Talk:Media bias in the United States

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 13 January 2020 and 5 May 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Amhumphr. Peer reviewers: Teeverha.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 00:47, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 2 April 2020 and 20 June 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Stacyle5. Peer reviewers: Natali3.Aguil4r.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 00:47, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Archive of prior discussions
Archive 1 through 2005 Archive 2 through June 2006

Poll showing 84% believe mainstream media is threat to democracy in U.S.
Should anything from the sources below be included in the article?

https://www.newsnationnow.com/politics/poll-media-threat-democracy

https://www.mediaite.com/news/new-poll-media-bigger-threat-to-democracy-than-electoral-college-supreme-court-joe-biden-or-even-donald-trump

https://twitter.com/AndyGrewal/status/1582580843624550400 Yodabyte (talk) 00:33, 25 October 2022 (UTC)


 * @Yodabyte I think this should be included, as long as you can find reliable sources for this poll. Loltardo (talk) 22:27, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Introduction to Political Communication
— Assignment last updated by Nikkig1221 (talk) 04:18, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Relevance of new additions
, I recognize that you are editing this page as part of a course, but I question the wisdom of several of your recent edits (1, 2, and 3). In the second and third edits, you simply restate information that is already present in the paragraph, creating busywork for editors and readers alike. You're also not using sources properly--the first edit has no sources, and the second and third cite sources that, while useful in some contexts, do not actually support the specific claims you are adding: in edit 2, you wrote This type of media served as propaganda for and against the civil rights movement, but the cited source does not mention "propaganda" one way or another. In edit 3, you wrote Women have also been targeted through media, allowing for misogyny and sexism to take place in media, if even represented but the cited source makes no mention of women being "targeted" (in addition to being written as an advice column of dubious appropriateness for encyclopedic use) or that this is the source of misogyny. Altogether, these edits give the impression that you're citing sources that are related to the content you are adding, but that you're actually just writing content based on your own interpretations of what you have read on this topic across multiple sources. While this is how many a student paper is written, it isn't an appropriate method for Wikipedia. signed,Rosguill talk 21:42, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Tech company censorship under Liberal subheading
I propose updating the following text regarding liberal censorship by tech companies given more recent information coming out from reliable sources about a federal Appeals Court ruling that the Biden admin coerced and threatened social media companies to take down conservative social media content about COVID-19, the 2020 U.S. Presidential election, Hunter Biden's laptop, and other topics, likely amounting to a violation of the First Amendment.

''Tech companies and social media sites have been accused of censorship by some conservative groups, although there is little or no evidence to support these claims. The editorial board of the conservative Washington Examiner argued that Facebook and Twitter temporarily limiting the spread of the Hunter Biden laptop controversy on their platforms while fact-checkers reviewed it, even though parts of the story eventually turned out to be accurate, "proves Big Tech's bias".''

RS:

https://www.npr.org/2023/09/08/1197971952/biden-administration-fifth-circuit-ruling-social-media-injunction

https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2023/09/08/biden-administration-coerced-facebook-court-rules/70800723007/

https://www.cnn.com/2023/09/08/politics/biden-administration-social-media-lawsuit/index.html

Loltardo (talk) 22:39, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Introduction to Political Communication
— Assignment last updated by Tmorgan106 (talk) 18:44, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Move article to 'Media criticism in the United States'?
This seems to be a more precise title that encompasses political bias, conflict of interest, reliability, and other forms of media criticism in the U.S. Superb Owl (talk) 23:34, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Examples removed from 'Media Bias' article
These US-specific examples did not have a natural place in the Media bias article, so I'm posting them here in case someone wants to include them in this article. They are somewhat old studies and may not be very useful.

TV
A 2007 joint study by the Joan Shorenstein Center on Press, Politics and Public Policy at Harvard University and the Project for Excellence in Journalism found that people see media bias in television news media such as CNN. Although both CNN and Fox were perceived in the study as not being centrist, CNN was perceived as being more liberal than Fox. Moreover, the study's findings concerning CNN's perceived bias are echoed in other studies.

Newspapers
Riccardo Puglisi of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology looked at the editorial choices of the New York Times from 1946 to 1997, finding that issues salient to the out-of-power party received more coverage, with slightly more coverage of democratic issues during Republican presidencies than vice versa.

Steve Ansolabehere, Rebecca Lessem and Jim Snyder of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (2006) analyzed the political orientation of endorsements by U.S. newspapers resulting in a slight democratic advantage in the 1990s.

A 2004 study by the conservative American Enterprise Institute study found less positive tones of headlines when an incumbent president was Republican.

A 1998 survey by the progressive nonprofit Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting concluded that a majority of Washington-based reporters were relatively liberal on social policies and were significantly to the right of the public on economic, labor, health care and foreign policy issues. Superb Owl (talk) 18:06, 12 March 2024 (UTC)