Talk:Media bias

Skip to table of contents

This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Media High‑importance 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.MediaWikipedia:WikiProject MediaTemplate:WikiProject MediaMedia High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Media To-do List: Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Cleanup : Media influence, Video game culture, Sound bite NPOV : Content (media and publishing) Verify : Multimedia, Alternative media, Alternative newspaper Other : Answer requests for comments Journalism High‑importance 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.JournalismWikipedia:WikiProject JournalismTemplate:WikiProject JournalismJournalism High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Philosophy: Logic Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Associated task forces: /  Logic

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Media bias article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives (index): 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 3 months

You are an administrator, so you may disregard the message below You are seeing this because of the limitations of } and } You can hide this message box by adding the following to a new line of your common.css page: .ECR-edit-request-warning Stop: Parts of this page are restricted Parts of this article are related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is subject to the extended-confirmed restriction. You are not an extended-confirmed user, so you must not edit or discuss this topic anywhere on Wikipedia except to make an edit request. (Additional details are in the message box just below this one.)

Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. Parts of this article relate to the Arab–Israeli conflict, a contentious topic. The following restrictions apply to everyone editing this article: All participants in formal discussions (RfCs, RMs, etc) within the area of conflict are urged to keep their comments concise, and are limited to 1,000 words per discussion. Citations and quotations (whether from sources, Wikipedia articles, Wikipedia discussions, or elsewhere) do not count toward the word limit. You must be logged-in and extended-confirmed to edit or discuss this topic on any page (except for making edit requests, provided they are not disruptive) You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours (except in limited circumstances) Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. If it is unclear which parts of the page are related to this contentious topic, the content in question should be marked within the wiki text by an invisible comment. If no comment is present, please ask an administrator for assistance. If in doubt it is better to assume that the content is covered.

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 13 January 2022 and 16 April 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): BriarGornall, Yufei Z (article contribs). This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 12 January 2022 and 22 April 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Chloe Hongyi Wu (article contribs).

NOTE: This is the general article on media bias; avoid adding region-specific information here. Instead add such information to the appropriate article, such as Media bias in the United States, Media bias in South Asia, Media coverage of the Arab-Israeli conflict, etc.

Virtually this entire article is out of date given what has occurred in the last 20 years. Media bias is now hardwired into the infrastructure of the US media ecosystem with rulings like FCC v. Prometheus Radio Project. Once again, we see a nebulous, ambiguous, "media bias just happens, and nobody knows why" kind of whitewash article that is so common on this site. We know why it happens, we know who causes it, and we know who is primarily responsible. Viriditas (talk) 00:32, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is new to me - https://www.newsweek.com/fairness-meter So Newsweek solicits ratings of "Left" "Right" or "Fair" for each story from invidivual readers? What is the point? So they can tailor thier reporting to suit the readers? I though "echo chambers" were supposed to be a bad thing. 71.185.232.241 (talk) 05:24, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seeking consensus for adding following sentence to the end of the Politics section (responding to reversion, not seeking to change currently existing sentences, changed reference):
Political bias in media can be evaluated relative to the median voter and can vary by topic.Ref:"THE BALANCED US PRESS: The Balanced US Press", Journal of the European Economic Association, 2015 HudecEmil (talk) 18:32, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

no objection, adding reference to article HudecEmil (talk) 17:53, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It does seem like the "Stuart A. Wright in 1997" paragraph constitutes WP:UNDUE weight for one person's perspective on media bias, when there are so many other viewpoints out there. Academic researchers, media outlets, and so on...

The big-picture takeaway from Wright is obviously worth retaining, but we should trim the paragraph slightly. It could easily be cut by a sentence or two without losing much substance. Just food for thought! Doctorstrange617 (talk) 14:53, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Unless there are any objections, I'm happy to try trimming it. Let me know y'all Doctorstrange617 (talk) 19:05, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]