Talk:Liberal bias

Archive

• Talk:Liberal bias/Quotes

Peter Jennings?

In The Tipping Point, Gladwell cites a study (Mullen, et al, "Newscasters facial expressions and voting behavior of viewers: Can a smile elect a President?", Journal of Personality and Social Psychology (1986), 51, 291-295), that suggests that not only is Peter Jennings not liberal, but that he has a record of smiling and being more positive when discusssing Republican candidates, and that viewers of ABC on the whole voted more Republican than viewers of other networks, on average, as a result. This probably belongs in the article somewhere, and it seems to make including Peter Jennings in the list of liberals rather odd.

Rewrite requested

This page needs a serious rework. It's entirely anecdotal, and tries to cover an enormous subject in a few cliches (kind of like a bad media report, really).

Lets take some examples. The Ebert quote appears to be central to this, but in what way is this liberal bias? It's bad reporting; it's a good example of a reporter following their agenda rather than trying to find the facts, but is the agenda that the reporter was trying to push more or less liberal than the one Ebert suggests? After all, the point that Ebert was trying to make was made even more successfully by Michael Moore. Is Moore a conservative all of a sudden?

To give this an international perspective, let me tell you than whenever someone from another country who is familiar with US news reporting hears accusations of 'liberal bias' we fall over laughing. US media is the most right-wing of any democracy. The US news media slavishly followed everything the administration said about the War on Iraq. Compare that with every other country, even those that supported the war. Why did no US news outlet publish stories of the attempt to remove voters from the Florida lists in 2000, but the BBC did? DJ Clayworth 15:03, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Agreed, the article in its current form is of horrible quality. The short paragraph on liberal bias in Media bias is way better: more factual, and neutral. IMHO liberal bias could just as well be deleted and the valuable content (if there is any) moved to media bias. Otherwise we'll have to start conservative bias, progressive bias, US bias, Taiwan bias, etc. for every entity in existence. --snoyes 15:13, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I find it dubious to say that the Tom Brokaw news story spiking is an example of liberal bias. It can be just as easily claimed that it is an example of conservative bias, as the reporter (by his/her questioning) was suggesting censorship of the media as a remedy for school shooting. I'd say that media censorship is perhaps a more conservative value than a liberal one, but maybe I'm wrong. A third possible interpretation is that it is a money-oriented bias: Why would they want to air a viewpoint that in effect advocates something antagonistic to their reason for existence (reporting news). Also, why did you remove that sentence (you know which one)? --snoyes 15:08, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Maybe I'm scraping the bottom of the barrel a bit too hard, looking for examples told by liberals about spiking and then (wrongly) assuming this proves liberal bias. Please forgive me, and let me retreat into a dignified silence for a while, while you all repair the damage. :-( --Uncle Ed 15:17, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I hope you're not suggesting that I/we (the critics) don't want you to edit Liberal bias, we're just pointing out ways to make the article better. --snoyes 15:21, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I'm increasingly liking the idea of just making this a redirect. Media bias is a lot better than this, and the only thing I found here that is not there is some of the book references (which would be easy to add) and the Spiro Agnew speech (the organisation referenced there is definitely not neutral about liberal bias). DJ Clayworth 15:48, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I support this, I'd just like Ed's input as well. When the different sections (liberal & conservative bias) are large enough in media bias, they can always be spun off to their own articles. I would just not like to be accused of censorship because of changing liberal bias to redirect to media bias, but rather this must be a consensus decision. --snoyes 15:55, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I had a go at this article and wasn't so happy with it; I wouldn't object to seeing this redirected. -- Viajero 17:27, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)

If anyone thinks they can do the merge -- fairly -- then go ahead and try. Just please delay the REDIRECT until the merge is complete.

On the other hand, I worry that doing the merge too early may discourage writers who perceive a liberal bias and thus want to write about it.

The media bias article, which I just read, makes it seem like journalists are aware of the problem, but it's not that big a deal and they've got a handle on it. After all, media bias is being "studied" at universities, and any tendency toward a "liberal" bias is undoubtedly counteracted by the "conservative" bias attributed to corporate ownership pressures.

