You do not have permission to edit this page, for the following reasons:
This IP address has been blocked from editing Wikipedia.
This does not affect your ability to read Wikipedia pages.
Most people who see this message have done nothing wrong. Some kinds of blocks restrict editing from specific service providers or telecom companies in response to recent abuse or vandalism, and can sometimes affect other users who are unrelated to that abuse. Review the information below for assistance if you do not believe that you have done anything wrong.

The IP address or range 52.91.0.0/16 has been blocked (disabled) by ‪JJMC89‬ for the following reason(s):

The IP address that you are currently using has been blocked because it is believed to be a web host provider or colocation provider. To prevent abuse, web hosts and colocation providers may be blocked from editing Wikipedia.
You will not be able to edit Wikipedia using a web host or colocation provider because it hides your IP address, much like a proxy or VPN.
We recommend that you attempt to use another connection to edit. For example, if you use a proxy or VPN to connect to the internet, turn it off when editing Wikipedia. If you edit using a mobile connection, try using a Wi-Fi connection, and vice versa. If you are using a corporate internet connection, switch to a different Wi-Fi network. If you have a Wikipedia account, please log in.
If you do not have any other way to edit Wikipedia, you will need to request an IP block exemption.

How to appeal if you are confident that your connection does not use a colocation provider's IP address:
If you are confident that you are not using a web host, you may appeal this block by adding the following text on your talk page: ((unblock|reason=Caught by a colocation web host block but this host or IP is not a web host. My IP address is _______. Place any further information here. ~~~~)). You must fill in the blank with your IP address for this block to be investigated. Your IP address can be determined here. Alternatively, if you wish to keep your IP address private you can use the unblock ticket request system. There are several reasons you might be editing using the IP address of a web host or colocation provider (such as if you are using VPN software or a business network); please use this method of appeal only if you think your IP address is in fact not a web host or colocation provider.

Administrators: The IP block exemption user right should only be applied to allow users to edit using web host in exceptional circumstances, and requests should usually be directed to the functionaries team via email. If you intend to give the IPBE user right, a CheckUser needs to take a look at the account. This can be requested most easily at SPI Quick Checkuser Requests. Unblocking an IP or IP range with this template is highly discouraged without at least contacting the blocking administrator.

This block will expire on 05:26, 2 September 2024.

Even when blocked, you will usually still be able to edit your user talk page, as well as email administrators and other editors.

For information on how to proceed, please read the FAQ for blocked users and the guideline on block appeals. The guide to appealing blocks may also be helpful.

Other useful links: Blocking policy · Help:I have been blocked
Your IP address is in a range that has been blocked on all Wikimedia Foundation wikis. The block was made by ‪Jon Kolbert‬. The reason given is Open proxy/Webhost: See the help page if you are affected .
- Start of block: 04:57, 27 November 2021
- Expiry of block: 04:57, 27 November 2024
Your current IP address is 52.91.194.66. The blocked range is 52.91.0.0/16. Please include all above details in any queries you make. If you believe you were blocked by mistake, you can find additional information and instructions in the No open proxies global policy. Otherwise, to discuss the block please post a request for review on Meta-Wiki. You could also send an email to the stewards VRT queue at stewards@wikimedia.org including all above details.
You can view and copy the source of this page:
((short description|Media favoring certain ideologies))
((Use mdy dates|date=July 2021))
((use American English|date=March 2019))
((journalism sidebar))((Main article|Media bias))
Claims of media bias generally focus on the idea of [[US media|media outlets]] reporting news in a way that seems partisan. Other claims argue that outlets sometimes sacrifice [[Journalistic objectivity|objectivity]] in pursuit of growth or profits. 

Some academics in fields like [[media studies]], [[Journalism school|journalism]], [[Communication studies|communication]], [[political science]] and [[economics]] have looked at bias of the [[news media in the United States]] as a component of their research.<ref name=":2">((cite book |last1=Lichter |first1=S. Robert |author-link1=Samuel Robert Lichter |last2=Rolfe-Redding |first2=Justin |title=Communication |chapter=Media Bias |date=August 31, 2015 |publisher=[[Oxford University Press]] |quote=While the fields of communication and political science have traditionally hosted investigations of media bias, economics has become a relatively recent addition to the scholarly conversation, generating work on new measures of bias and the role that audience preferences may play in producing slanted news.|doi=10.1093/obo/9780199756841-0111 |isbn=9780199756841 ))</ref> In addition to bias, academics and others also evaluate factors like media reliability and overall [[Freedom of the press|press freedom]]. Academic studies tend not to confirm a popular media narrative of liberal journalists producing a left-leaning media bias, though some studies suggest economic incentives may have that effect. Instead, the studies reviewed by [[S. Robert Lichter]] generally found the media to be a conservative force in politics.<ref name=":17">((cite book |last=Lichter |first=S. Robert |author-link=Samuel Robert Lichter |title=The Oxford Handbook of Political Communication |date=2018 |publisher=[[Oxford University Press]] |isbn=9780199984350 |editor1-last=Kenski |editor1-first=Kate |series=Oxford Handbooks Online |location=Oxford; New York |pages=412 |chapter=Theories of Media Bias |doi=10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199793471.013.44 |oclc=959803808 |quote=...much popular media criticism has posited that journalists' personal attitudes produce a liberal tilt in their coverage. Most scholarly studies have failed to support this conclusion, however, and the increasing public perception of liberal media bias has been linked to audience biases and strategic efforts by conservative elites. However, recent studies have rekindled this debate, while attributing biased coverage to economic incentives rather than journalists' mindsets. |editor2-last=Jamieson |editor2-first=Kathleen Hall |editor2-link=Kathleen Hall Jamieson))</ref> 

Some recent polls show half (or more) of respondents expressing concern about media bias in the United States.

==History==

Before the rise of [[professional journalism]] in the early 20th century and the conception of [[media ethics]], newspapers reflected the opinions of the publisher. Frequently, an area would be served by competing newspapers taking differing and often radical views by modern standards.<ref name="Stephens">((cite encyclopedia |url=http://www.nyu.edu/classes/stephens/Collier's%20page.htm |title=History of Newspapers |publisher=Nyu.edu |first=Mitchell |last=Stephens |access-date=March 28, 2007 |encyclopedia=Collier's Encyclopedia |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080516064617/http://www.nyu.edu/classes/stephens/Collier%27s%20page.htm |archive-date=May 16, 2008 |url-status=dead ))</ref> In colonial Philadelphia, [[Benjamin Franklin]] was an early and forceful advocate for presenting all sides of an issue, writing, for instance, in his "An Apology For Printers" that "...((nbsp))when truth and error have fair play, the former is always an overmatch for the latter."<ref name="Ref_b">Walter Isaacson, ''Benjamin Franklin: An American Life'', (2004) p 66</ref> From around 1790 to the late 1800s, most American newspapers were partisan.<ref name=":1">((Cite web |last=Hemmer |first=Nicole |date=2020-02-29 |title=Attacking the press for liberal bias is a staple of Republican campaigns -- and it all began in 1964 |url=https://www.cnn.com/2020/02/29/opinions/lyndon-johnson-barry-goldwater-liberal-media-bias-hemmer/index.html |access-date=2022-08-07 |website=[[CNN]] |language=en))</ref>

In 1798, the [[Federalist Party]] in control of Congress passed the [[Alien and Sedition Acts]] designed to weaken the opposition press. It 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 part of the act was in effect until 1801.<ref>Walter Berns, "Freedom of the Press and the Alien and Sedition Laws: A Reappraisal." ''The Supreme Court Review 1970'' (1970): 109–159.</ref>

President [[Thomas Jefferson]], 1801–1809, was frequently attacked in the press. He advised editors to divide their newspapers into four sections labeled "truth," "probabilities," "possibilities," and "lies," and observed that the first section would be the smallest and the last the largest. After retiring, he said that "Advertisements contain the only truths to be relied on in a newspaper."<ref>Harvey G. Zeidenstein, "White House Perceptions of News Media Bias," ''Presidential Studies Quarterly'' 13#3 (1983), pp. 345–356; quotes at p 345. [https://www.jstor.org/stable/27547942 online]</ref>

In 1861, Federal officials identified newspapers that supported the [[Confederate States of America|Confederate]] cause and ordered many of them closed.<ref>Jennifer Weber, "Lincoln's Critics: The Copperheads." ''Journal of the Abraham Lincoln Association'' 32.1 (2011): 33–47.</ref> In 1864, President [[Abraham Lincoln]] issued an executive order that led to the arrest and imprisonment of Northern newspaper editors for publishing articles alleged to have been sympathetic to the [[Confederate States of America|Confederacy]].<ref>((cite web |url=https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/executive-order-arrest-and-imprisonment-irresponsible-newspaper-reporters-and-editors |title=Executive Order—Arrest and Imprisonment of Irresponsible Newspaper Reporters and Editors |date=18 May 1864 |via=The American Presidency Project, [[University of California, Santa Barbara]]))</ref><ref>((cite web |last=Mitchell |first=Elizabeth |date=6 October 2020 |title=Opinion: How Abraham Lincoln Confronted—and Helped Spread—Political Misinformation |url=https://time.com/5896683/lincoln-civil-war-misinformation/ |publisher=[[Time (magazine)|Time]]))</ref>

In the 19th century, the accessibility of cheap newspapers allowed the market to expand exponentially.<ref name="pubs.aeaweb.org">((Cite journal |doi = 10.1257/jep.31.2.211|title = Social Media and Fake News in the 2016 Election|year = 2017|last1 = Allcott|first1 = Hunt|last2 = Gentzkow|first2 = Matthew|journal = Journal of Economic Perspectives|volume = 31|issue = 2|pages = 211–236|doi-access = free))</ref> Cities typically had multiple competing newspapers supporting various political factions in each party. 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 sections openly relayed the opinion of the publisher. Editorials often were accompanied by [[editorial cartoon]]s, which lampooned the publisher's opponents.<ref name="journalism2002">W. David Sloan (Editor), Lisa Mullikin Parcell (Editor), ''American Journalism: History, Principles, Practices'' (2002), ((ISBN|978-0-7864-1371-3))</ref>

Small ethnic newspapers serviced people of various ethnicities, such as Germans, Dutch, Scandinavians, Poles, and Italians. [[Ethnic press in Baltimore|Large cities had numerous foreign-language newspapers, magazines and publishers.]] They typically were boosters who supported their group's positions on public issues. They disappeared as their readership increasingly became assimilated. In the 1960s and 70s, an effort began to collect these ethnic newspapers in order to preserve their history and increase their accessibility to the general public.<ref>((Cite journal |last=Daniel |first=Dominique |date=2019-04-03 |title=Elusive Stories: Collecting and Preserving the Foreign-Language Ethnic Press in the United States |url=https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00987913.2019.1610148 |journal=Serials Review |language=en |volume=45 |issue=1–2 |pages=7–25 |doi=10.1080/00987913.2019.1610148 |s2cid=196203000 |issn=0098-7913))</ref> In the 20th century, newspapers in various Asian languages, and also in Spanish and Arabic, appeared and are still published, read by newer immigrants.<ref>Hanno Hardt. "The Foreign‐Language Press in American Press History." ''Journal of communication'' 39.2 (1989): 114–131.</ref>

Starting in the 1890s, a few very high-profile metropolitan newspapers engaged in [[yellow journalism]] to increase sales. They emphasized sports, sex, scandal, and sensationalism. The leaders of this style of journalism in New York City were [[William Randolph Hearst]] and [[Joseph Pulitzer]].<ref>W. Joseph Campbell, ''Yellow journalism: Puncturing the myths, defining the legacies'' (Greenwood, 2001).</ref> Hearst falsified or exaggerated sensational stories about [[American propaganda of the Spanish–American War|atrocities in Cuba]] and the [[USS Maine (1889)#Sinking|sinking of the USS ''Maine'']] to boost circulation. Hearst falsely claimed that he had started the war, but in fact the nation's decision makers paid little attention to his demands—President McKinley, for example, did not read the yellow journals.<ref>((cite book|author=David Nasaw|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=ObU1AAAAQBAJ&pg=PT171|title=The Chief: The Life of William Randolph Hearst|year=2013|isbn=978-0547524726|page=171| publisher=Houghton Mifflin Harcourt ))</ref>

The [[Progressive Era]], from the 1890s to the 1920s, was reform-oriented. From 1905 to 1915, the [[muckraker]] style exposed malefaction in city government and industry. Academic Richard A. Hogarty, when discussing muckraker William E. Sackett's critical coverage of Lion Abbett, notes that while many of Sackett's criticisms were justified, he had a tendency to "to exaggerate, misinterpret, and oversimplify events", which Hogarty found typical of muckracking journalists.<ref>((cite book|author=Richard A. Hogarty|title=Leon Abbett's New Jersey: The Emergence of the Modern Governor|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=n5lNFJmtpbcC&pg=PA57|year=2001|page=57|publisher=American Philosophical Society |isbn=9780871692436))</ref> The term was popularized by President Theodore Roosevelt, who said that "the men with the muck rakes are often indispensable to the well-being of society; but only if they know when to stop raking the muck."<ref name=NYT10Apr1985>[https://www.nytimes.com/1985/04/10/us/muchraker-2-meanings.html "'Muckraker: 2 Meanings"], ''The New York Times'', April 10, 1985.</ref>

''[[The Dearborn Independent]]'', a weekly magazine owned by [[Henry Ford]] and distributed free through Ford dealerships, published conspiracy theories about international Jewry in the 1920s. A favorite trope of the anti-Semitism that raged in the 1930s was the allegation that Jews controlled Hollywood and the media. [[Charles Lindbergh]] in 1941 claimed American Jews, possessing outsized influence in Hollywood, the media, and the Roosevelt administration, were pushing the nation into war against its interests.<ref>Lynne Olson, ''Those Angry Days: Roosevelt, Lindbergh, and America's Fight Over World War II'' (2013) pp 375–92.</ref> Lindbergh received a storm of criticism; the Gallup poll reported that support for his foreign policy views fell to 15%.<ref>((cite book|author=Richard Breitman|title=FDR and the Jews|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=IgT55bAvrjcC&pg=PA188|year=2013|page=188|publisher=Harvard University Press |isbn=9780674073654))</ref> Hans Thomsen, the senior diplomat at the German Embassy in Washington, reported to Berlin that his efforts to place pro-isolationist articles in American newspapers had failed. "Influential journalists of high repute will not lend themselves, even for money, to publishing such material." Thompson set up a publishing house to produce anti-British books, but almost all of them went unsold.<ref>Olson, ''Those Angry Days'' p 125.</ref><ref>((Cite web |quote=On the other hand, the Depression brought forth ugly resentments that took anti-Semitic form, including toward President Franklin Roosevelt, whom anti-Semites called "Rosenfeld" and whose policies they called the "Jew Deal." |first=David |last=Greenberg |title=America's Forgotten Pogroms |work=[[Politico]] |url=https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/11/02/americas-forgotten-pogroms-222181))</ref> In the years leading up to [[World War II]], the pro-Nazi [[German American Bund]] accused the media of being controlled by Jews. They claimed that reports of German mistreatment of Jews were biased and without foundation.<ref>((Cite web |title=American Nazism and Madison Square Garden |url=https://www.nationalww2museum.org/war/articles/american-nazism-and-madison-square-garden |access-date=2023-02-06 |website=The National WWII Museum ((!)) New Orleans |date=April 14, 2021 |language=en))</ref> They said that Hollywood was a hotbed of Jewish bias, and called for [[Charlie Chaplin]]'s film ''[[The Great Dictator]]'' to be banned as an insult to a respected leader.<ref name="Ref_d">Louis Pizzitola, ''Hearst Over Hollywood'', (quoting William Randolph Hearst) "Lindburg makes a still graver charge when he says that the 'greatest danger' to this country lies in the 'ownership' and 'influence' of the radio, motion pictures, and 'our government'." (Quoting [[Douglas Fairbanks]]) "He [Joe Kennedy] apparently threw the fear of god into many of our producers and executives by telling them that the Jews were on the spot, and that they should stop making anti-Nazi pictures((nbsp))...", Columbia University Press, 2002, ((ISBN|0-231-11646-2))</ref>

A 1956 American National Election Study found that 66% of Americans thought newspapers were fair, including 78% of Republicans and 64% of Democrats. A 1964 poll by the Roper Organization asked a similar question about network news, and 71% thought network news was fair. A 1972 poll found that 72% of Americans trusted ''[[CBS Evening News]]'' anchor [[Walter Cronkite]]. According to Jonathan M. Ladd's ''Why Americans Hate the Media and How it Matters'', "institutional journalists were [once] powerful guardians of the republic, maintaining high standards of political discourse."<ref name="Jonathan M. Ladd 2011">Jonathan M. Ladd, ''Why Americans Hate the Media and How It Matters'', Princeton University Press, 2011, ((ISBN|978-0691147864))</ref> 

During the American civil rights movement, conservative newspapers strongly slanted their news about civil rights, blaming the unrest among Southern Blacks on communists.<ref>Gene Roberts and Hank Klibanoff, ''The Race Best: The Press, the Civil Rights Struggle, and the Awakening of a Nation'', Vintage, 2007, ((ISBN|978-0679735656)).</ref> In some cases, Southern television stations refused to air programs such as ''[[I Spy (1965 TV series)|I Spy]]'' and ''[[Star Trek: The Original Series|Star Trek]]'' because of their racially mixed casts.<ref name="Ref_e">Nichelle Nichols, ''Beyond Uhura: Star Trek and Other Memories'', Berkley, 1995, ((ISBN|1-57297-011-1)) ((ISBN|978-1-57297-011-3))</ref> Newspapers supporting civil rights, labor unions, and aspects of liberal [[social reform]] were often accused by conservative newspapers of [[communist]] bias.<ref>((cite book|author=M. J. Heale|title=American Anti-Communism: Combating the Enemy Within, 1830–1970|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=5kGgoAsQ3kkC&pg=PP16|year=1990|publisher=JHU Press|pages=16, 21, 31, 60, 188|isbn=9780801840517))</ref>

In November 1969, Vice President [[Spiro Agnew]] 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 name="Ref_h">((cite web|url=http://www.bartleby.com/63/48/8148.html |title=8148. Spiro T Agnew, US Vice President. Simpson's Contemporary Quotations. 1988 |website=Bartleby.com |access-date=March 28, 2007 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20061125002950/http://www.bartleby.com/63/48/8148.html |archive-date=November 25, 2006))</ref>

Starting in the 21st century, social media became a major source of bias, since anyone could post anything without regard to its accuracy. Social media has, on the one hand, allowed all views to be heard, but on the other hand has provided a platform for the most extreme bias.<ref name="pubs.aeaweb.org"/>

In 2010, [[Barack Obama|President Obama]] said that he believed the viewpoints expressed by [[Fox News]] was "destructive for the long-term growth" of the United States.<ref>((cite web|url=https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2010/09/obama-fox-news-point-of-view-is-destructive/339970/|title=Obama: Fox News 'Point of View' Is 'Destructive'|date=September 28, 2010|website=[[The Atlantic]]))</ref>

In 2014, the [[Pew Research Center]] found that the audience of news was polarized along political alignments.<ref>((cite web |url=http://www.journalism.org/2014/10/21/political-polarization-media-habits/ |title=Political Polarization & Media Habits |last1=Mitchell |first1=Amy |last2=Gottfried |first2=Jeffrey |last3=Kiley |first3=Jocelyn |last4=Eva Matsa |first4=Katerina |date=October 21, 2014 |website=Journalism.org |publisher=Pew Research Center |access-date=September 19, 2018 ))</ref>

In 2015, after the launch of [[Donald Trump 2016 presidential campaign|Donald Trump's 2016 presidential campaign]], the media began to critique Trump's statements by using the term "fake news."<ref>((cite web |url=https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-trending-42724320 |title=The (almost) complete history of 'fake news' |publisher=[[BBC News]]|date=22 January 2018))</ref><ref>((cite news |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/10/26/trump-falsely-claims-again-that-he-coined-the-term-fake-news/ |last=Borchers |first=Callum |title=Trump falsely claims (again) that he coined the term 'fake news'|newspaper=[[The Washington Post]] |date=26 October 2017))</ref> In late 2015, Donald Trump began addressing his concern with the fairness of the media by co-opting the phrase, calling some information relayed in the media, "fake news." 

