Talk:Media bias: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 15:24, 21 March 2006

Because of their length, the previous discussions on this page have been archived. If further archiving is needed, see Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.

Previous discussions:

Archive 1 (30 March 2001 to 3 October 2005):

Module:WikiProject banner/doc
This page is a soft redirect.

This topic contains controversial issues, some of which have reached a consensus for approach and neutrality, and some of which may be disputed. Before making any potentially controversial changes to the article, please carefully read the discussion-page dialogue to see if the issue has been raised before, and ensure that your edit meets all of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Please also ensure you use an accurate and concise edit summary.

Template:Cleanup taskforce closed

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)[reply]

Pompous style

The style of this page is too pompous. Exchanges 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)[reply]

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

UCLA study

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Revision as of 15:24, 21 March 2006 edit 195.8.190.39 (talk) CBC ← Previous edit		Revision as of 15:24, 21 March 2006 edit undo 195.8.190.39 (talk) →CBC Next edit →
Line 48:		Line 48:
	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."		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".		"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". --[[User:195.8.190.39\|195.8.190.39]] 15:24, 21 March 2006 (UTC)