I think it's too early to consider reducing the liberal bias to a mere redirect. The other article, media bias, is unsatisfactory in itself. --Uncle Ed 18:40, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)

---

anyone know how to do the footnote thingie? Is it like [foot#2] or what? --Uncle Ed 20:04, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Hmm, no idea. Wikipedia:Footnotes doesn't say that it is actually possible. This is the best I could come up with: [1]? --snoyes 20:19, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)

---

God, these articles on controversial topics that devolve into a polemical essay by one side, followed by a refuting polemical essay by the other side, are tiresome. Why does this topic deserve its own article, anyway? And shouldn't it be "Liberal bias in the U.S. media", or some such? john 08:04, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Well, it's an important topic--we've studied it in my upper level media classes. As far as it goes, you're right, this is not Wikipedia's finest hour. I'd support a move, but only if we kept the resulting redirect--"liberal bias" is the much more common phrase. Meelar 08:09, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I agree that it's an important topic. The problem is when articles about controversial subjects are written by someone who is ideologically committed to one side of the controversy, and when those who disagree with them, instead of arguing with the article as a whole, are content to add a section at the bottom expressing their disagreement. Ideally, an article about a controversial subject should be from the perspective of a somewhat detached observer, looking at, and reporting accurately, the arguments of both sides. It should not simply be "the argument of one side" followed by "the argument of the other side." An article ought to look as if it was written by one person, even though (obviously) it was not. I'm not sure what the best approach for this article is, but it clearly shouldn't take for granted that "liberal bias" is a real phenomenon, because that's in dispute. It should report on what people who say there is liberal bias say, and report on what people who say there is not liberal bias say, but the narrative voice itself shouldn't be taking sides. john 08:26, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Another point, discussed in December, is that this stuff should really go under media bias. If Ed Poor thinks that that article currently doesn't express arguments as to media bias well, he should have tried to work on making that article better, instead of making up an entirely new article in order to give his POV free reign (I mean, that examples section was perhaps the most egregious POV I've ever seen on Wikipedia, and I've been involved in arguments over Polish place names.) john 08:31, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)

fairpress.org

What is fairpress.org? What kind of organization is it? I know what the MRC and FAIR are, but I have no idea what this is. john 01:29, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I donno either, I just generally dislike removing external links. Lets look into it. Sam Spade 01:34, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Liberal bias in liberal bias?

Lines like "...and point to the lack of convincing evidence of a 'liberal media' and much evidence of a conservative bias" and "...both the print and broadcast media survive from advertising revenues, which in turn makes them beholden above all to large corporations" both seem to have, ironically enough, a liberal bias to them.

The first suggests that claims of a conservative bias are more accurate than claims of a liberal bias, and the second states - as fact - that the broadcast media is "beholden above all to large corporations". Those are two very POV lines, in my opinion, and I don't think they're appropriate for an article on this subject. Beginning 20:36, Jul 29, 2004 (UTC)

I removed or rephrased both sentences.--Neutrality 20:45, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

This article is dreadfully slanted. Does anyone dispute a pro-democrat bias in the US media? If so, who? I have seen surveys of journalists, reporters and anchormen, and it was outrageously tilted away from republican or independant values. I'll come up w some statistics shortly. Sam [Spade] 17:55, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Yes, plenty of people dispute a pro-democrat bias, including, but not limited to, the reporters themselves. There's never been any convincing showing in the political science literature one way or the other, and the general consensus amongst political scientists is that any bias is completely dwarfed by other biases (like, for instance, the bias towards an interesting story, the tendency to see all political stories through preset "frames", etc.). I'll read the article more carefully and work on it, but this is my initial reaction. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 17:59, 2004 Aug 10 (UTC)

Facts

From the June 4, 2004, Chicago Sun-Times: "According to a new survey [by the nonpartisan Pew Research Center], only 12 percent of local reporters, editors and media executives describe themselves as conservatives, while twice as many say they're liberal. At national news organizations, the gap is wider----7 percent conservative vs. 34 percent liberal."1 In reality the situation is even more unbalanced than those statistics indicate. In that Pew study, 54 percent of news people self-described themselves as "moderate," as neither liberal nor conservative. However, as other statistics in this study suggest, many of these so-called moderates are closet liberals. For example, a stunning 88 percent of journalists believe society should approve of homosexuality while only around half of Americans believe that. And as syndicated columnist George Will once noted, about 90 percent of news reporters, editors, and producers vote for Democrats not Republicans.2

CBS News' Andy Rooney, discussing Bernard Goldberg's book Bias, which argues that the dominant media are biased in the liberal direction, on CNN's "Larry King Live" in June 2002: "There is just no question that I, among others [in the media], have a liberal bias. I mean, I'm consistently liberal in my opinions. And I think...Dan [Rather] is transparently liberal. Now, he may not like to hear me say that....But I think he should be more careful."3