In 2016, according to Gottfried and Shearer, "62 percent of US adults get news on social media," with Facebook being the dominant social media site.((Citation needed|date=March 2024)) Again, this seemed to be a major contributor to the presidential election of Donald Trump.((Original research inline|date=March 2024)) According to an article in the ''[[Journal of Economic Perspectives]]'', "many people who see fake news stories report that they believe them".<ref name="pubs.aeaweb.org" /> Trump himself before, during, and after his presidency had and has a highly contentious relationship with the news media, repeatedly referring to them as the "[[fake news]] media" and "the [[enemy of the people]]," at the same time praising far-right pro-Trump fringe outlets.<ref>((Cite web |last=Bondarenko |first=Veronika |title=Trump keeps saying 'enemy of the people' — but the phrase has a very ugly history |url=https://www.businessinsider.com/history-of-president-trumps-phrase-an-enemy-of-the-people-2017-2 |access-date=2022-02-20 |website=[[Business Insider]] |language=en-US))</ref> Trump has regularly [[False or misleading statements by Donald Trump|lied]] and promoted [[List of conspiracy theories promoted by Donald Trump|conspiracy theories]] during his presidency.<ref>((Cite web |last=Collins |first=Brian Stelter and Kaitlan |date=2018-05-09 |title=Trump's latest shot at the press corps: 'Take away credentials?' |url=https://money.cnn.com/2018/05/09/media/president-trump-press-credentials/index.html |access-date=2022-02-20 |website=CNNMoney))</ref> 

In January 2017, Bharat Anand argued that U.S. media has come under significant criticism over potential bias and [[sensationalism]].<ref>((Cite news |last=Anand |first=Bharat N. |date=2017-01-05 |title=The U.S. Media's Problems Are Much Bigger than Fake News and Filter Bubbles |url=https://hbr.org/2017/01/the-u-s-medias-problems-are-much-bigger-than-fake-news-and-filter-bubbles |access-date=2023-11-09 |work=Harvard Business Review |issn=0017-8012))</ref>

In 2018, a Gallup poll found that 62% of Americans believed that the media was biased one way or the other.<ref name=":7" /><ref>((Cite web |last= |first= |date=2018-06-20 |title=Americans: Much Misinformation, Bias, Inaccuracy in News |url=https://news.gallup.com/opinion/gallup/235796/americans-misinformation-bias-inaccuracy-news.aspx |access-date=2024-03-20 |website=Gallup.com |language=en))</ref>

There were also many claims made of bias in the media surrounding the [[COVID-19]] pandemic and its politicalization.<ref>((Citation |last1=Bolsen |first1=Toby |title=Chapter Five - Politicization and COVID-19 vaccine resistance in the U.S. |date=2022-01-01 |journal=Progress in Molecular Biology and Translational Science |volume=188 |pages=81–100 |editor-last=Bolsen |editor-first=Toby |series=Molecular Biology and Clinical Medicine in the Age of Politicization |publisher=Academic Press |language=en |last2=Palm |first2=Risa |issue=1 |doi=10.1016/bs.pmbts.2021.10.002 |pmid=35168748 |pmc=8577882 |editor2-last=Palm |editor2-first=Risa))</ref>

In 2023, a survey found half of Americans indicated they believe national news organizations "intend to mislead, misinform or persuade the public to adopt a particular point of view through their reporting."<ref>((Cite web |last=Bauder |first=David |date=2023-02-15 |title=Study shows 'striking' number who believe news misinforms |url=https://apnews.com/article/television-news-media-business-4367fdad2d6ce6c2c455195f9dfef908 |access-date=2024-03-20 |website=AP News |language=en))</ref> A 2023 [[Gallup Poll]] found that 70% of Democrats, 14% of Republicans and 27% of Independents had a great deal or fair amount of confidence in the media, and described trust in the media over the last two decades as 'anemic.'<ref>((Cite news |last=Brenan |first=Megan |date=2022-10-18 |title=Americans' Trust In Media Remains Near Record Low |url=https://news.gallup.com/poll/403166/americans-trust-media-remains-near-record-low.aspx |access-date=2024-03-20 |website=[[Gallup, Inc.]] |language=en))</ref>

== News values ==
((Main|News values|Gatekeeping (communication)))
According to Jonathan M. Ladd, ''Why Americans Hate the Media and How It Matters'', "The existence of an independent, powerful, widely respected news media establishment is a historical anomaly. Prior to the twentieth century, such an institution had never existed in American history." However, he looks back to the period between 1950 and 1979 as a period where "institutional journalists were powerful guardians of the republic, maintaining high standards of political discourse."<ref name="Jonathan M. Ladd 2011" />

A number of writers have tried to explain the decline in journalistic standards.<ref>((Cite news |last=Anand |first=Bharat N. |date=2017-01-05 |title=The U.S. Media's Problems Are Much Bigger than Fake News and Filter Bubbles |work=Harvard Business Review |url=https://hbr.org/2017/01/the-u-s-medias-problems-are-much-bigger-than-fake-news-and-filter-bubbles |access-date=2023-11-13 |issn=0017-8012))</ref> One explanation is the [[24-hour news cycle]], which faces the necessity of generating news even when no news-worthy events occur. Another is the simple fact that bad news sells more newspapers than good news.<ref name=":2" /> A third possible factor is the market for "news" that reinforces the prejudices of a target audience. In 2014, ''The New York Times'' wrote: "In a 2010 paper, Mr. Gentzkow and Jesse M. Shapiro, a frequent collaborator and fellow professor at Chicago Booth, found that ideological slants in newspaper coverage typically resulted from what the audience wanted to read in the media they sought out, rather than from the newspaper owners' biases."<ref>((cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/18/business/media/university-of-chicago-economist-who-studies-media-receives-clark-medal.html|title=University of Chicago Economist Who Studies Media Receives Clark Medal|first=Nelson D.|last=Schwartz|date=April 17, 2014|newspaper=[[The New York Times]]))</ref>

As reported by Haselmayer, Wagner, and Meyer in ''[[Political Communication (journal)|Political Communication]]'', "News value refers to the overall newsworthiness of a message and can be defined by the presence or absence of a number of news factors." The authors contend that media sources shape their coverage in ways that are favorable to them, and are more likely to present messages from outlets their viewers/readers favor. They conclude that majority of what individuals see, read, and hear is pre-determined by the journalists, editors, and reporters of that specific news source.<ref>Haselmayer, M., Wagner, M., & Meyer, T. M., ''Partisan Bias in Message Selection: Media Gatekeeping of Party Press Releases'', p. 371, Political Communication, ''34''(3), 367–384. 2017</ref>

News outlets face many oppositions from the public and can often be called biased. In some cases, "in order to reach out to a larger audience, a newspaper may forfeit its conservative or liberal position and try to appeal to everyone in the market regardless of their political opinions."<ref>((Cite web |title=Upset about Political Bias in the Media? Blame Economics |url=https://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article/upset-about-political-bias-in-the-media-blame-economics/ |access-date=2023-03-09 |website=Knowledge at Wharton |language=en-US))</ref> Contrary to this type of news outlet, many people look to the news to confirm their beliefs. News outlets can profit more when they can provide news to a certain group of people, allowing them to gain a concrete following, and charge more.<ref>((Cite journal |last1=Gal-or |first1=Esther |last2=Geylani |first2=Tansev |last3=Yildirim |first3=Tuba Pinar |date=February 2012 |title=The Impact of Advertising on Media Bias |url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1509/jmr.10.0196 |journal=Journal of Marketing Research |volume=49 |issue=1 |pages=92–99 |doi=10.1509/jmr.10.0196 |s2cid=167776239 |issn=0022-2437))</ref>

Danny Hayes states that elites create public images for themselves in order to appeal to the values of their potential voters. Large news media corporations can be seen aligning themselves with certain ideologies as well which leads to more bias in the media.<ref>((Cite journal |last=Hayes |first=Danny |date=2005 |title=Candidate Qualities through a Partisan Lens: A Theory of Trait Ownership |url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/3647705 |journal=American Journal of Political Science |volume=49 |issue=4 |pages=908–923 |doi=10.2307/3647705 |jstor=3647705 |issn=0092-5853))</ref>

==Corporate power==
((See also|Propaganda model|Concentration of media ownership in the United States))
[[Edward S. Herman]] and [[Noam Chomsky]], in their book ''[[Manufacturing Consent|Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media]]'' (1988),<ref name="Ref_m"/> proposed a [[propaganda model]] thesis to explain systematic biases of United States media as a consequence of the pressure to create a [[capitalism|profitable business]].

===Pro-government===
Part of the propaganda model that Herman and Chomsky propose is [[self-censorship]] through the corporate system (see [[corporate censorship]]); reporters and especially editors share or acquire values that agree with corporate elites to further their careers. Those who do not are marginalized or fired. Such examples have been dramatized in fact-based movie dramas such as ''[[Good Night, and Good Luck]]'' and ''[[The Insider (film)|The Insider]]'' and demonstrated in the documentary ''[[The Corporation (2003 film)|The Corporation]]''.<ref>((cite web|url=http://www.thecorporation.com/ |title=About the Film |work=The Corporation (film) |author1=Mark Achbar |author2=Jennifer Abbott |author3=Joel Bakan |name-list-style=amp |year=2003 |publisher=Big Picture Media Corporation |access-date=November 12, 2013))</ref><ref>[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eZkDikRLQrw The Corporation &#91;17/23&#93; Unsettling Accounts"], YouTube video, February 11, 2007. Retrieved November 12, 2013.</ref> [[George Orwell]] originally wrote a preface for his 1945 novel ''[[Animal Farm]]'', which pointed up the self-censorship during wartime when the Soviet Union was an ally. The preface, first published in 1972, read in part: 
:The sinister fact about literary censorship in England is that it is largely voluntary.... Things are] kept right out of the British press, not because the Government intervened but because of a general tacit agreement that 'it wouldn't do' to mention that particular fact.... At this moment what is demanded by the prevailing orthodoxy is an uncritical admiration of Soviet Russia. Everyone knows this, nearly everyone acts on it. Any serious criticism of the Soviet regime, any disclosure of facts which the Soviet Government would prefer to keep hidden, is next door to unprintable." He added, "In our country—it is not the same in all countries: it was not so in Republican France, and it is not so in the United States today—it is the liberals who fear liberty and the intellectuals who want to do dirt on the intellect: it is to draw attention to that fact I have written this preface."<ref>George Orwell, [https://www.nytimes.com/1972/10/08/archives/the-freedom-of-the-press-orwell.html "The Freedom of the Press"] ''The New York Times'' October 8, 1972</ref>

In the propaganda model, advertising revenue is essential for funding most media sources and thus linked with media coverage. For example, according to [[Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting]] (FAIR), "When [[Al Gore]] proposed launching a progressive TV network, a Fox News executive told ''[[Advertising Age]]'' (October 13, 2003): 'The problem with being associated as liberal is that they wouldn't be going in a direction that advertisers are really interested in.... If you go out and say that you are a liberal network, you are cutting your potential audience, and certainly your potential advertising pool, right off the bat.'"<ref>((cite web|url=http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2595 |title=Why Progressive TV Is DOA — FAIR: Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting |publisher=Fair.org |date=February 22, 1999 |access-date=November 12, 2013))</ref> An internal memo from ABC Radio affiliates in 2006 revealed that powerful sponsors had a "standing order that their commercials never be placed on syndicated [[Air America Radio|Air America]] programming" that aired on ABC affiliates.<ref>((cite web|url=http://www.fair.org/images/ABCmemo.pdf |title=ABC memo of Air America Blackout Oct 25/31 2006|date=October 25, 2006|publisher=FAIR|access-date=August 10, 2010))</ref> The list totaled 90 advertisers and included major corporations such as [[Walmart]], [[General Electric]], [[ExxonMobil]], [[Microsoft]], [[Bank of America]], [[FedEx]], [[Visa Inc|Visa]], [[Allstate]], [[McDonald's]], [[Sony]], and [[Johnson & Johnson]], as well as government entities such as the [[United States Postal Service]] and the [[United States Navy]].

According to Chomsky, US commercial media encourage controversy only within a narrow range of opinion to give the impression of open debate, and they do not report on news that falls outside that range.<ref name="Ref_abe">Noam Chomsky, ''Language and Politics'', Black Rose Books, 1988, ((ISBN|978-0-921689-34-8))</ref>

Herman and Chomsky argue that comparing the journalistic media product to the voting record of journalists is as flawed a logic as implying auto factory workers design the cars they help produce. They concede that media owners and newsmakers have an agenda but that the agenda is subordinated to corporate interests leaning to the right.<ref name="Ref_m">Edward S. Herman and Noam Chomsky (1988), ''[[Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media]]'', Pantheon Books, ((ISBN|0-679-72034-0)).</ref> [[Howard Zinn]] and [[Chris Hedges]] argue that the corporate media ignore the plight of the impoverished while painting a picture of a prosperous America.<ref>[[Chris Hedges|Hedges, Chris]] (May 20, 2013). [http://billmoyers.com/2013/05/20/rise-up-or-die/ Rise Up or Die]. [[Moyers & Company]], Perspectives. Retrieved August 12, 2013.
*"More than 100 million Americans — one-third of the population — live in poverty or a category called "near poverty." Yet the stories of the poor and the near poor, the hardships they endure, are rarely told by a media that is owned by a handful of corporations — Viacom, General Electric, Rupert Murdoch's News Corp., Clear Channel and Disney. The suffering of the underclass, like the crimes of the power elite, has been rendered invisible."</ref><ref>[[Howard Zinn|Zinn, Howard]]. ''[[A People's History of the United States]]''. New York: [[HarperCollins|Harper Perennial Modern Classics]], 2005. p. 671 ((ISBN|0060838655))
* "All of these groups, and the people they represented — the homeless, the struggling mothers, the families unable to pay their bills, the 40 million without health insurance and the many more with inadequate insurance — were facing an enormous barrier of silence in the national culture. Their lives, their plight was not being reported in the major media, and so the myth of a prosperous America, proclaimed by powerful people in Washington and Wall Street, persisted."</ref>

In 2008, [[George W. Bush]]'s press secretary [[Scott McClellan]] published a book in which he confessed to regularly and routinely, but unknowingly, passing on misinformation to the media, following the instructions of his superiors. Politicians have willingly misled the press to further their agenda.<ref name=":0">((cite web|url=http://www.wisegeek.org/what-is-media-bias-and-where-does-it-come-from.htm|title=What is Media Bias and Where Does it Come From?|website=WiseGeek|access-date=November 19, 2014))</ref> Scott McClellan characterized the press as, by and large, honest, and intent on telling the truth, but reported that "the national press corps was probably ''too'' deferential to the White House", especially on the subject of the war in Iraq.<ref name="Ref_w">Scott McClellan, ''What Happened: Inside the Bush White House and Washington's Culture of Deception'', PublicAffairs, 2008, ((ISBN|978-1-58648-556-6)).</ref>

FAIR reported that between January and August 2014 no representatives for organized labor made an appearance on any of the high-profile Sunday morning talkshows (NBC's ''[[Meet the Press]]'', ABC's ''[[This Week (ABC TV series)|This Week]]'', ''[[Fox News Sunday]]'' and CBS's ''[[Face the Nation]]''), including episodes that covered topics such as labor rights and jobs, while current or former corporate CEOs made 12 appearances over that same period.<ref>[http://fair.org/take-action/media-advisories/labor-almost-invisible-on-tv-talk/ Labor Almost Invisible on TV Talk]. [[Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting]]. August 28, 2014.</ref>

