights, health care, labor and social welfare, but only when the [[incumbent]] president is a Republican. These topics are classified as Democratic ones, because Gallup polls show that on average U.S. citizens think that Democratic candidates would be better at handling problems related to them. According to Puglisi, in the post-1960 period the Times displays a more symmetric type of watchdog behaviour, just because during presidential campaigns it also gives more coverage to the typically Republican issue of Defense when the incumbent President is a Democrat, and less so when the incumbent is a Republican.

==Additional information==

According to [[Reporters Without Borders]] the media in the United States lost a great deal of freedom between the 2004 and 2006 indices, citing the [[Judith Miller (journalist)|Judith Miller]] case and similar cases and laws restricting the [[Protection of sources|confidentiality of sources]] as the main factors.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=17430&Valider=OK|title=www.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=17430&Valider=OK|accessdate=2007-03-28}}</ref> Additional reasoning is that reporters who question the American "[[war on terror]]" are regarded as suspicious.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.rsf.org/rubrique.php3?id_rubrique=639|title=www.rsf.org/rubrique.php3?id_rubrique=639|accessdate=2007-03-28}}</ref> The United States is now ranked 53rd out of 168 countries, placing it near [[Japan]] and [[Uruguay]]. However, they are ranked below all but one [[European Union]] country ([[Poland]]) and below most [[OECD]] countries.

According to [[Noam Chomsky]], American commercial media encourage controversy within a narrow range of opinion, in order to give the impression of open debate, but do not report on news that falls outside that range.

According to David Niven, of [[Ohio State University]], research shows that American media show bias on only two issues, race and gender equality.<ref> David Niven, ''Tilt?: The Search for Media Bias'', Praeger Publishers, 2002, ISBN 0-275-97577-0 </ref>

Accusers of liberal or conservative bias alike typically ignore the dictionary meanings of those words (as do modern political parties). In fact, in the current political discourse, the words seem to have meaning that shifts depending on point of view. The [[New Oxford American Dictionary|Oxford American Dictionary]] defines "liberal" in the political sense as "favoring democratic reform and individual liberty" and "conservative" in the political sense as "favoring private enterprise and freedom from government control".

==References==

==See also==

*[[Objectivity (journalism)]]

*[[Propaganda]]

*[[Hostile media effect]]

*[[Group attribution error]]

*[[Propaganda Model]]

*[[Cultural bias]]

*[[American political commentators]]

*[[Liberal elite]]

*[[Culture of fear]]

*[[Missing Pretty Girl Syndrome|Mass Media Coverage of Missing Pretty Girls]]

*[[Media coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict]]

*[[2003 invasion of Iraq media coverage]]

=== Organizations monitoring bias ===

====Non-partisan====

* [http://www.reportingwars.com/ Reporting Wars - Exposing Bias in the Media]

* [http://www.factcheck.org/ FactCheck.Org - Holding Politicians Accountable]

* [http://www.politmus.com/ Politmus - Crowdsourced media monitor]

====Liberal====

* [[Media Matters for America]]

* [[Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting]]

* [[Center for Media and Democracy]]

====Conservative====

* [http://www.TheMediaReport.com TheMediaReport.com]

* [[Media Research Center]]

* [[Accuracy in Media]]

== Examples/sources ==

#[http://www.mediaresearch.org/realitycheck/1999/fax19991115.asp Extracts from Agnew's talk here]

#Lichter, S.R., Lichter, L.S. and Rothman, S., 1992. ''Watching America: What Television Tells Us About Our Lives. ''

#[[Eric Alterman]], author of ''What Liberal Media? The Truth About Bias and the News'' is one of those who argues against any significant liberal bias. Reviewer John Moe sums up Alterman's views:

#:"The conservatives in the newspapers, television, talk radio, and the Republican party are lying about liberal bias and repeating the same lies long enough that they've taken on a patina of truth. Further, the perception of such a bias has cowed many media outlets into presenting more conservative opinions to counterbalance a bias, which does not, in fact, exist." ISBN 0-465-00176-9

#''[[Media Imperialism]]'' is a critical theory regarding the perceived effects of globalization on the world's media. It is closely tied to the similar theory of cultural imperialism.

#:"As multinational media conglomerates grow larger and more powerful many believe that it will become increasingly difficult for small, local media outlets to survive. A new type of imperialism will thus occur, making many nations subsidiary to the media products of some of the most powerful countries or companies. Significant writers and thinkers in this area include [[Ben Bagdikian]], [[Noam Chomsky]], [[Edward S. Herman]] and [[Robert McChesney]]."