Journalist Charles Krauthammer: "The nonpartisan Center for Media and Public Affairs found...that TV coverage of the new GOP Congress in early 1995 was overwhelmingly negative: 68 percent negative evaluations versus 32 percent positive. (Dan Rather, on CBS, offered this typical description of the House GOP agenda: 'to demolish or damage [not, to fix] government aid programs, many of them designed to help children and the poor.')"4

Roger Ebert: "I agree that Hollywood movies tend toward the liberal agenda, because artistic and creative types in general tend to be liberal."5

U.S. News & World Report's John Leo: "Journalists are increasingly reluctant to report negative news about minorities or women's causes....The upshot of this is soft and caring coverage of favored [liberal] groups [and their causes], with certain stories mostly ruled out of bounds [i.e., censored]--the hyperaggressive side of the gay rights movement, for instance, or anything that might embarrass the cause of abortion rights."6

Chicago Tribune columnist Stephen Chapman: "Liberal journalists--in other words, most journalists--seem to assume that conservatives rise out of bed every morning with no thought but to do whatever they can to make the world worse. They are never given the presumption of pure intentions. Selfless idealism is taken to be the exclusive preserve of those on the other [liberal] end of the political spectrum."7

U.S. News & World Report's Douglas Stanglin: "The three major television networks gave Bill Clinton better coverage during the recent [1996] campaign than they gave Bob Dole. That's the conclusion of an upcoming report by Washington's [nonpartisan] Center for Media and Public Affairs, which...found that 50 percent of the stories on Clinton were positive in tone, compared with only 33 percent for Dole."8

Even Dan "Mr. Liberal" Rather, in a moment of candor, has admitted that "American journalism...is increasingly straying from its mission of public service and from its standards of fairness, accuracy and integrity."9 (The very pro-homosexual Chicago Tribune had this to say about Rather: "Rather...for years has fended off accusations that he has a liberal bias,...[fended off] criticism that he has a liberal, pro-Democrat bias....Well, let's be clear on that. Rather deserves it. In spades."10)

Chicago Sun-Times's Raymond Coffey: "Much of what is going on in this left-right labeling [by many members of the dominant media is]...misleading. And consciously so, in my view."11 (Examples of the kind of labeling being referred to are "open-minded," "far-Right," "extremist," etc. For instance, some reporters biasedly describe liberals as "progressive" instead of, say, "reactionary.")

"Time magazine columnist Hugh Sidey told a luncheon crowd at the Illinois Manufacturers Association last week that in his history of covering presidential campaigns, he has never seen a year in which the media were more biased than in 1992. He said the anti-Bush/pro-Clinton coverage was anything but journalism."12

Columnist Noel Holston: "Republican characters in prime-time [TV] series tend to be straw men [or women], caricatures designed to be the butt of jokes."13

John Leo again: "The media are having unusual trouble describing gay attacks on Catholics....Famous newspapers and commentators who scour language for the faintest hint of insensitivity to gays, blacks and women show little interest in this foot-stomping bigotry toward Catholics."14

Homosexual journalist Andrew Sullivan, in his own name-calling way, has also conceded the media is liberally biased: "But, difficult as it may be to admit, some of the gay-baiting right's argument about media bias holds up."15

Journalist Robert Samuelson: "Among editors and reporters of the national media--papers, magazines, TV--a 'liberal bias' is not so much denied as ignored, despite overwhelming evidence that it exists."16

And for those who think that, because the major media are owned by big corporations those media must be conservative, there is this item from syndicated columnist Mona Charen: "In 1997 [the latest year for which statistics were available at the time she wrote this], corporations gave almost five times as much to left-leaning charities and public-policy advocates than to right-leaning ones."17 Corporate America appears not to be the bastion of conservatism liberals want you to believe it is.