===CIA influence===
((See also|Operation Mockingbird|CIA influence on public opinion))
In a 1977 ''[[Rolling Stone]]'' magazine article, "The CIA and the Media," reporter [[Carl Bernstein]] wrote that by 1953, CIA Director [[Allen Dulles]] oversaw the media network, which had major influence over 25 newspapers and wire agencies.<ref name="stones" /> Its usual ''[[modus operandi]]'' was to place reports, developed from CIA-provided intelligence, with cooperating or unwitting reporters. Those reports would be repeated or cited by the recipient reporters and would then, in turn, be cited throughout the media wire services. These networks were run by people with well-known liberal but pro-American-big-business and anti-Soviet views, such as [[William S. Paley]] (CBS), [[Henry Luce]] (''[[Time (magazine)|Time]]'' and ''[[Life (magazine)|Life]]''), [[Arthur Hays Sulzberger]] (''The New York Times''), [[Alfred Friendly]] (managing editor of ''The Washington Post''), Jerry O'Leary (''[[The Washington Star]]''), Hal Hendrix (''Miami News''), [[Barry Bingham, Sr.]] (''[[The Courier-Journal|Louisville Courier-Journal]]''), [[James S. Copley]] (Copley News Services) and Joseph Harrison (''[[The Christian Science Monitor]]'').<ref name="stones">((cite magazine|author=Carl Bernstein|title=CIA and the Media|magazine=[[Rolling Stone]]|date=October 20, 1977))</ref>

===Concentration===
((See also|Concentration of media ownership))

Five corporate [[conglomerate (company)|conglomerates]] ([[Comcast]], [[Disney]], [[Fox Corporation]], [[Paramount Global]] and [[Warner Bros. Discovery]]) [[Media cross-ownership in the United States|own the majority of mass media outlets]] in the United States.<ref name="GoldinSmith">Frances Goldin, Debby Smith, Michael Smith (2014). [https://books.google.com/books?id=DU71AAAAQBAJ ''Imagine: Living in a Socialist USA.''] [[Harper Perennial]]. ((ISBN|0062305573)) p. 189: 
* "Twenty years ago, thirty corporations controlled 90 percent of the media. Today, it is a grand total of six mega-corporations – Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation, Disney, Viacom, Time Warner, CBS and Comcast. Besides accumulating their own profits, the media are daily trumpets for the rest of the corporate world's advertising."</ref><ref>Lutz, Ashley, "[http://www.businessinsider.com/these-6-corporations-control-90-of-the-media-in-america-2012-6 These six Corporations Control 90% Of The Media In America]". ''[[Business Insider]]''. June 14, 2012.</ref>((Needs update|date=March 2024|reason=Failed verification with outdated citations))((Original research inline|date=March 2024)) Eric Alterman argued in 2004 that a uniformity of ownership means that stories which are critical of these corporations may often be underplayed in the media.<ref name="Ref_s">Eric Alterman (2004), [https://books.google.com/books?id=zXu0MIeRoCYC&pg=PA23 ''What Liberal Media?: The Truth About Bias and the News''], [[Basic Books]], ((ISBN|0-465-00177-7)).</ref>((Relevance inline|discuss=This author has only 10 citations on his article - is his opinion here relevant?|date=March 2024)) The [[Telecommunications Act of 1996]] enabled this handful of corporations to expand their power, and according to Howard Zinn, such mergers "enabled tighter control of information."<ref>[[Howard Zinn|Zinn, Howard]]. ''[[A People's History of the United States]]''. New York: [[HarperCollins|Harper Perennial Modern Classics]], 2005. p. 671 ((ISBN|0060838655))</ref> Chris Hedges argues that corporate media control "of nearly everything we read, watch or hear" is an aspect of what political philosopher [[Sheldon Wolin]] calls [[inverted totalitarianism]].<ref>[[Chris Hedges|Hedges, Chris]] (2009). ''Empire of Illusion: The End of Literacy and the Triumph of Spectacle.'' Nation Books. ((ISBN|1568586132)) p. 146.</ref><ref>[[Chris Hedges|Hedges, Chris]] (2013). "[http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/the_day_that_tv_news_died_20130324 The Day That TV News Died]". ''[[Truthdig]].'' Retrieved February 1, 2014.</ref>

"The guard dog metaphor suggests that media perform as a sentry not for the community as a whole, but for groups having sufficient power and influence to create and control their own security systems." The Guard Dog Theory states that, "the view of media as part of a power oligarchy".<ref>((cite book|last1=Scammell|first1=Margaret|last2=Semetko|first2=Holli|title=The Media, Journalism, and Democracy|date=November 22, 2017|publisher=Routiedge|location=London|isbn=9781351747110|page=482|edition=1st))</ref>((Original research inline|date=March 2024))

According to sociologist [[David Nibert]] of [[Wittenberg University]], the development of mass media in the 20th century allowed powerful corporations, with the support of politicians and government, to control public consciousness and disparage any challenge to the status quo, and to further the accumulation of profit. It also functioned to transform individuals in the society from citizens to consumers by emphasizing the "freedom" (not from hunger, homelessness, exploitation, etc.) to be able to "choose" what products to purchase from capitalist enterprises.<ref>((cite book | editor-last = Nibert | editor-first = David | editor-link = David Nibert | date = 2017 | title = Animal Oppression and Capitalism | page = xv| url = https://books.google.com/books?id=F6UxDwAAQBAJ&pg=PR15 | publisher = [[Praeger Publishing]] | isbn = 978-1440850738))</ref>

===Infotainment===
((Main|Infotainment))
Academics McKay, [[Kathleen Hall Jamieson]], and Hudson (see below) 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 media outlets based on the number of viewers who watch those outlets, not by how informed the viewers are, how good the analysis is, or how impressed the viewers are by that analysis.

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 Hall Jamieson]] claimed in her book ''The Interplay of Influence: News, Advertising, Politics, and the Internet'' that most television news stories are made to fit into one of five categories:<ref name="Ref_aj">Kathleen Jamieson and Karlyn Kohrs Campbell (2000), ''The Interplay of Influence: News, Advertising, Politics, and the Internet'', Wadsworth, 362 pages, ((ISBN|0534533647)).</ref>
*Appearance versus reality
*Little guys versus big guys
*Good versus evil
*Efficiency versus inefficiency
*Unique and bizarre events versus ordinary events

Reducing news to the five categories and tending towards an unrealistic black-and-white mentality, simplifies the world into easily understood opposites. According to Jamieson, the media provides an oversimplified skeleton of information that is more easily commercialized.

===Media imperialism===
[[Media imperialism]] is a critical theory regarding the perceived effects of globalization on the world's media, which is often seen as dominated by American media and culture. It is closely tied to the similar theory of [[cultural imperialism]].<ref>((cite journal |title=Media imperialism revisited: some findings from the Asian case |author1=Kalyani Chadha |author2=Anandam Kavoori |name-list-style=amp |journal=Media, Culture & Society |date=July 2000 |volume=22 |number=4 |pages=415–432 |doi=10.1177/016344300022004003 |s2cid=154757214 ))</ref>
:"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."<ref>[http://alslectures.webs.com/culturalidentity.htm "Cultural and Linguistic Imperialism"], Algirdas Makarevicius, Al's Lectures. Retrieved July 28, 2014.</ref> 
Significant writers and thinkers in the area include [[Ben Bagdikian]], [[Noam Chomsky]], [[Edward S. Herman]] and [[Robert W. McChesney]].

==Race((anchor|Racial_bias|))==
[[File:Why-do-some-terrorist-attacks-receive-more-media-attention-than-others.png|thumb|What determines the amount of media attention a terrorist attack receives? A Muslim perpetrator receives significantly more media attention.]]
((see also|Representation of African Americans in media|Racial bias in criminal news in the United States))
According to a 1998 study in ''[[Communication Research (journal)|Communication Research]]'', African Americans have been over-represented in news reports on crime as the perpetrators and underrepresented as the people reacting to or suffering from it.<ref name="blame">
((cite journal |last=Romer |first=Daniel |author2=Jamieson, Kathleen H |author3=de Coteau, Nicole J. |date=June 1998 |title=The treatment of persons of color in local television news: Ethnic blame discourse or realistic group conflict? |journal=Communication Research |volume=25 |issue=13 |pages=286–305 |doi=10.1177/009365098025003002 |s2cid=145749677))</ref>

According to Michelle Alexander in her book ''[[The New Jim Crow]]'', many stories of the crack crisis of the mid-1980s broke out in the media. In these stories, African Americans were featured as "crack whores." The deaths of the NBA player Len Bias and the NFL player Don Rogers from cocaine overdose only added to the media frenzy. Alexander claimed in her book, "Between October 1988 and October 1989, ''The Washington Post'' alone ran 1,565 stories about the 'drug scourge.'"<ref>((cite book|last1=Alexander|first1=Michelle|title=The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness|date=2011|publisher=The New Press|location=New York|pages=52–53))</ref>

One example of this double standard is the comparison of the deaths of Michael Brown and Dillon Taylor. On August 9, 2014, news broke out that Brown, a young unarmed black man, was shot and killed by a white policeman. The story spread throughout news media, which explained that the incident had to do with race. Only two days later, Taylor, another young unarmed man, was shot and killed by a policeman. That story, however, did not get as highly publicized as Brown's. Taylor was white and Hispanic, but the police officer was black.<ref>((cite web|last1=Richardson|first1=Valerie|title=Ferguson-like attack in Utah escapes media notice; race bias seen|url=http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/aug/25/critics-see-racial-double-standard-in-coverage-of-/?page=all|website=[[The Washington Times]]|access-date=March 1, 2015))</ref>

Another example of racial bias was the portrayal of African Americans in the 1992 riots in Los Angeles. The media presented the riots as being an African American problem and deemed African Americans solely responsible for the riots. However, according to reports, only 36% of those arrested during the riots were African Americans; 60% of the rioters and looters were Hispanics and whites.<ref>((cite news|access-date=January 17, 2021|title=When LA Erupted In Anger: A Look Back At The Rodney King Riots|url=https://www.npr.org/2017/04/26/524744989/when-la-erupted-in-anger-a-look-back-at-the-rodney-king-riots|newspaper=[[NPR]]|date=April 26, 2017|last1=Sastry|first1=Anjuli|last2=Bates|first2=Karen Grigsby))</ref><ref>((cite journal|first1=Paul R.|last1=Watts|title=Mapping narratives: the 1992 Los Angeles riots as a case study for narrative-based geovisualization|url=https://doi.org/10.1080/08873631.2010.494401|journal=Journal of Cultural Geography|date=June 1, 2010|issn=0887-3631|pages=203–227|volume=27|issue=2|doi=10.1080/08873631.2010.494401|s2cid=145367456))</ref><ref name="Balkaran">((cite web|url=http://www.yale.edu/ypq/articles/oct99/oct99b.html#fn6 |title=Mass Media and Racism |publisher=Yale.edu |date=March 19, 1995 |first=Stephen |last=Balkaran|access-date=November 12, 2013 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20111124045408/http://www.yale.edu/ypq/articles/oct99/oct99b.html |archive-date=November 24, 2011 |quote=Race was the visible catalyst, not the underlying cause, as media portrayed it to be. The portrayal of this individual event encouraged the perception that the black community was solely responsible for the riots and disturbances. According to reports, of those arrested, only 36% were black and of those arrested, more than a third had full-time jobs and most had no political affiliation. Some 60% of the rioters and looters were made up of Hispanics and whites. Yet the media did not report this underlying fact. The media portrayal of this event along with other race riots has again inflicted negative charges and scorn on black awareness.))</ref>

In a study conducted by Seong-Jae Min that tested racial bias in stories of missing children in the media, African American children were less represented between 2005 and 2007. According to the [[US Department of Justice]], out of 800,000 yearly cases, 47% were "racial minorities" and were underreported. According to Dixon and Linz, the news media often reports cases where children of color are criminals but often report cases of white children being victims of crime.<ref name="tandfonline.com">((Cite journal |last1=Min |first1=Seong-Jae |last2=Feaster |first2=John C. |year=2010 |title=Missing Children in National News Coverage: Racial and Gender Representations of Missing Children Cases |journal=Communication Research Reports |volume=27 |issue=3 |pages=207–216 |doi=10.1080/08824091003776289 |s2cid=145060673))</ref>

Attention was brought to racial bias in the media following the case of [[Killing of Gabby Petito|Gabby Petito]] in September 2021. Many people were talking not only about Gabby and her case, but about [[missing white woman syndrome]] and the bias the media has against people of color.<ref>((Cite web |last1=Bioethics |first1=Center for |last2=Justice |first2=Social |date=2021-10-25 |title=Counting Women of Color: Being angry about "missing white woman syndrome" is not enough |url=https://msubioethics.com/2021/10/25/counting-women-of-color-missing-white-woman-syndrome-list/ |access-date=2023-03-13 |website=MSU Bioethics |language=en))</ref> News outlets such as The New Yorker, The Los Angeles Times, and the New York Times published articles about Gabby's case as well as articles about the disproportionate amount of media coverage the case was receiving.<ref>((Cite magazine |date=2021-10-08 |title=The Long American History of "Missing White Woman Syndrome" |url=https://www.newyorker.com/news/q-and-a/the-long-american-history-of-missing-white-woman-syndrome |magazine=[[The New Yorker]] |language=en-US |access-date=2023-03-13))</ref><ref>((Cite web |date=2021-10-04 |title=Gabby Petito and one way to break media's 'missing white woman syndrome' |url=https://www.latimes.com/entertainment-arts/story/2021-10-04/gabby-petito-and-breaking-the-white-missing-women-syndrome |access-date=2023-03-13 |website=[[Los Angeles Times]] |language=en-US))</ref><ref>((Cite news |last=Robertson |first=Katie |date=2021-09-22 |title=News Media Can't Shake 'Missing White Woman Syndrome,' Critics Say |language=en-US |work=[[The New York Times]] |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/22/business/media/gabby-petito-missing-white-woman-syndrome.html |access-date=2023-03-13 |issn=0362-4331))</ref>

Multiple commentators and newspaper articles have cited examples of the national media underreporting interracial [[hate crime]]s when they involve white victims, unlike when they involve black victims.<ref name="Ref_ag">[http://www.laweekly.com/2007-01-04/news/long-beach-hate-crime/ "Long Beach Hate Crime"] ((Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140809081945/http://www.laweekly.com/2007-01-04/news/long-beach-hate-crime/|date=August 9, 2014)) by Kate Coe. ''LA Weekly.'' January 4, 2007. Retrieved 9/16/09.</ref><ref name="Ref_ah">[http://www.chicagotribune.com/services/newspaper/premium/chi-murders_bdjun10,0,5653843.story "What is a hate crime?"] By Howard Witt. ''Chicago Tribune.'' June 10, 2007. Retrieved 9/16/09.</ref><ref name="Ref_ai">[https://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200705u/hate-crimes "'Hate Crimes' and Double Standards"] By Stuart Taylor, Jr. ''The Atlantic.'' May 29, 2007. Retrieved 9/16/09.</ref> Jon Ham, a vice president of the conservative [[John Locke Foundation]], wrote that "local officials and editors often claim that mentioning the black-on-white nature of the event might inflame passion, but they never have those same qualms when it's white-on-black."<ref>"[http://www.carolinajournal.com/mediamangle/display_story.html?id=7554 Politically correct editors leave the reader hanging]". ''Carolina Journal''. March 23, 2011.</ref>

A 2017 report by Travis L. Dixon (of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign) found that major media outlets tended to portray black families as dysfunctional and dependent, and white families were portrayed as stable. The portrayals may give the impression that poverty and welfare are primarily black issues. According to Dixon, that can reduce public support for social safety programs and lead to stricter welfare requirements.<ref>((Cite news |last=Jan |first=Tracy |date=December 13, 2017 |title=News media offers consistently warped portrayals of black families, study finds |language=en-US |newspaper=[[The Washington Post]] |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/12/13/news-media-offers-consistently-warped-portrayals-of-black-families-study-finds/ |access-date=December 14, 2017 |issn=0190-8286))</ref><ref>((Cite news |title=Report: A Dangerous Distortion of our Families |url=https://colorofchange.org/dangerousdistortion/ |access-date=December 14, 2017))</ref> A 2018 study found that media portrayals of Muslims were substantially more negative than for other religious groups, even after relevant factors were controlled for.<ref>((Cite journal |last1=Bleich |first1=Erik |last2=Van Der Veen |first2=A. Maurits |year=2018 |title=Media portrayals of Muslims: a comparative sentiment analysis of American newspapers, 1996–2015 |journal=Politics, Groups, and Identities |volume=9 |pages=1–20 |doi=10.1080/21565503.2018.1531770 |s2cid=150352731))</ref> A 2019 study described media portrayals of minority women in crime news stories as based on "outdated and harmful stereotypes."<ref>((Cite journal |last=Slakoff |first=Danielle C. |year=2020 |title=The representation of women and girls of color in United States crime news |journal=Sociology Compass |language=en |volume=14 |pages=e12741 |doi=10.1111/soc4.12741 |issn=1751-9020 |doi-access=free))</ref>

==Gender==
According to 2010 report, gender reporting is biased, with negative stories about women being more likely to make the news. Positive stories about men are more often reported than positive stories about women.<ref>((Cite journal |last1=Rohrbach |first1=Tobias |last2=Fiechtner |first2=Stephanie |last3=Schönhagen |first3=Philomen |last4=Puppis |first4=Manuel |date=October 2020 |title=More Than Just Gender: Exploring Contextual Influences on Media Bias of Political Candidates |url=http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1940161220912694 |journal=The International Journal of Press/Politics |language=en |volume=25 |issue=4 |pages=692–711 |doi=10.1177/1940161220912694 |s2cid=216478125 |issn=1940-1612))</ref> However, according to Hartley, young girls are seen as youthful and therefore more "newsworthy."<ref name="tandfonline.com"/>

In 2011, a study researching female media coverage during abortion protests found that 27.9% of media sources and subjects were women, despite them being the most prominent gender at the protests. The study also discussed how different media topics, in this case pro-choice protests, sometimes lead to biased reporting because of women's reluctance to speak up "in fear of misperceptions or repercussions."<ref>((Cite journal |last1=Armstrong |first1=Cory L. |last2=Boyle |first2=Michael P. |date=2011-02-28 |title=Views from the Margins: News Coverage of Women in Abortion Protests, 1960–2006 |url=http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/15205431003615901 |journal=Mass Communication and Society |language=en |volume=14 |issue=2 |pages=153–177 |doi=10.1080/15205431003615901 |s2cid=145637639 |issn=1520-5436))</ref>