#''[[Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media]],'' a book by [[Edward S. Herman]] and [[Noam Chomsky]].

#:..."the pressure to create a stable, profitable business invariably distorts the kinds of news items reported, as well as the manner and emphasis in which they are reported. This occurs not as a result of conscious design but simply as a consequence of market selection: those businesses who happen to favor profits over news quality survive, while those that present a more accurate picture of the world tend to become marginalized."

# A [[UCLA]] political scientist released a peer-reviewed study which concluded that, in general, "almost all major media outlets tilt to the left." [http://www.newsroom.ucla.edu/page.asp?RelNum=6664] Self-described by UCLA as "the first successful attempt at objectively quantifying bias in a range of media outlets and ranking them", it used a somewhat complicated pattern to figure out the political center of the electorate and based the positions of the media on that center. As the first peer-reviewed study to use this particular measure of political position, the study's claims have been contested due to some of its methodogy. [http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/001169.html]

#:"Our results show a strong liberal bias. All of the news outlets except Fox News’ Special Report and the Washington Times received a score to the left of the average member of Congress. And a few outlets, including the New York Times and CBS Evening News, were closer to the average Democrat in Congress than the center. These findings refer strictly to the news stories of the outlets. That is, we omitted editorials, book reviews, and letters to the editor from our sample." [http://www.polisci.ucla.edu/faculty/groseclose/Media.Bias.pdf]

== Bibliography ==

*''[[What Liberal Media?]]'' ([[Eric Alterman]])

*''Manufacturing Consent - The Political Economy of the Mass Media'' ([[Noam Chomsky]] and [[Edward S. Herman]]) ISBN

*''[[Bias (book)|Bias: A CBS Insider Exposes How the Media Distort the News]]'' ([[Bernard Goldberg]]) ISBN 0-06-052084-1

*''[[Arrogance (book)|Arrogance: Rescuing America From the Media Elite]]'' ([[Bernard Goldberg]]) ISBN 0-446-53191-X

*''[[Benjamin Franklin: An American Life]]'' ([[Walter Isaacson]]), Simon & Schuster, 2003.

*''[http://www.amazon.com/dp/0275977595 Press Bias and Politics: How the Media Frame Controversial Issues]'' (Jim Kuypers) ISBN 0-275-97759-5

*[[Media and ethnicity]]

==External links==

*[http://www.ignoranceisntbliss.com Ignorance Is not Bliss ''"They Want Your Soul"'']

*[http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=101 What's wrong with the news?]

*[http://social.chass.ncsu.edu/jouvert/v613/sri.htm Media content analysis]

*[http://www.thememoryhole.org The Memory Hole] - site for the preservation of FOIAed documents and material removed from government websites

*[http://www.mapinc.org/ The Media Awareness Project] - site about drug reform

*[http://www.honestreporting.com Purported anti-Israel bias]

*[http://fair.org/extra/0103/not-stones.html Purported pro-Israel bias]

*[http://www.cjr.org/issues/2004/6/mooney-science.asp Blinded By Science: How ‘Balanced’ Coverage Lets the Scientific Fringe Hijack Reality]

*[http://www.medialens.org MediaLens]

*[http://www.cnnexposed.com Cnn Exposed: Dedicated to the CNN Media Bias]

===Non-partisan===

*[http://www.amazon.com/dp/0275977595 Press bias and politics: How the media frame controversial issues] - study from Dartmouth College, claimed liberal media bias

*[http://people-press.org/ Pew Research Center for the People and the Press] - studies of attitudes toward the media

*[http://www.polisci.ucla.edu/faculty/groseclose/Media.Bias.8.htm "A measure of media bias"] - working paper attempting to statistically analyze media bias

*[http://www.debatepolitics.com/bias-media/ DebatePolitics.com] A non-biased political debate forum addressing Bias in the Media.

*[http://www.liberalsvsconservatives.com Liberals Versus Conservatives] A political forum where liberals, conservatives and other affiliations can debate local and world politics.

===Liberal point of view===

*[http://mediamatters.org/ Media Matters for America] - site claiming to expose conservative bias

*[http://www.fair.org Fairness and accuracy in reporting] - claimed conservative media bias

*[http://www.bartcop.com/libmedia.htm The myth of the liberal media]

===Conservative point of view===

*[http://www.aim.org/ Accuracy in Media] - site claiming to expose liberal bias

*[http://www.mediaresearch.org/ Media Research Center] - site claiming to expose liberal bias

*[http://www.fairpress.org/ Fairpress.org (Citizens Coalition for Responsible Media)] - site claiming to expose liberal bias

[[Category:Media bias controversies]]

[[Category:Propaganda in the United States]]