Sam [Spade] 17:59, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

What's missing in that, of course, is the media's portrayal of Democrats is just as negative. I'd say that more than any ideological bias, there's a bias towards exposing the flaws of those in the article (and, not coincidentally, placing the journalist as the arbiter of absolute truth). Not only that, but those arguments about partisanship figures have a main weakness: if people who hold political opinions can't write neutrally, then neither you nor I should be here. I've gone through, and I think the opposition section still needs a little work, but it's nowhere near as bad as it could be. Best wishes, [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 18:12, 2004 Aug 10 (UTC)

Revert, merger

This article seems hazardous to edit, but I've removed the big "references" section. As far as I can tell, that section didn't contribute anything to the article. Looking at this talk page, it seems to have been a list of the sources of Sam Spade's quotes above, which is a good thing to have -- but with those quotes not actually in the article, having the references for them seemed meaningless. Modargo 06:49, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Sam Spade -- Why did you revert the edits I made? I made two edits, removing the references (which were not used in the article) and removing the meaningless caption from the pictures. And since there seemed to be a dispute about this article, I even noted the removal of the references here. You could at least have the courtesy to say here why you reverted my edits instead of just using the edit summary to say you "fixed a couple things ;)". I try to assume good faith, but it gets hard to do that when somebody reverts edits that I made without giving any explanation. I don't want to start a revert war over this, so I'm not going to remove the references again right now, but I do want an explanation for your actions. Modargo 17:33, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I just took the references out actually, the reason I reverted was because you removed "right" from all the images, messing up the format terribly. Try previewing edits like that next time ;) I also fixed some severe POV in the intro, suggesting its only the right-wing that complains about liberal media bias. To be honest, this page should prob be merged with media bias, which has a more accurate title. Sam [Spade] 18:25, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I did preview. It looked the exact same as the previous version, except without the word "right" under all the pictures (and I also looked at the page after saving the edit). For example, the code for the Bias image after my edit was Image:Bias.jpg|100px|thumb|right|. The only difference between that and the current Image:Bias.jpg|100px|thumb|right|Bernard Goldberg's Bias (which works for you, correct?) is the lack of a caption for the picture. If one displays correctly, so should the other.

Even putting that aside, however, and assuming that we just have different browser settings or something, you still should not have reverted both edits I made. There were two separate edits that I made, one for the reference removal, and one for the image caption removal. The image caption edit was even after the reference removal edit. All you had to do was revert the image caption removal. Try only reverting the edit that is actually causing the problems for you next time ;). Modargo 18:41, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Does this look the same? I don't necessarily agree with your having removed the references either, but we'll keep them on the talk page for now. Sam [Spade] 19:29, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Yes, that looks the same as when I made the edit. All the images aligned on the right, starting after the history heading, and do not have captions. A better way to compare would be to look at the result of my first edit, then look at the result of my second edit. The only display difference between those two versions is the lack of the word "right" in the captions of all the pictures. Everything else is the same.

I also just checked the syntax for Image:, to make sure that I was right about how Image: stuff works. That page specifically notes that the options "thumb" and "right" can be used with each other. It also makes note of the method I used for removing the captions, giving Image:Westminstpalace.jpg|right| as an example of a picture that will be right-aligned and not have a caption, and saying "The last vertical bar ensures that the alternate text becomes "Westminstpalace.jpg" and not "right"." That example can be clearly expanded to Image:Westminstpalace.jpg|thumb|right|, which would display the image as a thumbnail on the right side of the screen with no caption, just as I did with the images in this article.

I also checked it using a different browser on this computer (Mozilla Firefox), and another two browsers (IE and Opera) on a separate computer, and they correctly displayed the images aligned to the right too. If you saw the formatting messed up after that edit, I suspect that your browser is at fault, unless Win95 IE, Win95 Opera, WinXP IE, and WinXP Mozilla happen to be the only browsers that display it correctly with that syntax. Any chance a third party could check the links to my first and second edits above and comment on what it looks like for them? Modargo 20:51, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Somebody else is going to have to weigh in, I'm not an expert on images. I'm using Mozilla 1.4.1 Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.4.1) Gecko/20031008 in case that helps. Sam [Spade] 21:00, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Header

OK, so, to clarify: who is disputing the neutrality here, and how can we fix it? I'd like to remove the header. Best, [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 13:35, 2004 Aug 11 (UTC)

I am (or was). I'll take the header off, since its not currrently applicable, but it was just yesterday. Anyhow, what do you think of merging w media bias? Sam [Spade] 18:28, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

We'd have to bring in conservative bias as well--and I'm going to have a look at that media bias page. It'll be a huge project, but a merger would be appropriate.