The [[1996 Summer Olympic Games]] showcased gender bias, with male athletes receiving more television coverage than female athletes in the major event.<ref>((Cite journal |doi = 10.1177/0193732502239585|title = Gender Bias in the 1996 Olympic Games|year = 2003|last1 = Higgs|first1 = Catriona T.|last2 = Weiller|first2 = Karen H.|last3 = Martin|first3 = Scott B.|journal = Journal of Sport and Social Issues|volume = 27|pages = 52–64|s2cid = 27528542))</ref>

According to a study done by Eran Shor, Arnout van de Rijt, and Babak Fotouhi, even after accounting for systemic gender disparity within occupation and public interest, women still receive disproportionate news coverage.<ref>((Cite journal |last1=Shor |first1=Eran |last2=van de Rijt |first2=Arnout |last3=Fotouhi |first3=Babak |date=2019-09-03 |title=A Large-Scale Test of Gender Bias in the Media |url=https://sociologicalscience.com/articles-v6-20-526/ |journal=Sociological Science |language=en-US |volume=6 |pages=526–550 |doi=10.15195/v6.a20 |s2cid=202625899 |issn=2330-6696|hdl=1814/68715 |hdl-access=free ))</ref>

==Politics==
((anchor|Claims of a liberal bias))
Numerous books and studies have addressed the question of [[political bias]] in the American media. Various broadcast and online outlets exhibit both liberal and conservative bias. Commentary, editorial and opinion is more biased than factual news reporting in the mainstream media, and concerns have been raised as the lines between commentary and journalism are increasingly blurred.<ref>((cite journal |url=https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR2960.html |title=News in a Digital Age |last1=Kavanagh |first1=Jennifer |last2=Marcellino |first2=William |date=2019 |website=rand.org |access-date=August 20, 2019 |last3=Blake |first3=Jonathan S. |last4=Smith |first4=Shawn |last5=Davenport |first5=Steven |last6=Tebeka |first6=Mahlet G.))</ref><ref>((Cite news |url=https://www.theguardian.com/media/greenslade/2016/aug/25/why-media-commentary-is-so-crucial-when-op |title=Why media commentary is so crucial when opinions displace facts |last=Greenslade |first=Roy |date=August 25, 2016 |work=[[The Guardian]] |access-date=August 20, 2019 |language=en-GB |issn=0261-3077))</ref><ref>((Cite news |url=https://apnews.com/127fe8b09ae74a57826ab5953922e711 |title=As our media environment blurs, confusion often reigns |last=Bauder |first=David |work=[[Associated Press]] |date=August 16, 2018 |access-date=August 20, 2019))</ref> In reaction to this, there has been a growth of independent [[fact-checking]] and algorithms to assess bias.<ref>((Cite journal |last1=Hamborg |first1=Felix |last2=Donnay |first2=Karsten |last3=Gipp |first3=Bela |date=November 16, 2018 |title=Automated identification of media bias in news articles: an interdisciplinary literature review |journal=International Journal on Digital Libraries |volume=20 |issue=4 |pages=391–415 |language=en |doi=10.1007/s00799-018-0261-y |issn=1432-1300|doi-access=free ))</ref>

===Liberal<span class="anchor" id="Liberal bias"></span>===

Senator [[Barry Goldwater]], a conservative, was the first Republican to allege liberal media bias during his [[Barry Goldwater 1964 presidential campaign|1964 presidential campaign]].<ref name=":1" />((Additional citation needed|date=March 2024|reason=big claim to be backed-up by one source)) According to the ''[[Encyclopædia Britannica]]'', "conservative media critics often claim that U.S. media skews toward the political left".<ref>((Cite web |title=Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting |url=https://www.britannica.com/topic/Fairness-and-Accuracy-in-Reporting |access-date=2022-08-14 |website=[[Encyclopædia Britannica]] |language=en))</ref>

According to a study by Lars Willnat and David H. Weaver, professors of journalism at [[Indiana University]], conducted via online interviews with 1,080 reporters between August and December 2013, 38.8% of US journalists identify as "leaning left" (28.1% identify as Democrats), 12.9% identify as "leaning right" (7.1% as Republicans), and 43.8% as "middle of the road" (50.2% as independents).<ref name="weaver">((Cite journal|url=https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1077699018778242|doi = 10.1177/1077699018778242|title = The American Journalist in the Digital Age: Another Look at U.S. News People|year = 2019|last1 = Weaver|first1 = David H.|last2 = Willnat|first2 = Lars|last3 = Wilhoit|first3 = G. Cleveland|journal = Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly|volume = 96|pages = 101–130|s2cid = 150287375))</ref><ref name="WP7%">((cite news|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2014/05/06/just-7-percent-of-journalists-are-republicans-thats-far-less-than-even-a-decade-ago/
|title=Just 7 percent of journalists are Republicans. That's far fewer than even a decade ago.|date=May 6, 2014|newspaper=[[The Washington Post]]))</ref><ref name="Pol7%">((cite web|url=https://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2014/05/survey-7-percent-of-reporters-identify-as-republican-188053|title=Survey: 7 percent of reporters identify as Republican|date=May 6, 2014|website=[[Politico]]))</ref><ref name="IU7%">((cite web|url=http://news.indiana.edu/releases/iu/2014/05/2013-american-journalist-key-findings.pdf|title=The American Journalist In The Digital Age|date=May 2014|publisher=[[Indiana University]]))</ref> The report noted that the fraction of Democratic journals in 2013 was the lowest since 1971, and down 8 percentage points since 2002; the trend is for more journalists to identify as politically non-aligned.<ref name="IU7%" /><ref name="weaver" />

A 2017 study by the Pew Research Centre looked at media coverage during the first 60 days of Donald Trump's presidency and found that 62% of the media coverage was negative, compared to just 20% for Barack Obama over the same period, which the editorial board of ''Investor's Business Daily'' considered to be evidence of bias.<ref>((Cite web |last= |first= |date=2017-10-03 |title=Do The Media Hate Trump? Yes, And From The Very Start Of His Presidency, New Survey Shows |url=https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/do-the-media-hate-trump-yes-and-from-the-very-start-of-his-presidency-new-survey-shows/ |access-date=2024-03-20 |website=[[Investor's Business Daily]] |language=en-US |type=Editorial))</ref><ref>((Cite web |last=Grieco |first=Amy Mitchell, Jeffrey Gottfried, Galen Stocking, Katerina Eva Matsa and Elizabeth |date=2017-10-02 |title=3. A comparison to early coverage of past administrations |url=https://www.pewresearch.org/journalism/2017/10/02/a-comparison-to-early-coverage-of-past-administrations/ |access-date=2024-03-20 |website=Pew Research Center's Journalism Project |language=en-US))</ref>((Synthesis inline|date=March 2024|reason=Negative coverage does not equal bias - it could be justified.))

A 2018 study by Axios/SurveyMonkey found that 92% of Republicans believed that the media intentionally reported false news.<ref name=":7">((Cite web |last=Siegfried |first=Evan |date=2018-07-29 |title=Opinion ((!)) Media bias against conservatives is why no one trusts the news now |url=https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/media-bias-against-conservatives-real-part-reason-no-one-trusts-ncna895471 |access-date=2024-03-20 |website=NBC News |language=en |type=Opinion))</ref>

A 2020 study in ''Science Advances'' found that, although a majority of journalists identify as liberals/Democrats, there is no evidence of a liberal media bias in which stories journalists chose to cover in their reporting.<ref>((Cite journal|last1=Hassell|first1=Hans J. G.|last2=Holbein|first2=John B.|last3=Miles|first3=Matthew R.|date=2020|title=There is no liberal media bias in which news stories political journalists choose to cover|journal=Science Advances|language=en|volume=6|issue=14|pages=eaay9344|doi=10.1126/sciadv.aay9344|pmid=32270038|pmc=7112764|bibcode=2020SciA....6.9344H|issn=2375-2548|doi-access=free))</ref>

A 2021 research paper published by the [[Tow Center for Digital Journalism]] found that American conservatives believe "that the American press blames, shames and ostracizes conservatives," citing [[Media coverage of the COVID-19 pandemic|media coverage of COVID-19]] and [[Donald Trump]], but that they were "not primarily upset that the media get facts wrong, nor even that journalists push a liberal policy agenda".<ref>((Cite web |last1=Nadler |first1=Anthony M. |last2=Taussig |first2=Doron |date=2022-04-13 |title=Conservatives feel blamed, shamed and ostracized by the media |url=http://theconversation.com/conservatives-feel-blamed-shamed-and-ostracized-by-the-media-174424 |access-date=2022-08-25 |website=[[The Conversation (website)|The Conversation]] |language=en))</ref>

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.<ref name="ingram_CJR">((cite news |last1=Ingram |first1=Mathew |title=The myth of social media anti-conservative bias refuses to die |url=https://www.cjr.org/the_media_today/platform-bias.php |access-date=August 13, 2019 |newspaper=[[Columbia Journalism Review]] |date=August 8, 2019))</ref><ref name="ladd" /> 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".<ref>((Cite web |last=Tiffany |first=Kaitlyn |date=2022-04-28 |title=Why Hunter Biden's Laptop Will Never Go Away |url=https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2022/04/tech-companies-suppressed-biden-laptop/629680/ |access-date=2022-06-02 |website=[[The Atlantic]] |language=en))</ref><ref>((Cite web |date=2022-05-31 |title=Opinion: Hunter Biden laptop confirmation proves Big Tech's bias |url=https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/editorials/hunter-biden-laptop-confirmation-confirms-big-techs-bias |access-date=2022-06-02 |website=[[Washington Examiner]] |language=en))</ref> Conservatives who have found their content affected by platforms' attempts to reduce the reach of false or unreliable content have characterized this as the [[shadow banning]] of conservative social media accounts; the [[Nieman Foundation for Journalism]] at Harvard investigated these claims and found no evidence that conservatives were being shadow-banned.<ref name="nieman">((Cite web|url=http://www.niemanlab.org/2018/07/twitters-not-shadow-banning-republicans-but-get-ready-to-hear-that-it-is/|title=Twitter's not "shadow banning" Republicans, but get ready to hear that it is|website=Nieman Lab| author=Laura Hazard Owen|date=July 27, 2018|access-date=February 13, 2019))</ref>

===Conservative===

Perceived liberal bias was cited by [[Roger Ailes]] as a reason for setting up [[Fox News]].<ref>((Cite news |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/14/business/media/fox-news-fair-and-balanced.html |title=Fox News Drops 'Fair and Balanced' Motto |last=Grynbaum |first=Michael M. |date=June 14, 2017 |work=[[The New York Times]] |access-date=August 20, 2019 |language=en-US |issn=0362-4331))</ref> From the late 20th century, a right-wing media ecosystem grew up in parallel to mainstream journalism, leading to an asymmetric polarization in conservative media.<ref name="cjr">((Cite news |url=https://www.cjr.org/analysis/breitbart-media-trump-harvard-study.php |title=Study: Breitbart-led right-wing media ecosystem altered broader media agenda |access-date=August 20, 2019 |work=[[Columbia Journalism Review]]))</ref> Whilst there has been research into ''[[The Wall Street Journal]]'' editorial page's adopting more conservative perspectives on economics since Rupert Murdoch's acquisition of the company, its news reporting is part of the journalistic mainstream and is committed primarily to factual reporting.<ref name="Network Propaganda">((Cite book |title=Network propaganda : manipulation, disinformation, and radicalization in American politics |last=Benkler, Yochai |isbn=9780190923624 |location=New York, NY |oclc=1045162158|year=2018))</ref><ref>((cite journal|first1=Michael W.|last1=Wagner|first2=Timothy P.|last2=Collins|title=Does Ownership Matter?|url=https://doi.org/10.1080/17512786.2014.882063|journal=Journalism Practice|date=2 November 2014|issn=1751-2786|pages=758–771|volume=8|issue=6|doi=10.1080/17512786.2014.882063|s2cid=154147566))</ref><ref>((cite journal|first1=Carl|last1=Grafton|first2=Anne|last2=Permaloff|title=Liberal and conservative dissensus in areas of domestic public policy other than business and economics|url=https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-005-1811-x|journal=Policy Sciences|date=1 March 2005|issn=1573-0891|pages=45–67|volume=38|issue=1|doi=10.1007/s11077-005-1811-x|s2cid=153342744))</ref> New right-leaning media outlets, including [[Breitbart News]], [[NewsMax]], and [[WorldNetDaily]] have instead a core mission to promote a conservative or right-wing agenda, often (unlike ''The Wall Street Journal'' and other mainstream conservative journals) supporting a hierarchy based on race, religion, nationality, or gender.<ref name="Network Propaganda" /><ref>((cite journal|first1=Annett|last1=Heft|first2=Eva|last2=Mayerhöffer|first3=Susanne|last3=Reinhardt|first4=Curd|last4=Knüpfer|title=Beyond Breitbart: Comparing Right-Wing Digital News Infrastructures in Six Western Democracies|journal=Policy & Internet|date= n.d. |issn=1944-2866|pages=20–45|volume=12|issue=1|doi=10.1002/poi3.219|s2cid=203110947|doi-access=free))</ref><ref name="Faris" /> Analysis of social media shares in the 2016 election cycle shows that consumers of conservative media are much less likely than consumers of partisan liberal media to share mainstream sources, leading to an [[Echo chamber (media)|echo chamber]] effect with high [[wikt:insularity|insularity]] and drifting towards extremes.<ref name="cjr" /><ref name="Network Propaganda" /><ref name="Faris">((cite journal |last1=Faris |first1=Robert |last2=Roberts |first2=Hal |last3=Etling |first3=Bruce |last4=Bourassa |first4=Nikki |last5=Zuckerman |first5=Ethan |last6=Benkler |first6=Yochai |date=1 August 2017 |title=Partisanship, Propaganda, and Disinformation: Online Media and the 2016 U.S. Presidential Election |url=https://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=3019414 |journal=Berkman Klein Center Research Publication |location=Rochester, NY |ssrn=3019414))</ref> While mainstream and left-leaning media imposes reputational costs on those who propagate rumor and coalescences around corrected narratives, the conservative media ecosystem creates [[positive feedback]] for bias-confirming statements as a central feature of its normal operation.<ref name="Network Propaganda" /><ref name="Faris" />

Research finds that Fox News increases Republican votes and makes Republican politicians more partisan.<ref name=":14">((Cite journal|last1=DellaVigna|first1=Stefano|last2=Kaplan|first2=Ethan|date=August 1, 2007|title=The Fox News Effect: Media Bias and Voting|journal=The Quarterly Journal of Economics|language=en|volume=122|issue=3|pages=1187–1234|citeseerx=10.1.1.333.4616|doi=10.1162/qjec.122.3.1187|s2cid=16610755|issn=0033-5533|quote=The conservative Fox News Channel.))</ref><ref name=":13">((Cite journal|last1=Martin|first1=Gregory J.|last2=Ali|first2=Yurukoglu|date=2017|title=Bias in Cable News: Persuasion and Polarization|url=http://www.nber.org/papers/w20798.pdf|journal=American Economic Review|language=en|volume=107|issue=9|pages=2565–2599|doi=10.1257/aer.20160812|s2cid=152704098|issn=0002-8282|doi-access=free))</ref><ref name=":15">((Cite journal|last1=Clinton|first1=Joshua D.|last2=Enamorado|first2=Ted|date=October 1, 2014|title=The National News Media's Effect on Congress: How Fox News Affected Elites in Congress|journal=The Journal of Politics|volume=76|issue=4|pages=928–943|doi=10.1017/S0022381614000425|s2cid=31934930|issn=0022-3816))</ref><ref name=":16">((Cite journal|last1=Schroeder|first1=Elizabeth|last2=Stone|first2=Daniel F.|date=June 1, 2015|title=Fox News and political knowledge|journal=Journal of Public Economics|volume=126|pages=52–63|doi=10.1016/j.jpubeco.2015.03.009))</ref> A 2007 study, using the introduction of Fox News into local markets (1996–2000) as an instrumental variable, found that in the 2000 presidential election, "Republicans gained 0.4 to 0.7 percentage points in the towns that broadcast Fox News, which suggests that "Fox News convinced 3 to 28 percent of its viewers to vote Republican, depending on the audience measure."<ref name=":14" /> The results were confirmed by a 2015 study.<ref name=":16" /> A 2014 study, using the same instrumental variable, found congressional "representatives become less supportive of President Clinton in districts where Fox News begins broadcasting than similar representatives in similar districts where Fox News was not broadcast."<ref name=":15" /> Another 2014 paper found that Fox News viewing increased Republican vote shares among voters who identified as Republican or independent.<ref>((Cite journal|last=Hopkins|first=Daniel J.|date=March 11, 2014|title=The Consequences of Broader Media Choice: Evidence from the Expansion of Fox News|journal=Quarterly Journal of Political Science|volume=9|issue=1|pages=115–135|doi=10.1561/100.00012099|issn=1554-0626))</ref> A 2017 study, using channel positions as an instrumental variable, found "Fox News increases Republican vote shares by 0.3 points among viewers induced into watching 2.5 additional minutes per week by variation in position."<ref name=":13" />
A 2022 poll found that 69 percent of Republicans view Fox News as credible, even if the network faces a defamation lawsuit.<ref>((cite news |last1=MOCKAITIS |first1=TOM |title=Contemporary America is modeling the worst of Depression-era Germany |url=https://thehill.com/opinion/civil-rights/3905112-contemporary-america-is-modeling-the-worst-of-depression-era-germany/ |agency=[[The Hill (newspaper)|The Hill]] |date=2023))</ref>

At least one conservative theme, that of [[climate change denialism]], is over-represented in the media as a result of media efforts to create a [[false balance]], lending disproportionate credence and weight to the small number of non-experts who dispute the science on climate change.<ref>((cite journal|first1=Alexander Michael|last1=Petersen|first2=Emmanuel M.|last2=Vincent|first3=Anthony LeRoy|last3=Westerling|title=Discrepancy in scientific authority and media visibility of climate change scientists and contrarians|journal=Nature Communications|date=13 August 2019|issn=2041-1723|pages=3502|volume=10|issue=1|doi=10.1038/s41467-019-09959-4|pmid=31409789 |pmc=6692310|bibcode=2019NatCo..10.3502P ))</ref><ref>((Cite news |url=https://news.ucmerced.edu/news/2019/media-creates-false-balance-climate-science-study-shows |title=Media Creates False Balance on Climate Science, Study Shows ((!)) Newsroom |publisher=University of California, Merced |access-date=August 17, 2019))</ref>

===Cable news===
[[Kenneth Tomlinson]], while chairman of the [[Corporation for Public Broadcasting]], commissioned a $10,000 government study into [[Bill Moyers]]' [[Public Broadcasting Service|PBS]] program, ''[[NOW on PBS|NOW]]''.<ref name="Labaton2005">((cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/02/arts/television/02public.html |title=Republican Chairman Exerts Pressure on PBS, Alleging Biases |newspaper=[[The New York Times]] |first=Stephen |last=Labaton |author2=Lorne Manly |author3=Elizabeth Jensen|date=May 2, 2005 |access-date=March 28, 2007))</ref> The results of the study indicated that there was no particular bias on PBS. Tomlinson chose to reject the results of the study, subsequently reducing time and funding for ''NOW'' with [[Bill Moyers]], which Tomlinson regarded as a "left-wing" program, and then expanded a show hosted by Fox News correspondent [[Tucker Carlson]]. Some board members stated that his actions were politically motivated.<ref name="Labaton2005a">((cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/16/politics/16broadcast.html |title=Broadcast Chief Violated Laws, Inquiry Finds |newspaper=[[The New York Times]] |first=Stephen |last=Labaton |date=November 16, 2005 |access-date=March 28, 2007))</ref> Himself a frequent target of claims of bias (in this case, conservative bias), Tomlinson resigned from the CPB board on November 4, 2005. Regarding the claims of a left-wing bias, Moyers asserted in a ''[[Broadcasting & Cable]]'' interview that "If reporting on what's happening to ordinary people thrown overboard by circumstances beyond their control and betrayed by Washington officials is liberalism, I stand convicted."<ref>((cite web|last=Eggerton|first=John|url=http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA6286824.html |title=Moyers Has His Say |date=November 27, 2005 |work=Broadcasting & Cable |access-date=November 12, 2013 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131112182637/http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/159129-Moyers_Has_His_Say.php |archive-date=November 12, 2013))</ref>

According to former Fox News producer Charlie Reina, unlike the [[Associated Press|AP]], [[CBS News]], or [[ABC News]], Fox News's editorial policy is set from the top down in the form of a daily memo: "[F]requently, Reina says, it also contains hints, suggestions and directives on how to slant the day's news—invariably, he said in 2003, in a way that was consistent with the politics and desires of the Bush administration."<ref name="Fox News: The inside story">((cite news |author=Tim Grieve |url=http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2003/10/31/fox |title=Fox News: The inside story |work=[[Salon.com|Salon]] |date=October 31, 2003 |access-date=November 12, 2013 |archive-date=August 6, 2011 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110806162153/http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2003/10/31/fox |url-status=dead ))</ref> Fox News responded by denouncing Reina as a "disgruntled employee" with "an ax to grind".<ref name="Fox News: The inside story"/> [[Andrew Sullivan]] wrote of Fox that "[o]ne alleged news network fed its audience a diet of lies, while contributing financially to the party that benefited from those lies."<ref name="Ref_x">((cite web|last=Sullivan |first=Andrew |url=http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2010/12/the-propaganda-channel.html |title=The Propaganda Channel |work=[[The Atlantic]] |date=December 17, 2010 |access-date=November 12, 2013))</ref> A similar top-down approach to dictating messaging is used at [[Sinclair Broadcast Group]],<ref>((Cite news |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/03/business/dealbook/sinclair-media-expansion-fox-conservative-media.html |title=Fox's Unfamiliar but Powerful Television Rival: Sinclair |last1=de la Merced |first1=Michael J. |date=May 3, 2017 |work=[[The New York Times]] |access-date=August 20, 2019 |last2=Fandos |first2=Nicholas |language=en-US |issn=0362-4331))</ref> which notably instructed all its local news anchors to run a conservative message in the main news segment.<ref>((Cite news |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/02/business/media/sinclair-news-anchors-script.html |title=Sinclair Made Dozens of Local News Anchors Recite the Same Script |work=[[The New York Times]] |last1=Fortin |first1=Jacey |last2=Bromwich |first2=Jonah Engel |date=April 2, 2018 |language=en-US |issn=0362-4331))</ref> Its rapid growth through station group acquisitions—especially during the lead-up to the 2016 presidential elections—had provided an increasingly large platform promoting conservative views.<ref>((Cite news|url=https://qz.com/1020401/john-olivers-last-week-tonight-exposes-the-conservative-media-takeover-of-local-news/|title=John Oliver exposes the Breitbart-like right wing media giant that's taking over your local news|last=Fessler|first=Leah|work=[[Quartz (publication)|Quartz]]|access-date=August 1, 2017|language=en-US))</ref><ref>((Cite news|url=https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2017/jul/03/john-oliver-sinclair-broadcasting-rightwing-news-fox|title=John Oliver: Sinclair Broadcasting brings 'troubling' rightwing bias to local news|last=Nevins|first=Jake|date=July 3, 2017|work=[[The Guardian]]|access-date=August 1, 2017|language=en-GB|issn=0261-3077))</ref><ref name="wp-sinclairwjla">((cite news|title=Here's what happened the last time Sinclair bought a big-city station|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/heres-what-happened-the-last-time-sinclair-bought-a-big-city-station/2017/05/08/92433126-33f7-11e7-b4ee-434b6d506b37_story.html|newspaper=[[The Washington Post]]|access-date=May 9, 2017))</ref><ref name="nyt-tiltright">((cite news |last=Ember |first=Sydney |date=May 12, 2017 |title=Sinclair Requires TV Stations to Air Segments That Tilt to the Right |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/12/business/media/sinclair-broadcast-komo-conservative-media.html |newspaper=[[The New York Times]] |access-date=May 13, 2017))</ref>

[[Nexstar Media Group]], the US's largest owner of local television stations, specifically claimed to counter perceived cable news media bias by starting the [[NewsNation]] channel to replace the struggling general entertainment channel WGN America. Nexstar invested millions of dollars into news programming, and said they hired "[[rhetoric]]ians" to monitor language used in their flagship newscast, ''[[NewsNation Prime]]'', for evidence of bias.<ref>((Cite web|last=Channick|first=Robert|title=WGN America to launch 'News Nation' on Tuesday, aiming to transform the house that Bozo built into the next CNN|url=https://www.chicagotribune.com/business/ct-biz-wgn-america-news-nation-launch-20200828-evo54yyjzvbazc2g7dzlmjonua-story.html|access-date=March 16, 2021|website=[[Chicago Tribune]]|date=August 28, 2020 ))</ref> However, ratings were lower than the entertainment programming it replaced, the channel's interview with President Donald Trump was mocked by other outlets as being especially soft, and later it was disclosed that former Fox News Channel chief and Trump administration deputy chief of staff [[Bill Shine]] was brought on as a consultant.<ref>((Cite news|last=Robertson|first=Katie|date=March 7, 2021|title=Journalists Rebel at NewsNation, a Newcomer in Cable News|language=en-US|work=[[The New York Times]]|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/07/business/media/newsnation-cable-news.html|access-date=March 16, 2021|issn=0362-4331))</ref> After the disclosure, the news director, managing editor, and vice president of news all resigned within one month, just as NewsNation was expanding its hours of coverage.<ref>((Cite web|last=Littleton|first=Cynthia|date=March 10, 2021|title=Nexstar's NewsNation Faces Turmoil, Staff Departures Amid Conservative Bias Concerns|url=https://variety.com/2021/tv/news/newsnation-jennifer-lyon-nexstar-bias-1234926851/|access-date=March 16, 2021|website=[[Variety (magazine)|Variety]]|language=en-US))</ref>

===Asymmetric polarization===
In ''Network Propaganda'', [[Yochai Benkler]], Robert Faris and Hal Roberts of Harvard's [[Berkman Klein Center for Internet & Society]] use [[Network theory|network analysis]] to analyze American media and explore why there is "often no overlap, no resemblance whatsoever between the news events reported in mainstream print and broadcast coverage [...] and the topics that get broadcast as news on the Fox network and its fellows on the right".<ref>((Cite news |url=https://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-ol-patt-morrison-yochai-benkler-20181107-htmlstory.html |title=Column: How the 'propaganda feedback loop' of right-wing media keeps more than a quarter of Americans siloed |date=November 7, 2018 |access-date=August 17, 2019 |work=[[Los Angeles Times]]))</ref> By tracking citations and social media shares across various news outlets and correlating with editorial political leaning, they found that right-wing media sources had effectively segregated themselves<ref>((Cite journal |last=Wanless |first=Alicia |date=June 21, 2019 |title=Computational & Network Propaganda: A Practitioner's Review of Two Books |journal=Journal of Communication |volume=69 |issue=5 |pages=E18–E21 |language=en |doi=10.1093/joc/jqz020 |issn=0021-9916))</ref> into in an increasingly isolated silo, creating a propaganda [[feedback loop]]<ref name="Pyo">((Cite journal |last=Pyo |first=Yeahin |title=Network Propaganda: Book review |journal=International Journal of Communication |volume=13 |issue=2019 |pages=426–462))</ref><ref name="DeCook">((Cite journal |last=DeCook |first=Julia Rose |date=June 1, 2019 |title=Book Review: Network Propaganda: Manipulation, Disinformation, and Radicalization in American Politics |journal=Convergence |language=en |volume=25 |issue=3 |pages=568–572 |doi=10.1177/1354856519855568 |issn=1354-8565|doi-access=free ))</ref> continually becoming more extreme and more partisan.<ref>((Cite news |url=https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2018/10/network-propaganda-takes-a-closer-look-at-media-and-american-politics/ |title='Network Propaganda' takes a closer look at media and American politics |date=October 25, 2018 |access-date=August 17, 2019 |work=The Harvard Gazette))</ref><ref>((Cite magazine |url=https://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/a-new-book-details-the-damage-done-by-the-right-wing-media-in-2016 |title=A New Book Details the Damage Done by the Right-Wing Media in 2016 |last=Toobin |first=Jeffrey |date=August 28, 2018 |access-date=August 17, 2019 |magazine=[[The New Yorker]] |issn=0028-792X))</ref> They note that the right wing media "punish actors – be they media outlets or politicians and pundits – who insist on speaking truths that are inconsistent with partisan frames and narratives dominant within the ecosystem", and contrast this with a "reality check dynamic" that prevails in the mainstream media.<ref name="DeCook"/><ref name="Pyo" /> They also note that liberal readers consume a much broader range of sources, whereas right wing media consumers rarely stray outside of the narrow right wing bubble.<ref name="Pyo" />

Progressive media watchdog group [[Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting]] (FAIR) 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 (RNC)|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 name="Ref_abh">[http://fair.org/article/pitching-softballs/ "Pitching Softballs Why are journalists going easy on Bush?"], Jeff Cohen, ''San Jose Mercury News'', March 25, 2001</ref> A 1998 study from FAIR found that journalists are "mostly centrist in their political orientation";<ref name="Hart1998">((cite web|url=http://fair.org/press-release/examining-the-quotliberal-mediaquot-claim/ |title=Examining the "Liberal Media" Claim |publisher=FAIR.org |first=Peter |last=Hart |date=June 1, 1998 |access-date=June 1, 2013))</ref> 30% considered themselves to the left on social issues compared with 9% on the right, while 11% considered themselves to the left on economic issues compared with 19% on the right. The report argued 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.

In ''[[What Liberal Media?|What Liberal Media? The Truth About Bias and the News]]'' (2003),<ref name="Ref_s"/> [[Eric Alterman]] also disputes the belief in liberal media bias, and suggests that over-correcting for this belief resulted in the opposite.<ref name="Ref_y">((cite web|author=Eric Alterman |url=http://www.ericalterman.com/work3.htm |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20071213012729/http://www.ericalterman.com/work3.htm |archive-date=December 13, 2007 |title=Eric Alterman – The Book on Bush: How George W. (Mis)Leads America (2004) |date=December 13, 2007 |access-date=November 12, 2013))</ref>

===Fact checking and fake news===
((main|Fake news))
Conservative outlets like ''The Weekly Standard'' and ''Big Government'' have criticized fact checking of conservative content as a perceived liberal attempt to control discourse.<ref>((Cite news |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/the-problem-for-the-fact-checkers/2011/08/25/gIQAMXxi7O_blog.html |title=The problem for the fact checkers |newspaper=[[The Washington Post]] |access-date=August 20, 2019 |language=en))</ref> A 2019 study found that fake news sharing was less common than perceived, and that actual consumption of fake news was limited.<ref name="Egelhofer">((Cite journal |last1=Egelhofer |first1=Jana Laura |last2=Lecheler |first2=Sophie |date=April 3, 2019 |title=Fake news as a two-dimensional phenomenon: a framework and research agenda |journal=Annals of the International Communication Association |volume=43 |issue=2 |pages=97–116 |doi=10.1080/23808985.2019.1602782 |issn=2380-8985|doi-access=free ))</ref> Another 2019 study found that older, more conservative people were more likely to have shared fake news during the 2016 election season than moderates, younger adults, or "super liberals".<ref>((Cite web |title=Gallup/Knight Poll: Americans' concerns about media bias deepen, even as they see it as vital for democracy |url=https://knightfoundation.org/press/releases/gallup-knight-poll-americans-concerns-about-media-bias-deepen-even-as-they-see-it-as-vital-for-democracy/ |access-date=2023-11-13 |website=Knight Foundation |language=en-US))</ref><ref>((Cite journal |last1=Tucker |first1=Joshua |last2=Nagler |first2=Jonathan |last3=Guess |first3=Andrew |date=January 1, 2019 |title=Less than you think: Prevalence and predictors of fake news dissemination on Facebook |journal=Science Advances |language=en |volume=5 |issue=1 |pages=eaau4586 |doi=10.1126/sciadv.aau4586 |pmid=30662946 |pmc=6326755 |bibcode=2019SciA....5.4586G |issn=2375-2548))</ref><ref>((Cite news |url=https://www.chicagotribune.com/nation-world/ct-facebook-fake-news-old-conservative-20190109-story.html |title=Elderly, conservatives far more likely to have shared fake news on Facebook in 2016: study |last=Borenstein |first=Seth |work=[[Chicago Tribune]]|access-date=August 20, 2019))</ref> An Oxford study has shown that deliberate use of fake news in the U.S. is primarily associated with the hard right.<ref>((Cite news |url=https://www.ft.com/content/611d5c90-0a87-11e8-8eb7-42f857ea9f09 |archive-url=https://ghostarchive.org/archive/pKEQY |archive-date=December 11, 2022 |url-access=subscription |url-status=live |title=Hard right dominates use of fake US news, Oxford study finds |work=[[Financial Times]]|access-date=August 20, 2019 |language=en-GB))</ref> According to a 2019 study of fake news on Twitter during the 2016 election season, 80% of "all content from suspect sources was shared by less than 1 percent of the human tweeters sampled... Those users were disproportionately politically conservative, older and more highly engaged with political news".<ref name="Network Propaganda" /><ref>((Cite news |url=https://www.pbs.org/newshour/science/how-conservative-supersharers-drove-fake-news-in-the-2016-election |title=How conservative 'supersharers' drove fake news in the 2016 election |work=[[PBS NewsHour]] |date=January 24, 2019 |access-date=August 20, 2019 |language=en-us))</ref>

The term "fake news" has been weaponized with the goal of undermining public trust in news media.<ref name="Egelhofer" /> President [[Donald Trump]] seized on the term "fake news"<ref>((Cite news |url=https://www.cnn.com/2019/06/11/politics/enemy-of-the-people-jim-acosta-donald-trump/index.html |title=How Trump's 'fake news' rhetoric has gotten out of control |publisher=[[CNN]] |first=Jim |last=Acosta |access-date=August 20, 2019))</ref><ref>((Cite news |url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/0/fake-news-exactly-has-really-had-influence/ |archive-url=https://ghostarchive.org/archive/20220112/https://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/0/fake-news-exactly-has-really-had-influence/ |archive-date=January 12, 2022 |url-access=subscription |url-status=live |title=Fake news: What exactly is it – and how can you spot it? |last=Carson |first=James |date=November 14, 2017 |work=[[The Daily Telegraph]]|access-date=August 20, 2019 |language=en-GB |issn=0307-1235))((cbignore))</ref> as a way of denigrating any story or outlet critical of him, even appearing to claim to have invented the term<ref>((Cite magazine |url=https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/12/11/donald-trumps-fake-news-tactics |title=Donald Trump's 'Fake News' Tactics |last=Coll |first=Steve |magazine=[[The New Yorker]] |date=December 3, 2017 |access-date=August 20, 2019 |language=en |issn=0028-792X))</ref> and handing out so-called "Fake News Awards" in 2017.<ref>((cite news |url=https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-trending-42724320 |title=The (almost) complete history of 'fake news' |last=Wendling |first=Mike |work=[[BBC]] |date=January 22, 2018 |access-date=August 20, 2019 |language=en-GB))</ref> Trump, followed by supporters such as [[Sean Hannity]],<ref>((Cite magazine |url=https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2018/01/trump-base-rationalizing-mueller-bombshell |title=How the Far Right Is Rationalizing the Latest Mueller Bombshell |magazine=[[Vanity Fair (magazine)|Vanity Fair]] |access-date=August 22, 2019 |language=en))</ref> uses the term "fake news" to describe any media coverage that casts him in a negative light.<ref>((Cite news |url=https://www.cnn.com/2018/05/09/politics/donald-trump-media-tweet/index.html |title=Donald Trump just accidentally revealed something very important about his 'fake news' attacks |last=Cillizza |first=Chris |publisher=[[CNN]] |access-date=August 22, 2019))</ref> In 2018, Trump "described what he called the 'fake news' of the American press as 'The Enemy of the American people'",<ref>((cite news|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2018/04/26/half-of-republicans-say-the-news-media-should-be-described-as-the-enemy-of-the-american-people/ |title=Half of Republicans say the news media should be described as the enemy of the American people |newspaper=[[The Washington Post]] |date=April 26, 2018 |access-date=February 13, 2020))</ref><ref>Marvin Kalb, ''Enemy of the People: Trump's War on the Press. the new McCarthyism, and the Threat to American Democracy'', The Brookings Institution Press, 2018, ASIN: B0797ZLRTT</ref> a phrase similar to one used by [[Stalin]]<ref>((Cite news |last=Hunt |first=Albert R. |url=https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2018-12-30/press-is-not-the-enemy-of-the-people-president-trump |title=No, Mr. Trump, the Press Is Only the Enemy of Lies |work=[[Bloomberg News]] |date=December 30, 2018 |access-date=August 22, 2019))</ref> and other [[totalitarianism|totalitarian leaders]]<ref>((Cite news |url=https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/aug/03/trump-enemy-of-the-people-meaning-history |title='Enemy of the people': Trump's phrase and its echoes of totalitarianism |last=Graham-Harrison |first=Emma |date=August 3, 2018 |work=[[The Guardian]] |access-date=August 22, 2019 |language=en-GB |issn=0261-3077))</ref> that also was reminiscent of [[Richard Nixon]]'s inclusion of journalists on his "[[enemies list]]".<ref>((Cite news |url=https://www.npr.org/2018/08/04/635461307/opinion-calling-the-press-the-enemy-of-the-people-is-a-menacing-move |title=Opinion: Calling The Press The Enemy Of The People Is A Menacing Move |publisher=[[NPR]] |access-date=August 22, 2019 |language=en))</ref> In response, the United States Senate unanimously adopted a resolution which reaffirmed "the vital and indispensable role the free press serves" and was seen as a symbolic rebuke to Trump.<ref>Reiss, Jaclyn (August 16, 2018) [https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/politics/2018/08/16/senate-unanimously-passes-resolution-affirming-press-not-enemy-people/6XfWvGTMqvzJVfJSIa0HDK/story.html "US Senate unanimously passes resolution affirming the press 'is not the enemy of the people'"] ''[[The Boston Globe]]''</ref><ref>((USCongRec|2018|S5681|date=August 16, 2018))</ref>