If we decide against a merger, I think we should at least rename the pages to Liberal bias in the media, or some such, to make it clear what were talking about. Otherwise, the topic is far broader than what were dealing with here. For example, I wouldn't mind exploring liberal bias in academia, but I'm not sure that should be in the same place as the content of this article. Sam [Spade] 20:56, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Bias in Article

Neutrality, let's not start an edit war. One of the several things I did (probably should have done it in several section specific edits to avoid having someone wholesale revert it) was change the constant usage of the word "Conservative" to the word "Critic in the section "Allegations". It is true that many of the critics of an alleged bias are conservative, but they are all critics. Using the word conservative everywhere criticism is mentioned introduces the POV that there is no bias, and that only conservatives claim there is a bias, which is untrue.

Another thing I pulled out was the snide comment "[used] mostly by those on the political right" which is in the article summary. This is once again POV, and especially inappropriate in the article summary.

The quote from the book is over the top, as no similar quote is made in the allegations section in an article (ostensibly) about Liberal Bias. As such, the article is quite unbalanced. Glaucus 01:51, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Is it not true that most of those who believe in the existence of a "liberal media" are conservatives? The article mentions that. There is no POV here. On the other hand, removing the "conservative" label is itself POV because it gives others the impression that critics hail from all over the political spectrum.

I believe the "mostly by those on the political right" is appropriate simply because it acknowledges the truth that those who consider the media liberal are largely conservative figures. Note that they didn't say "used by those on the political right", in which case the removal would be justified. And leave the book quote in there, it's highly relevant in the aptly-named section "Opposing views". Ethereal 02:12, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)

It is true that many of the critices are conservative, however saying that only conservatives are critics is POV and false. I didn't remove the conservative label completely, I replaced it with critic in a paragraph which opened up with "Conservative critics". From then on in the paragraph it was redundant. This is the paragraph I am talking about:

Conservative critics often accuse prominent anchors such as Tom Brokaw, Dan Rather, and Peter Jennings as being rather "open" liberals instead of political neutrals, and point to various speeches and comments they've made that supposedly illustrate their views. Other anchors may be criticised for their past, non-media careers, in which they may have been supporters, campaigners, or fundraisers of left-wing political candidates. Surveys have been done which indicate that by a rather large margin journalists in the United States tend to vote overwhelmingly Democratic in federal elections. Conservatives argue that when news anchors and producers have private, politically-active backgrounds, it inevitably skews their outlook when delivering the news or holding interviews. They also accuse a majority of the channels (most often CBS, NBC, ABC, and CNN) of having an extreme liberal bias.

I changed the sentence starting with "Conservatives argue..." to "Critics argue...". I also changed the "Conservative critics ..." to "Critics...".

I am going to revert back some of my changes, but try to balance it out. I don't have access to any of Ann Coulter's books or for that matter anyone else mentioned on the page, but the allegations section definitely needs strengthening. Glaucus 02:58, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Also, this needs to be removed: "Others seriously dispute this, with some claiming that there is a conservative bias.". It is in the "allegations". Glaucus 03:00, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I've reinserted: "Others seriously dispute this, with some claiming that there is a conservative bias."--Just because something is mentioned later on does not mean it should be ignored in the intro. See Wikipedia:Guide_to_writing_better_articles#Lead_section, where it says:

If the article is long (more than one page), the remainder of the opening paragraph should summarize it.

HOwever, the sentence about allowing Ann Coulter's critiques should stay out.

Meelar (talk) 04:49, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)

Neutrality, stop wholesale reverting my edits! At least have the decency to comment in the talk page. Not very neutral, are you. Glaucus 05:25, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC

I support Neutrality's revert simply because the additional charges of allegations are not backed up by any evidence. If you want to add them in, present the evidence. Simply arguing "conservatives say that" is not good enough unless backed up by external links or citations. More specifically I am going to apply equally tough standards you imposed on the inclusion of the PIPA report in the FOX News article. Ethereal 12:44, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)

Neutrality and Ethereal. Do not make any more edits without discussing them here. Neutrality, you have not discussed anything since you started reverting my edits. Ethereal, you have posted nothing more then evidence that you bear a grudge with me for disputing the relevance of a report in a completely different article. That is childish. Stop it.