==Presidential elections==
((Main|Political handicapping))
((multiple issues|section=yes|
((Update section|date=August 2017))
((POV section|date=February 2018))))
[[File:Paragraphs Favoring the Democratic and Republican Candidates for the 1988 1992 and 1996 Presidential Elections.png|thumb|260px|A study done by Mark D. Watts et al. found that very little liberal bias occurred during elections in the 1980s and 1990s but that public perceptions of bias are associated with media discussion of the issue of news bias.<ref name="Ref_i">Watts, M. D., Domke, D., Shah, D. V., Fan, D. P. (1999). [http://www.journalism.wisc.edu/~dshah/CR1999a.pdf Elite cues and media bias in presidential campaigns: Explaining public perceptions of a liberal press] ((Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100611003123/http://www.journalism.wisc.edu/~dshah/CR1999a.pdf |date=June 11, 2010 )). Communication Research, 26</ref>]]
In the 19th century, many American newspapers made no pretense to lack of bias and openly advocated for a political party. Big cities would often have competing newspapers, supporting various political parties. To some extent, that was mitigated by a separation between news and editorial. News-reporting was expected to be relatively neutral or at least factual, but 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 name="journalism2002"/>

In an editorial for ''[[The American Conservative]]'', [[Patrick Buchanan]] wrote that reporting by "the liberal media establishment" 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 magazine|url=http://www.amconmag.com/2005_02_14/buchanan.html |title=Richard Nixon's Revenge |magazine=The American Conservative |first=Patrick J. |last=Buchanan |date=February 14, 2005 |access-date=March 28, 2007))</ref> Nixon's Vice-president [[Spiro Agnew]] attacked the media in a series of speeches, two of the most famous being written by White House aides [[William Safire]] and Buchanan himself, as "elitist" and "liberal."<ref name=nixon/> However, the media had also strongly criticized his [[Democratic party (United States)|Democratic]] predecessor, [[Lyndon Johnson]], for his handling of the [[Vietnam War]], which was a factor for him not seeking a second term.<ref name="Ref_ak">Robert Dallek, ''Lyndon B. Johnson: Portrait of a President'', Oxford University Press, 2005, ((ISBN|978-0-19-515921-9)), "...((nbsp))the terrible problems he had had with the media, newspapers, and television((nbsp))..." p. 358.</ref>

In 2004, Steve Ansolabehere, Rebecca Lessem, and Jim Snyder of the [[Massachusetts Institute of Technology]] analyzed the political orientation of endorsements by US newspapers. They found an upward trend in the average propensity to endorse a candidate, particularly an incumbent. In the 1940s and the 1950s, there was a clear advantage to Republican candidates, that advantage continuously eroded in subsequent decades to the extent that in the 1990s the authors found a slight Democratic lead in the average endorsement choice.<ref name="Ref_al">((cite web|url=http://econ-www.mit.edu/faculty/download_pdf.php?id=1148|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20060901070920/http://econ-www.mit.edu/faculty/download_pdf.php?id=1148|archive-date=September 1, 2006|title=The Political Orientation of Newspaper Endorsements in U.S. Elections, 1940–2002|author=Stephen Ansolabehere|publisher=Web.archive.com|access-date=November 12, 2013))</ref>

Riccardo Puglisi of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology looked at the editorial choices of ''The New York Times'' from 1946 to 1997.<ref name="Ref_am">((cite SSRN |ssrn=573801 |title=Being the New York Times: The Political Behaviour of a Newspaper |date=September 27, 2004 |last1=Puglisi |first1=Riccardo))</ref> He found that the ''Times'' displays Democratic partisanship, with some [[watchdog journalism|watchdog]] aspects. 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. Those topics are classified as Democratic ones because Gallup polls show that average US citizens think that Democratic candidates would be better at handling problems related to them. According to Puglisi, the ''Times'' since 1960 displays a more symmetric type of watchdog behavior just because during presidential campaigns, it also gives more coverage to the typically-Republican issue of defense when the incumbent president is a Democrat but less so when the incumbent is a Republican.

John Lott and Kevin Hassett of the conservative thinktank [[American Enterprise Institute]] studied the coverage of economic news by looking at a panel of 389 US newspapers from 1991 to 2004 and a subsample of the two ten newspapers and the [[Associated Press]] from 1985 to 2004.<ref name="Ref_an">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 analyzed how newspapers decide to report on them, as reflected by the tone of the related headlines. The idea was 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 9.6–14.7% fewer positive stories when the incumbent president is a Republican.

According to [[Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting]], a liberal watchdog group, the Democratic candidate [[John Edwards]] was falsely maligned and was not given coverage commensurate with his standing in presidential campaign coverage because his message questioned [[corporate capitalism|corporate power]].<ref name="Ref_ao">((cite web|url=http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=3234 |title=USA Today Squeezes Edwards Out of Race — FAIR: Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting |publisher=Fair.org |date=February 22, 1999 |access-date=November 12, 2013))</ref><ref>((cite web |url=http://www.commondreams.org/news2007/1221-03.htm |title=Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting (FAIR): USA Today Squeezes Edwards Out of Race |publisher=Commondreams.org |date=December 21, 2007 |access-date=November 12, 2013 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140811220037/http://www.commondreams.org/news2007/1221-03.htm |archive-date=August 11, 2014 |url-status=dead))</ref>

A 2000 meta-analysis of research in 59 quantitative studies of media bias in American presidential campaigns from 1948 through 1996 found that media bias tends to cancel out, leaving little or no net bias. The authors concluded, "It is clear that the major source of bias charges is the individual perceptions of media consumers and, in particular, media consumers of a particularly ideological bent."<ref name="Ref_az">((Cite journal | doi=10.1111/j.1460-2466.2000.tb02866.x| title=Media Bias in Presidential Elections: A Meta-Analysis| journal=Journal of Communication| volume=50| issue=4| pages=133–156| year=2000| last1=d'Alessio| first1=Dave| last2=Allen| first2=Mike))</ref>

It has also been acknowledged that media outlets have often used [[horse-race journalism]] with the intent of making elections more competitive.<ref name=fapppzv555t>((cite book |title=Encyclopedia of American Political Parties and Elections |author1=Larry Sabato |author2=Howard R. Ernst |name-list-style=amp |page=[https://archive.org/details/encyclopediaofam00saba/page/90 90] |year=2007 |publisher=Facts On File |orig-year=2006 |isbn=978-0816058754 |url=https://archive.org/details/encyclopediaofam00saba/page/90 )) ((ISBN|9780816058754)) (2006 version).</ref> That form of political coverage involves diverting attention away from stronger candidates and hyping so-called [[dark horse]] contenders who seem more unlikely to win when the election cycle begins.<ref name=fapppzv555t /> [[Benjamin Disraeli]] used the term "dark horse" to describe horse racing in 1831 in ''The Young Duke'': "a dark horse which had never been thought of and which the careless St. James had never even observed in the list, rushed past the grandstand in sweeping triumph."<ref name=fapppzv555t /> The political analyst [[Larry Sabato]] stated in his 2006 book ''Encyclopedia of American Political Parties and Elections'' that Disraeli's description of dark horses "now fits in neatly with the media's trend towards horse-race journalism and penchant for using sports analogies to describe presidential politics."<ref name=fapppzv555t />

Often unlike national media, political science scholars seek to compile long-term data and research on the impact of political issues and voting in U.S. presidential elections, producing in-depth articles breaking down the issues.((Citation needed|date=December 2019))

===2000===
[[File:Media Coverage Bush and Gore.svg|thumb|220px|Analysis of the coverage of the last few weeks of the [[2000 United States presidential election|2000 US presidential election]] by the [[Pew Research Center]]'s Project for Excellence in Journalism showed, "Al Gore [got] more negative coverage, but both candidates saw a deluge of negative stories."<ref>((cite web
 |url=http://www.journalism.org/node/1049
 |title=Tone of Coverage for Gore and Bush
 |publisher=[[Pew Research Center]]'s Project for Excellence in Journalism
 |date=October 31, 2000
 |access-date=May 17, 2010
 |archive-date=September 10, 2013
 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130910203819/http://www.journalism.org/node/1049
 |url-status=dead
 ))</ref>]]

During the course of the election, some pundits accused the mainstream media of distorting facts in an effort to help Texas Governor [[George W. Bush]] win the election after Bush and [[Al Gore]] officially launched their campaigns in 1999.<ref>http://www.webpan.com/dsinclar/myths.html ((dead link|date=November 2013))</ref> Peter Hart and Jim Naureckas, two commentators for Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting, called the media "serial exaggerators" and argued that several media outlets were constantly exaggerating criticism of Gore,<ref name=ipqvzww>((cite web |url=http://www.fair.org/extra/0101/gore-bush.html |title= Serial Exaggerators: Media's double standard on political lying|website=www.fair.org |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120414052846/http://www.fair.org/extra/0101/gore-bush.html |archive-date=April 14, 2012))</ref> such as by falsely claiming that Gore lied when he claimed he spoke in an overcrowded science class in [[Sarasota, Florida]],<ref name=ipqvzww /> and giving Bush a pass on certain issues, such as the fact that Bush had wildly exaggerated how much money he signed into the annual Texas state budget to help the uninsured during his second debate with Gore in October 2000.<ref name=ipqvzww /> In the April 2000 issue of ''[[Washington Monthly]]'', the columnist [[Robert Parry (journalist)|Robert Parry]] also argued that several media outlets exaggerated Gore's supposed claim that he "discovered" the [[Love Canal]] neighborhood in [[Niagara Falls, New York]], during a campaign speech in [[Concord, New Hampshire]], on November 30, 1999,<ref name=kqvz /> when he had claimed only that he "found" it after it was already evacuated in 1978 after chemical contamination.<ref name=kqvz>((cite web|url=http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2000/0004.parry.html |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20000510220300/http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2000/0004.parry.html |url-status=dead |archive-date=May 10, 2000 |title="He's No Pinocchio" by Robert Parry |work=Washington Monthly |access-date=November 12, 2013 ))</ref> The ''[[Rolling Stone]]'' columnist Eric Boehlert also argued that media outlets exaggerated criticism of Gore as early as July 22, 1999,<ref name=ipqkva>''Rolling Stone'', [[Eric Boehlert]], December 6, 2001, "The Press v. Al Gore"</ref> when Gore, known for being an environmentalist, had a friend release 500 million gallons of water into a drought-stricken river to help keep his boat afloat for a photo shoot.<ref name=ipqkva /> Media outlets, however, exaggerated the actual number of gallons that were released to four billion.<ref name=ipqkva />

===2008===
In the [[2008 United States presidential election|2008 presidential election]], media outlets were accused of discrediting [[Barack Obama]]'s opponents in an effort to help him win the Democratic primary and later the general election. At the February debate, [[Tim Russert]] of [[NBC News]] was criticized for what some perceived as disproportionately-tough questioning of the Democratic presidential contender [[Hillary Clinton]].<ref name="Who Lost" /> Among the questions, Russert had asked Clinton but not Obama to provide the name of the new [[Russian president]], who was [[Dmitry Medvedev]].<ref name="Who Lost" /> That was later parodied on ''[[Saturday Night Live]]''.

In October 2007, [[Modern liberalism in the United States|liberal]] commentators accused Russert of harassing Clinton over the issue of supporting drivers' licenses for [[illegal immigrants]].<ref name="Backlash Against ABC" />

On April 16, 2008, [[ABC News]] hosted a debate in [[Philadelphia]], Pennsylvania. The moderators [[Charles Gibson]] and [[George Stephanopoulos]] were criticized by viewers, [[bloggers]] and media critics for the poor quality of their questions.<ref name="Who Lost">((cite news|first=Jacques|last=Steinberg|author-link=Jacques Steinberg|title=Who Lost the Debate? Moderators, Many Say|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/18/us/politics/18moderator.html|work=[[The New York Times]]|date=April 18, 2008|access-date=April 18, 2008))</ref><ref name="Backlash Against ABC">((cite news|first=Howard|last=Kurtz|author-link=Howard Kurtz|title=The Backlash Against ABC|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/18/AR2008041800912.html|newspaper=[[The Washington Post]]|date=April 18, 2008|access-date=April 18, 2008))</ref> Many viewers said they considered some of the questions to be irrelevant compared to the importance of the faltering economy or the [[Iraq War]]. Included in that category were continued questions about Obama's former pastor, Clinton's assertion that she had to duck sniper fire in [[Bosnia]] more than a decade earlier, and Obama's failure to wear an American flag pin.<ref name="Who Lost" /> The moderators focused on campaign gaffes, and some believed that they focused too much on Obama.<ref name="Backlash Against ABC" /> Stephanopoulos defended their performance by claiming that "Senator Obama was the front-runner" and that the questions were "not inappropriate or irrelevant at all."<ref name="Who Lost" /><ref name="Backlash Against ABC" />

In an [[op-ed]] published on April 27, 2008, in ''[[The New York Times]]'', [[Elizabeth Edwards]] wrote that the media covered much more of "the rancor of the campaign" and "amount of money spent" than "the candidates' priorities, policies and principles."<ref>((cite news|author=Elizabeth Edwards|title=Op-ed: Bowling 1, Health Care 0|work=[[The New York Times]]|date=April 28, 2008|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/27/opinion/27edwards.html))</ref> Author [[Erica Jong]] commented that "our press has become a sea of triviality, meanness and irrelevant chatter."<ref>((cite news|url=https://www.huffingtonpost.com/erica-jong/inspiration-versus-degrad_b_98844.html|title=Inspiration Versus Degradation|work=[[HuffPost]] |first=Erica|last=Jong|date=May 5, 2008))</ref> A Gallup poll released on May 29, 2008, also estimated that more Americans felt the media was being harder on Clinton than they were on Obama.<ref>((cite web|url=http://www.gallup.com/poll/107557/public-says-media-harder-clinton-than-obama-mccain.aspx |title=Public Says Media Harder on Clinton Than Obama, McCain |date=May 29, 2008 |publisher=Gallup.com |access-date=July 17, 2011))</ref>

In a joint study by the [[Joan Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics and Public Policy]] at Harvard University and the Project for Excellence in Journalism, the authors found disparate treatment by the three major cable networks of the Republican and Democratic candidates during the earliest five months of presidential primaries in 2007: "The CNN programming studied tended to cast a negative light on Republican candidates—by a margin of three-to-one. Four-in-ten stories (41%) were clearly negative while just 14% were positive and 46% were neutral. The network provided negative coverage of all three main candidates with McCain faring the worst (63% negative) and Romney faring a little better than the others only because a majority of his coverage was neutral. It is not that Democrats, other than Obama, fared well on CNN either. Nearly half of the Illinois Senator's stories were positive (46%), vs. just 8% that were negative. But both Clinton and Edwards ended up with more negative than positive coverage overall. So while coverage for Democrats overall was a bit more positive than negative, that was almost all due to extremely favorable coverage for Obama."<ref>((cite web |url=http://www.hks.harvard.edu/presspol/publications/reports/invisible_primary_invisible_no_longer.pdf |title=Research & Publications – Joan Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics and Public Policy |publisher=Hks.harvard.edu |access-date=November 12, 2013 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120707234027/http://www.hks.harvard.edu/presspol/publications/reports/invisible_primary_invisible_no_longer.pdf |archive-date=July 7, 2012 |url-status=dead ))</ref>

A poll of likely presidential election voters released on March 14, 2007, by [[Zogby International]] reported that 83 percent of those surveyed believed in media bias, with 64 percent of respondents of the opinion the bias to favor liberals and 28 percent of respondents believing the bias to be conservative.<ref name="Ref_2007">((cite web|url=http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1262 |title=Zogby Poll: Voters Believe Media Bias is Very Real |publisher=Zogby International |date=March 14, 2007 |access-date=March 28, 2007))</ref> In August 2008, the [[ombudsman]] of ''[[The Washington Post]]'' wrote that it had published almost three times as many front-page stories about Obama than it had about McCain since Obama won the [[Democratic Party (United States)|Democratic party]] nomination that June.<ref name="Ref_ap">Deborah Howell, [https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/15/AR2008081503100.html?sub=AR "Obama's Edge in the Coverage Race,"] ''[[The Washington Post]]'', August 17, 2008 (access August 18, 2008)</ref> In September 2008 a Rasmussen poll found that 68 percent of voters believed that "most reporters try to help the candidate they want to win," and 49 percent of respondents stated that the reporters were helping Obama to get elected, but only 14 percent said the same about McCain. A further 51 percent said that the press was actively "trying to hurt" Republican vice presidential nominee [[Sarah Palin]] with negative coverage.<ref name="Ref_aq">Carney, Brian M [https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB122073072955107155?mod=googlenews_wsj "What Sarah Knows"] ''[[The Wall Street Journal]]'', September 7, 2008 (access September 7, 2008)</ref> In October 2008, ''Washington Post'' media correspondent [[Howard Kurtz]] reported that Palin was again on the cover of ''[[Newsweek]]'' "but with the most biased campaign headline I've ever seen."<ref name="Ref_ar">[[Howard Kurtz]], [https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/06/AR2008100600620_3.html "Media Notes,"] ''[[The Washington Post]]'', October 6, 2008 (accessed October 6, 2008)</ref>

After the election was over, the ombudsman Deborah Howell reviewed the coverage of the ''Post'' and concluded that it had been slanted toward Obama.<ref name="Howell 11/09/2008">Deborah Howell, [https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/07/AR2008110702895.html "An Obama Tilt in Campaign Coverage,"] ''[[The Washington Post]]'', November 9, 2008; Page B06</ref> "The ''Post'' provided a lot of good campaign coverage, but readers have been consistently critical of the lack of probing issues coverage and what they saw as a tilt toward Democrat Barack Obama. My surveys, which ended on Election Day, show that they are right on both counts." Over the course of the campaign, the ''Post'' printed 594 "issues stories" and 1,295 "horse-race stories." There were more positive opinion pieces on Obama than McCain (32 to 13) and more negative pieces about McCain than Obama (58 to 32). Overall, more news stories were dedicated to Obama than McCain. Howell said that the results of her survey were comparable to those reported by the [[Project for Excellence in Journalism]] for the national media. (That report, issued on October 22, 2008, found that "coverage of McCain has been heavily unfavorable," with 57% of the stories issued after the conventions being negative and only 14% being positive. For the same period, 36% of the stories on Obama were positive, 35% were neutral or mixed, and 29% were negative.<ref name="Ref_as">[http://journalism.org/node/13307 "WINNING THE MEDIA CAMPAIGN: How the Press Reported the 2008 Presidential General Election,"] [[Project for Excellence in Journalism]], [[Pew Research Center]], October 22, 2008 ([http://journalism.org/files/WINNING%20THE%20MEDIA%20CAMPAIGN%20FINAL.pdf pdf version] ((webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20081109191856/http://journalism.org/files/WINNING%20THE%20MEDIA%20CAMPAIGN%20FINAL.pdf |date=November 9, 2008)))</ref><ref name="Ref_at">Michael Calderone, [http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1008/14829.html "Study: McCain coverage mostly negative,"] ''[[Politico]]'', October 22, 2008</ref>) She rated the biographical stories of the ''Post'' to be generally quite good, she concluded, "Obama deserved tougher scrutiny than he got, especially of his undergraduate years, his start in Chicago and his relationship with Antoin 'Tony' Rezko, who was convicted this year of influence-peddling in Chicago. The ''Post'' did nothing on Obama's acknowledged drug use as a teenager."<ref name="Howell 11/09/2008" />

Various critics, particularly Hudson, have shown concern over the link between the news media's reporting and what they see as the trivialised nature of American elections. Hudson<ref name="Ref_au">Hudson, ''American Democracy in Peril: Eight Challenges to America's Future'' (Washington, D.C., CQ Press, 2004)</ref> argued that America's news media elections coverage damages 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((nbsp))... 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 name="Ref_av">Hudson, pp. 195–96</ref></blockquote>

=== 2016 ===
((See also|Media coverage of the 2016 United States presidential election))
Studies have shown that all other 2016 candidates received vastly less media coverage than [[Donald Trump]].<ref name=":12">((cite book|author1-link=John M. Sides|author3-link=Lynn Vavreck|author1=John Sides|url=https://press.princeton.edu/books/hardcover/9780691174198/identity-crisis|title=Identity Crisis|author2=Michael Tesler|author3=Lynn Vavreck|publisher=[[Princeton University Press]]|year=2018|isbn=978-0-691-17419-8|pages=8, 62, 99, 104–107|language=en|access-date=December 8, 2019|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20191114214823/https://press.princeton.edu/books/hardcover/9780691174198/identity-crisis|archive-date=November 14, 2019|url-status=live))</ref><ref name="Patterson1">((citation|author=Thomas E. Patterson|title=Pre-Primary News Coverage of the 2016 Presidential Race: Trump's Rise, Sanders' Emergence, Clinton's Struggle|date=June 13, 2016|url=https://shorensteincenter.org/pre-primary-news-coverage-2016-trump-clinton-sanders/|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20191127095707/https://shorensteincenter.org/pre-primary-news-coverage-2016-trump-clinton-sanders/|access-date=December 1, 2019|archive-date=November 27, 2019|url-status=live))</ref> Trump received more extensive media coverage than [[Ted Cruz]], [[John Kasich]], Hillary Clinton, and [[Bernie Sanders]] combined when they were the only primary candidates left in the race.<ref name=":123">((Cite book|last=Bitecofer|first=Rachel|title=The Unprecedented 2016 Presidential Election|publisher=Palgrave|year=2018|isbn=978-3-319-61975-0|pages=36–38, 48|doi=10.1007/978-3-319-61976-7))</ref> The Democratic primary received substantially less coverage than the Republican primary.<ref name=":12" /><ref name="Patterson2">((citation|author=Thomas E. Patterson|title=News Coverage of the 2016 Presidential Primaries: Horse Race Reporting Has Consequences|date=July 11, 2016|url=https://shorensteincenter.org/news-coverage-2016-presidential-primaries/|quote=Over the course of the primary season, Sanders received only two-thirds of the coverage afforded Clinton. Sanders’ coverage trailed Clinton's in every week of the primary season.|access-date=January 3, 2020))</ref> Sanders received the most positive coverage of any candidate overall, but his opponent in the Democratic primary, Hillary Clinton, received the most negative coverage.<ref name=":12" /><ref name="Patterson1" /><ref name=":42">((Citation|author=Colleen Elizabeth Kelly|title=A Rhetoric of Divisive Partisanship: The 2016 American Presidential Campaign Discourse of Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump|date=February 19, 2018|pages=6–7|location=Lanham, Maryland|publisher=[[Rowman & Littlefield|Lexington Books]]|isbn=978-1-4985-6458-8))</ref> Among the general election candidates, Trump received inordinate amounts of coverage on his policies and issues and on his personal character and life, but Clinton's emails controversy was a dominant feature of her coverage and earned more media coverage than all of her policy positions combined.<ref name=":4">((Cite news|title=Don't blame the election on fake news. Blame it on the media.|language=en|work=[[Columbia Journalism Review]]|url=https://www.cjr.org/analysis/fake-news-media-election-trump.php|access-date=December 7, 2017))</ref><ref name=":5">((Cite news|date=September 21, 2016|title=News Coverage of the 2016 National Conventions: Negative News, Lacking Context|language=en-US|work=Shorenstein Center|url=https://shorensteincenter.org/news-coverage-2016-national-conventions/|access-date=December 7, 2017))</ref><ref name=":6">((Cite web|title=Partisanship, Propaganda, and Disinformation: Online Media and the 2016 U.S. Presidential Election ((!)) Berkman Klein Center|url=https://cyber.harvard.edu/publications/2017/08/mediacloud|website=cyber.harvard.edu|language=en|access-date=December 7, 2017))</ref>

==Foreign policy==
((See also|United States news media and the Vietnam War|Cambodian genocide denial))[[File:How many deaths does it take for a disaster in different continents to receive news coverage., OWID.svg|thumb|350px|How many deaths does it take for a disaster in different continents to receive news coverage (in major US networks)]]
In addition to philosophical or economic biases, there are also subject biases, including criticism of media coverage about [[US foreign policy]] issues as being overly centered in Washington, DC. Coverage is variously cited as being "beltway centrism," [[framing (social sciences)|framed]] in terms of domestic politics and established policy positions,<ref name="OharaReact">Vicki O'Hara, quoting columnist [[William Pfaff]], ''Reaction to the Greater Middle East Initiative'', [[NPR]]/[[Morning Edition]], March 23, 2004</ref> following only Washington's 'Official Agendas',<ref name="FAIRwrong">((cite web|url=http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=101 |title=Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting — The national media watch group |publisher=FAIR |access-date=November 12, 2013))</ref> and mirroring only a "Washington Consensus."<ref name="DunskyP&S">((cite web |url=http://cosmos.ucc.ie/cs1064/jabowen/IPSC/php/authors.php?auid=29867 |title=Marda Dunsky (biographical details) |publisher=Cosmos.ucc.ie |date=January 27, 2009 |access-date=November 12, 2013 |archive-date=November 12, 2013 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131112172638/http://cosmos.ucc.ie/cs1064/jabowen/IPSC/php/authors.php?auid=29867 |url-status=dead ))</ref> According to Amnon Cavari, other factors that can influence news coverage about a foreign country include: "historical-cultural heritage", diplomatic status with the US and that said country's political stance.<ref>((Cite journal |last=Cavari |first=Amnon |date=Spring 2017 |title=Foreign News on US Media: A Longitudinal Analysis of News Coverage of Israel |url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2979/israelstudies.22.1.02 |journal=Israel Studies |volume=22 |issue=1 |pages=499-515 |access-date=April 15, 2024 |quote=Not all countries receive equal attention by the America media-often a country becomes newsworthy when their activities affect Americans or US interests. Considerations of historical-cultural heritage, international diplomacy, and national military and government politics often determine international news coverage. |via=JSTOR))</ref>((Better source needed|reason=The current source is insufficiently reliable ([[WP:NOTRS]]).|date=April 2024)) According to a 2001 study, the percentage of foreign news stories have declined along with the number of reporters and foreign bureaus has declined in the US; which is a trend that has been mirrored in other Western countries.<ref>((Cite journal |last=Halton |first=Dan |date=Summer 2001 |title=International News in the North American Media |url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/40203580 |journal=[[International Journal]] |volume=56 |issue=3 |pages=495-515 |access-date=April 15, 2024 |via=JSTOR))</ref>((Better source needed|reason=The current source is insufficiently reliable ([[WP:NOTRS]]).|date=April 2024))((Update needed|date=April 2024))

Ryan Chittum wrote in a 2003 version of the ''[[Columbia Journalism Review]]'', that "No news subject generates more complaints about media objectivity than the Middle East in general and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in particular."<ref name="Ref_aa">((cite web |last=Chittum |first=Ryan |url=http://cjrarchives.org/issues/2003/3/bias.asp |title=The Other War: A Debate |work=[[Columbia Journalism Review]] |publisher=Cjrarchives.org |date=November 8, 2013 |access-date=November 12, 2013 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20081120003312/http://cjrarchives.org/issues/2003/3/bias.asp |archive-date=November 20, 2008 |url-status=dead))</ref>((Update needed|date=April 2024))

===Arab–Israeli conflict===
((Main|Media coverage of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict))
((further|Arab lobby in the United States|Israel lobby in the United States))
[[Stephen Zunes]] wrote that "mainstream and conservative Jewish organizations have mobilized considerable lobbying resources, financial contributions from the Jewish community, and citizen pressure on the news media and other forums of public discourse in support of the Israeli government."<ref name=StephenZunesFPIC>[[Stephen Zunes]], [https://web.archive.org/web/20060516223818/http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/3270 The Israel Lobby: How Powerful is it Really?], Foreign Policy in Focus, May 16, 2006, from [[Internet Archive]], accessed 23 July 2010.</ref>
	
According to the professor of journalism [[Eric Alterman]], debate among Middle East pundits "is dominated by people who cannot imagine criticizing Israel." In 2002, he listed 56 columnists and commentators who can be counted on to support Israel "reflexively and without qualification." Alterman identified only five pundits who consistently criticize Israeli behavior or endorse pro-Arab positions.<ref name="Ref_ac">Mearsheimer and Walt (2007), p170, ''The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy'', Farrar, Straus and Giroux, New York, 496 pages, ((ISBN|0-374-53150-1))</ref> Journalists described as pro-Israel by Mearsheimer and Walt include ''The New York Times''((')) [[William Safire]], [[A.M. Rosenthal]], [[David Brooks (commentator)|David Brooks]], and [[Thomas Friedman]]; ''The Washington Post''(('))s [[Jim Hoagland]], [[Robert Kagan]], [[Charles Krauthammer]], and [[George Will]];<ref name="Ref_ad">Mearsheimer and Walt (2007), p170-1</ref> and the ''Los Angeles Times''((')) [[Max Boot]], [[Jonah Goldberg]], and [[Jonathan Chait]].

The 2007 book ''[[The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy]]'' argued that there is a media bias in favor of Israel. It stated that a former spokesman for the Israeli consulate in New York said, "Of course, a lot of self-censorship goes on. Journalists, editors, and politicians are going to think twice about criticizing Israel if they know they are going to get thousands of angry calls in a matter of hours. The Jewish lobby is good at orchestrating pressure."<ref name="Ref_af">((cite book|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=bQHXJ4JzxV4C&q=The+Jewish+lobby+is+good+at+orchestrating+pressure&pg=PT288 |title=The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy – John J. Mearsheimer, Stephen M. Walt – Google Books |access-date=November 12, 2013|isbn=9781429932820 |last1=Mearsheimer |first1=John J. |last2=Walt |first2=Stephen M. |date=September 4, 2007 |publisher=Farrar, Straus and Giroux ))</ref>
	
The journalist [[Michael Massing]] wrote in 2006, "Jewish organizations are quick to detect bias in the coverage of the Middle East, and quick to complain about it. That's especially true of late. As ''[[The Forward]]'' observed in late April [2002], 'rooting out perceived anti-Israel bias in the media has become for many American Jews the most direct and emotional outlet for connecting with the conflict 6,000 miles away.'"<ref name=MichaelMassingNation>[[Michael Massing]], [http://www.thenation.com/doc/20020610/massing The Israel Lobby], ''[[The Nation]]'', June 10, 2002, accessed August 27, 2006.</ref>

''The Forward'' related how one individual felt: <blockquote>"'There's a great frustration that American Jews want to do something,' said Ira Youdovin, executive vice president of the Chicago Board of Rabbis. 'In 1947, some number would have enlisted in the [[Haganah]],' he said, referring to the pre-state Jewish armed force. 'There was a special American brigade. Nowadays you can't do that. The battle here is the [[hasbarah]] war,' Youdovin said, using a Hebrew term for [[public relations]]. 'We're winning, but we're very much concerned about the bad stuff.'"<ref name=DonadioForward>Rachel Donadio, [https://web.archive.org/web/20020822025326/http://www.forward.com/issues/2002/02.04.26/news8.html For U.S. Jews, the Media Is the (Biased) Message], ''[[The Forward]]'', April 26, 2002, accessed via Archive.org August 27, 2006</ref></blockquote>
 	
A 2003 ''[[Boston Globe]]'' article on the [[Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America]] media watchdog group by Mark Jurkowitz argued, "To its supporters, CAMERA is figuratively—and perhaps literally—doing God's work, battling insidious anti-Israeli bias in the media. But its detractors see CAMERA as a myopic and vindictive special interest group trying to muscle its views into media coverage."<ref name="Ref_ae">Mark Jurkowitz, [http://www.hnn.us/comments/8390.html Blaming the Messenger] ((webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090213190540/http://www.hnn.us/comments/8390.html|date=February 13, 2009)), ''[[The Boston Globe|Boston Globe Magazine]]'' February 9, 2003: 10, ''History News Network'' ([[George Mason University]]) April 24, 2006.</ref>

=== Iraq War ===
((Main|Media coverage of the Iraq War))
[[File:Iraq War Media Sources Opinion Percentage.svg|300px|thumb|A FAIR study found that in the lead up to the Iraq War, most sources were overwhelmingly in favor of the invasion.]]