Both of you need to read NPOV. NPOV is NOT ignoring evidence or claims you feel are unfounded. NPOV is presenting the claims on BOTH sides. This article does NOT need to document biases. It simply needs to document claims of biases. Glaucus 20:21, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

NPOV cannot be applied if the content is not good enough or up to encyclopaedia standards for inclusion. Hence for example you cannot attempt to refute the findings of the 9/11 Comission by inserting non-notable self-invented arguments or claims and recite the NPOV mantra to defend your edits. I already said I did not consider calling pro-lifers as anti-abortionists to be "liberal". For some reason you do. I also excluded the MRC article because its claims are non-notable and Wikipedia is not a news website Ethereal 02:40, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Calling someone anti-something instead of pro-something-else is a text book example of bias. The Right to an Abortion is a socially liberal value, and the Right to Life is a socially conservative value. It is hard to disagree with that. Therefore calling ProLifers "anti abortionist" instead of "pro life activists" is an example of a liberal bias.

The MRC article is a perfect example of a conservative claim of bias. Nothing in that article you are pointing to would disagree with the inclusion of this "media report". I am not trying to throw every single one on there, I am simply trying to document an example of a conservative claim of a liberal bias.

If you disagree with my inclusion of the MRC article, kindly find a substitute that will do.

Glaucus 04:12, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I don't agree with your first statement. By your reasoning, the term "anti-war activists" instead of "pro-peace activists" would count as a loaded, biased term. However, everyone knows that the opposite is true. Calling pro-life people "anti-abortionists" is neither more or less biased than calling pro-choice people "pro-abortionists". They just happen to be neutral terms which you seem to perceive as being more than a mere slight. I don't think you should include the MRC article because it does not appear to be significant and as I've said before Wikipedia is not a news website.

To show I am willing to compromise on finding more examples on liberal media bias, I have done a search on FOX News' website and have found the following: [1] by O'Reilly and [2] and [3]. If you would kindly peruse those web pages and and consider them, I would not mind if some of their content are included (even if you include the O'Reilly piece). However, I would object if I feel that you are misrepresenting the reports. In particular, when you include an example of liberal media bias, please also include the name of the person who claimed it, or at least a link to a notable news story. Ethereal 02:32, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Never mind the above 3 examples. I got a good one here [4]

• According to the report, 36 percent of campaign-related stories about Bush were negative, compared to 12 percent for Kerry. Twenty percent of stories about Bush were positive, compared to 30 percent for Kerry. The remaining stories - 44 percent for Bush and 58 percent for Kerry - were neutral in tone.

If you can include this, please do so. This is more notable than FOX's reports. Also remember not to misrepresent the findings because I'll object. Ethereal 03:00, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

please don't blank this article again

thank you and happy editing--Ham and jelly butter 13:19, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Liberal bias article or redirect to Media bias in the United States?

I think the redirect is sensible, and that an article on Liberal bias is a WP:POVFORK. If there's not enough coverage of alleged liberal bias in the media bias article, then that should be added to that article; that's not an argument for recreating an article on liberal bias. If that article is too long, then perhaps there's an argument for spinning out articles on both alleged liberal and conservative bias.

I think Ham and jelly butter's additional edits to the liberal bias article are also problematically POV in nature, e.g. the opening statement "Liberal bias is common in American politics, expressed by the fact that the American media generally has a liberal bias." Fact? Шизомби 17:32, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

• this article was here first, that means if anyhting, the other artile is the POV forkd--Ham and jelly butter 17:33, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps a POV Fork is not the best way of describing this article, then. I think it would be difficult to make the case that Media bias in the United States is a POV Fork; it seems to me to be an attempt to cover all accusations of media bias in an NPOV way. Still, Liberal bias is a POV article, particularly given the recent edits making it a "fact" rather than a "view." Шизомби 17:41, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I can't see "Liberal Bias" as anything OTHER than inherently POV. I wouldn't support a "Republican Graft" or "Liberatian Psychosis" article, either. --MattShepherd 19:30, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Ham and jelly butter's been blocked for trolling, so I think I'll revert to the redirect. As I noted above, perhaps an article on supposed "liberal bias" would make sense if the media bias can't accomodate it. Шизомби 21:03, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

As an outsider, I believe both articles should exist. Liberal bias (like conservative bias) can exist in other areas than just the media, and in other countries than just the US. Aecis ^{Appleknocker Flophouse} 08:50, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion, the real issue here is not whether anything on Liberal Bias should exist, because it's clearly important enough to have information on it. I personally think, however, that there is not really enough on Liberal Bias that differs from Media Bias to create an article for it. I believe it should have its own section within the Media Bias page. Verloren Hoop 12:10, 25 May 2006 (UTC)