[[Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting]] released a 2003 study arguing that the network news disproportionately focused on pro-war sources (64%) and left out many [[anti-war]] sources (10%). The study stated that "viewers were more than six times as likely to see a pro-war source as one who was anti-war; with U.S. guests alone, the ratio increases to 25 to 1."<ref>((cite journal |author1=Steve Rendall |author2=Tara Broughel |name-list-style=amp |year=2003 |title=Amplifying Officials, Squelching Dissent |journal=Extra!|url=http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1145 ))</ref> A 2004 study by FAIR found that current or former government or military officials accounted for 76 percent of all 319 sources for news stories about Iraq that aired on network news channels.<ref name="Whiten2004">((cite web|url=http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1167 |title=If News From Iraq Is Bad, It's Coming From U.S. Officials |publisher=Fair.org |first=Jon |last=Whiten |date=February 2004 |access-date=March 28, 2007))</ref>

==== News sources ====
((quote box
| quote = ..."balanced" coverage that plagues American journalism and which leads to utterly spineless reporting with no edge. The idea seems to be that journalists are allowed to go out to report, but when it comes time to write, we are expected to turn our brains off and repeat the spin from both sides. God forbid we should... attempt to fairly assess what we see with our own eyes. "Balanced" is not fair, it's just an easy way of avoiding real reporting... and shirking our responsibility to inform readers.
| source = [[Ken Silverstein]] in ''Harper's Magazine'', 2007.<ref>Quoted in ((cite magazine |last=Silverstein |first=Ken |title=The Question of Balance: Revisiting the Missouri Election Scandal of 2004 |magazine=Harper's Magazine |date=May 8, 2007 |url=http://harpers.org/archive/2007/05/hbc-90000011|access-date=August 26, 2011 |author-link=Ken Silverstein|issn=0017-789X))</ref><ref name="silver">[[Ken Silverstein|Silverstein, Ken]], "Turkmeniscam: How Washington Lobbyists Fought to Flack for a Stalinist Dictatorship," 2008.</ref>
| width = 22em
))
A widely cited public opinion study<ref name="worldpublicopinion.org">((cite web|url=http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/international_security_bt/102.php?nid=&id=&pnt=102 |title=Misperceptions, the Media and the Iraq War |publisher=World Public Opinion |date=October 2, 2003 |access-date=August 10, 2010 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100527233012/http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/international_security_bt/102.php?nid=&id=&pnt=102 |archive-date=May 27, 2010))</ref> documented a correlation between news source and certain misconceptions about the Iraq War. Conducted by the [[Program on International Policy Attitudes]] in October 2003, the poll asked Americans whether they believed statements about the Iraq War that were known to be false. Respondents were also asked for their primary news source: [[Fox News]], [[CBS]], [[NBC]], [[American Broadcasting Company|ABC]], [[CNN]], "print sources", or [[NPR]]. By cross-referencing the respondents to their primary news source, the study showed that more Fox News watchers held the misconceptions about the Iraq War. The director of Program on International Policy (PIPA), Stephen Kull, said, "While we cannot assert that these misconceptions created the support for going to war with Iraq, it does appear likely that support for the war would be substantially lower if fewer members of the public had these misperceptions."<ref name="worldpublicopinion.org"/>

=== China ===
((See also|List of TV and films with critiques of Chinese Communist Party))
In November 2018, Senator [[Chris Coons]] joined Senators [[Elizabeth Warren]], [[Marco Rubio]], and a bipartisan group of lawmakers in sending a letter to the [[Trump administration]] raising concerns about China's undue influence over US media outlets and [[education in the United States|academic institutions]]: "In American news outlets, Beijing has used financial ties to suppress negative information about the [[Chinese Communist Party|CCP]]. In the past four years, multiple media outlets with direct or indirect financial ties to China allegedly decided not to publish stories on wealth and corruption in the CCP. In one case, an editor resigned due to mounting self-censorship in the outlet's China coverage."<ref>((cite web |title=Sen. Coons, colleagues, raise concerns over potential threat of Chinese attempts to undermine U.S. democracy |url=https://www.coons.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/sen-coons-colleagues-raise-concerns-over-potential-threat-of-chinese-attempts-to-undermine-us-democracy |website=www.coons.senate.gov)) ((PD-notice))</ref>

=== Accusations of underreporting ===
Jeff Bachman and Esther Brito Ruiz argue the Yemeni civil war received less coverage than it should in the U.S. media.<ref>((Cite web |last1=Bachman |first1=Jeff |last2=Ruiz |first2=Esther Brito |date=August 3, 2023 |title=Headlines and Front Lines: How US News Coverage of Wars in Yemen and Ukraine Reveals Bias in Recording Civilian Harm |url=https://www.american.edu/sis/news/20230803-headlines-and-front-lines-how-us-news-coverage-of-wars-in-yemen-and-ukraine-reveal-bias-in-recording-civilian-harm.cfm |access-date=March 11, 2024 |website=American University))</ref>

==Accusations between competitors==
Jonathan M. Ladd, who has conducted intensive studies of media trust and media bias, concluded that the primary cause of widespread popular belief in media bias is media telling their audience that other particular media are biased. People who are told that a medium is biased tend to believe that it is biased, and this belief is unrelated to whether that medium is actually biased or not. The only other factor with as strong an influence on belief that media is biased is extensive coverage of celebrities. A majority of people see such media as biased, while at the same time preferring media with extensive coverage of celebrities.<ref name="ladd">Jonathan M. Ladd, ''Why Americans Hate the Media and How It Matters'', "This leads us to the two most likely sources of the public's increasing antipathy toward the media: tabloid coverage and elite opinion leadership.", p. 126, "...((nbsp))Democratic elite criticism and Republican elite criticism (of the media) can reduce media confidence across a broad spectrum of the public.", p. 127, "...((nbsp))the evidence also indicates that little of the decline (in media trust) can be explained by direct reaction to news bias." p. 125, Princeton University Press, 2012, ((ISBN|978-0-691-14786-4)).</ref>

Kenneth Kim, in [[Communication Research Reports]], argued that the overriding cause of popular belief in media bias is a media vs. media worldview. He used statistics to show that people see news content as neutral, fair, or biased based on its relation to news sources that report opposite views. Kim labeled this phenomenon HMP ([[hostile media phenomenon]]). His results show that people are likely to process content in defensive ways based on the framing of this content in other media.<ref>Kim, K. ''The Hostile Media Phenomenon: Testing the Effect of News Framing on Perceptions of Media Bias'', ''Communication Research Reports'', 2019, ''36''(1), 35–44</ref>

==((anchor|bias watchdogs))Watchdogs and ranking groups==
[[Reporters Without Borders]] has said that the US media lost a great deal of [[Freedom of the press|media freedom]] between the 2004 and 2006 indices, citing the [[Judith Miller]] case and similar cases and laws restricting the [[source protection|confidentiality of sources]] as the main factors.<ref name="Ref_abd">((cite web |title=United States – Annual report 2006 |url=http://www.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=17430&Valider=OK |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070930200948/http://www.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=17430&Valider=OK |archive-date=September 30, 2007 |access-date=March 28, 2007 |publisher=Reporters Without Borders))</ref> They also cite the fact that reporters who question the American-led so called [[war on terror]] are sometimes regarded as suspicious.<ref name="Ref_2006">((cite web |year=2006 |title=North Korea, Turkmenistan, Eritrea the worst violators of press freedom |url=http://www.rsf.org/rubrique.php3?id_rubrique=639 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090306210631/http://www.rsf.org/rubrique.php3?id_rubrique=639 |archive-date=March 6, 2009 |access-date=March 28, 2007 |publisher=Reporters Without Borders))</ref> They ranked the US as 53rd out of 168 countries in freedom of the press, comparable to Japan and [[Uruguay]], but below all but one [[European Union]] country ([[Poland]]) and below most [[OECD]] countries (those that accept democracy and free markets). In the 2008 ranking, the U.S. moved up to 36, between [[Taiwan]] and [[North Macedonia|Macedonia]], but still far below its ranking in the late 20th century as a world leader in having a free and unbiased press.((citation needed|date=November 2016)) The U.S. briefly recovered in 2009<ref>[http://en.rsf.org/spip.php?page=classement&id_rubrique=1001 World Press Freedom Index 2009] ((webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120128213104/http://en.rsf.org/spip.php?page=classement&id_rubrique=1001|date=January 28, 2012)), Reporters Without Borders</ref> and 2010,<ref>[http://en.rsf.org/press-freedom-index-2010,1034.html World Press Freedom Index 2010] ((webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20101124050702/http://en.rsf.org/press-freedom-index-2010%2C1034.html|date=November 24, 2010)), Reporters Without Borders</ref> rising to 20th place, but declined again and has maintained a position in the mid-40s from 2013 to 2018.<ref>[https://rsf.org/en/ranking/2018, World Press Freedom Index 2018], Reporters Without Borders</ref><ref>[https://rsf.org/en/ranking/2017, World Press Freedom Index 2017], Reporters Without Borders</ref><ref>[https://rsf.org/en/ranking/2016, World Press Freedom Index 2016], Reporters Without Borders</ref><ref>[https://rsf.org/en/ranking/2015, World Press Freedom Index 2015], Reporters Without Borders</ref><ref>[https://rsf.org/en/ranking/2014 World Press Freedom Index 2014] ((webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140214120404/http://rsf.org/index2014/en-index2014.php|date=February 14, 2014)), Reporters Without Borders</ref><ref name="RWBPFIndex">[http://en.rsf.org/press-freedom-index-2013,1054.html World Press Freedom Index 2013] ((webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130215183842/http://en.rsf.org/press-freedom-index-2013%2C1054.html|date=February 15, 2013)), Reporters Without Borders</ref>

The [[Pew Research Center]] produced a 2014 guide to the political leanings of readers of several news outlets<ref>((cite web |url=https://www.journalism.org/interactives/media-polarization/ |title=Where News Audiences Fit on the Political Spectrum |website=journalism.org |publisher=[[Pew Research Center]] |date=October 21, 2014 |access-date=December 17, 2019))</ref> as part of a larger report on [[political polarization in the United States]].<ref>((cite web |url=https://www.journalism.org/2014/10/21/political-polarization-media-habits/ |first1=Amy |last1=Mitchell |first2=Jeffrey |last2=Gottfried |first3=Jocelyn |last3=Kiley |first4=Katerina Eva |last4=Matsa |title=Political Polarization & Media Habits |website=journalism.org |publisher=[[Pew Research Center]] |date=October 21, 2014 |access-date=December 17, 2019))</ref> [[Ad Fontes Media]] and [[AllSides]] have assessed ideological biases of online sources to produce media bias charts, and presents similar stories from different perspectives.<ref name="Poynter-2021">((cite news |last1=Sheridan |first1=Jake |date=May 18, 2021 |title=Should you trust media bias charts? |url=https://www.poynter.org/fact-checking/media-literacy/2021/should-you-trust-media-bias-charts/ |work=[[Poynter.org|Poynter]]))</ref><ref name="SF-Gate-2012">((cite news |last1=Evangelista |first1=Benny |date=26 August 2012 |title=AllSides compiles varied political views |url=https://www.sfgate.com/business/article/AllSides-compiles-varied-political-views-3815821.php |work=[[SF Gate]]))</ref> [[Accuracy in Media]] and [[Media Research Center]] have a conservative bent while [[Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting]] (FAIR) and [[Media Matters for America]] work from a progressive viewpoint.((Citation needed|date=January 2024)) Groups such as [[FactCheck]] argue that the media frequently get the facts wrong because they rely on biased sources of information.<ref name="Ref_abl">((cite web|url=http://www.factcheck.org/about/ |title=About Us |publisher=Factcheck.org |access-date=November 12, 2013 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090617183546/http://www.factcheck.org/about/ |archive-date=June 17, 2009 ))</ref> That includes using information provided to them from both parties.((Secondary source needed|date=January 2024))

==See also==
((div col |colwidth=22em))
* [[Alternative media (U.S. political right)]]
* [[Alternative media (U.S. political left)]]
* [[Group attribution error]]
* [[History of American journalism]]
* [[FCC fairness doctrine]]
* [[Politico-media complex]]
* [[Republicans pounce]]
((div col end))

=== Organizations ===
* [[Liberal bias of CNN|Allegations of bias at CNN]]
* [[Fox News controversies#Accusations of bias|Allegations of bias at Fox News]]
* [[MSNBC controversies#Assertions of liberal bias|Allegations of bias at MSNBC]]
* [[Center for Media and Democracy]]
* [[Center for Media and Public Affairs]]
* [[Facts on File]]
* [[On the Media]]
* [[Political views of Sinclair Broadcast Group]]

==References==
((reflist|colwidth=30em))

==Bibliography==
* [[Eric Alterman]], ''[[What Liberal Media?|What Liberal Media?: The Truth About Bias and the News]]'', Basic Books, 2003, ((ISBN|978-0-465-00177-4)).
* [[Yochai Benkler|Benkler, Yochai]]; Faris, Rob; Roberts, Hal. [https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/1045162158 Network propaganda : manipulation, disinformation, and radicalization in American politics]. 2018, [[Oxford University Press]], New York, NY. ((ISBN|978-0-19-092362-4)).
*[[Noam Chomsky]] and [[Edward S. Herman]], ''[[Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media]]'', Pantheon Books, 1988, ((ISBN|0-679-72034-0)).
* Isaacson, Walter. ''[http://books.simonandschuster.com/Benjamin-Franklin/Walter-Isaacson/9780743258074 Benjamin Franklin: An American Life]'', Simon & Schuster, 2003, ((ISBN|9780743258074)).
*Kuypers, Jim. ''[http://www.abc-clio.com/product.aspx?isbn=9780275977580 Press Bias and Politics: How the Media Frame Controversial Issues]'', Praeger series in political communication, 2002, ((ISBN|0-275-97759-5)).
* [http://www.publishersweekly.com/978-0-13-026824-2 ''Watching America: What Television Tells Us About Our Lives''], Lichter, S.R., Lichter, L.S. and Rothman, S., Prentice Hall, 1992, ((ISBN|978-0-13-026824-2)).
* Zeidenstein, Harvey G. "White House perceptions of news media bias." ''Presidential Studies Quarterly'' (1983): 13#3 345–356. [https://www.jstor.org/stable/27547942 online]
*Ardèvol-Abreu, A., & de Zúñiga, H. G. (2017). Effects of Editorial Media Bias Perception and Media Trust on the Use of Traditional, Citizen, and Social Media News. ''Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly'', ''94''(3), 703–724.
*Bicak, P. (2018). Partisan Journalism: A History of Media Bias in the United States. ''Communication Research Trends'', ''37''(2), 36–37.
*Borah, P., Vraga, E., & Shah, D. (2009). The Origins of Media Perceptions: Judgments of News Accuracy and Bias Among Adolescents. ''Conference Papers – International Communication Association'', 1.
*Entman, R. M. (2007). Framing Bias: Media in the Distribution of Power. ''Journal of Communication'', ''57''(1), 163–173.
*Haselmayer, M., Wagner, M., & Meyer, T. M. (2017). Partisan Bias in Message Selection: Media Gatekeeping of Party Press Releases. ''Political Communication'', ''34''(3), 367–384.
*Kim, K. (2019). The Hostile Media Phenomenon: Testing the Effect of News Framing on Perceptions of Media Bias. ''Communication Research Reports'', ''36''(1), 35–44
*Kohut, A. (2002). Listen Up, Bias Mongers! The Audience Doesn't Agree. ''Columbia Journalism Review'', ''40''(6), 68
*News Media Literacy and Perceptions of Personal and News Bias. (2018). ''Conference Papers – International Communication Association'', 1–29.
*Weeks, B. E., Kim, D. H., Hahn, L. B., Diehl, T. H., & Kwak, N. (2019). Hostile Media Perceptions in the Age of Social Media: Following Politicians, Emotions, and Perceptions of Media Bias. ''Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media'', ''63''(3), 374–392.

==External links==
* [https://www.discovermagazine.com/the-sciences/blinded-by-science-how-balanced-coverage-lets-the-scientific-fringe-hijack-reality Blinded By Science: How 'Balanced' Coverage Lets the Scientific Fringe Hijack Reality], by [[Chris Mooney (journalist)|Chris Mooney]], ''[[Discover (magazine)|Discover]]'', 2010.
*((cite web |url=https://guides.lib.umich.edu/c.php?g=637508&p=4462444 |title='Fake News,' Lies and Propaganda: How to Sort Fact from Fiction |author=<!--Not stated--> |date=August 3, 2018 |website=Research Guides |publisher=University of Michigan))

((censorship))
((portal bar|Current events|Journalism))

((DEFAULTSORT:Media Bias In The United States))
[[Category:Mass media-related controversies in the United States| ]]
[[Category:Propaganda in the United States]]
[[Category:Media bias controversies]]
[[Category:Media bias|*]]
Pages transcluded onto the current version of this page (help):
Media bias in the United States (edit)
Template:' (view source) (protected)
Template:Additional citation needed (view source) (semi-protected)
Template:Ambox (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Ambox globe (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Ambox globe current red (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Anchor (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Apostrophe (view source) (protected)
Template:Better source needed (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Catalog lookup link (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Category handler (view source) (protected)
Template:Cbignore (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Censorship (edit)
Template:Citation (view source) (protected)
Template:Citation needed (view source) (protected)
Template:Cite SSRN (view source) (semi-protected)
Template:Cite book (view source) (protected)
Template:Cite encyclopedia (view source) (protected)
Template:Cite journal (view source) (protected)
Template:Cite magazine (view source) (protected)
Template:Cite news (view source) (protected)
Template:Cite web (view source) (protected)
Template:DMCA (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Dated maintenance category (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Dated maintenance category (articles) (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Dead link (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Delink (view source) (protected)
Template:Div col (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Div col/styles.css (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Div col end (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:FULLROOTPAGENAME (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Fix (view source) (protected)
Template:Fix/category (view source) (protected)
Template:Further (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Hlist/styles.css (view source) (protected)
Template:ISBN (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Journalism sidebar (edit)
Template:Main (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Main article (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Main other (view source) (protected)
Template:Multiple issues (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Multiple issues/styles.css (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Navbox (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Nbsp (view source) (protected)
Template:Needs update (view source) (semi-protected)
Template:Ns has subpages (view source) (protected)
Template:Original research inline (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:PD-notice (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:POV (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:POV section (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Pagetype (view source) (protected)
Template:Plainlist/styles.css (view source) (protected)
Template:Portal-inline (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Portal bar (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Primary source inline (view source) (extended confirmed protected)
Template:Quote box (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Quote box/styles.css (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Reflist (view source) (protected)
Template:Reflist/styles.css (view source) (protected)
Template:Relevance inline (view source) (semi-protected)
Template:SDcat (view source) (protected)
Template:SSRN (edit)
Template:SUBJECTSPACE formatted (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Secondary source needed (edit)
Template:See also (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Short description (view source) (protected)
Template:Short description/lowercasecheck (view source) (protected)
Template:Sidebar (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Source-attribution (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Spaces (view source) (protected)
Template:Synthesis inline (view source) (semi-protected)
Template:USCongRec (view source) (semi-protected)
Template:Update (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Update inline (view source) (extended confirmed protected)
Template:Update needed (view source) (semi-protected)
Template:Update section (view source) (extended confirmed protected)
Template:Use American English (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Use mdy dates (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Webarchive (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Yesno (view source) (protected)
Template:Yesno-no (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Yesno-yes (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:\ (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Anchor (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Arguments (view source) (protected)
Module:Catalog lookup link (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Category handler (view source) (protected)
Module:Category handler/blacklist (view source) (protected)
Module:Category handler/config (view source) (protected)
Module:Category handler/data (view source) (protected)
Module:Category handler/shared (view source) (protected)
Module:Check for unknown parameters (view source) (protected)
Module:Check isxn (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Citation/CS1 (view source) (protected)
Module:Citation/CS1/COinS (view source) (protected)
Module:Citation/CS1/Configuration (view source) (protected)
Module:Citation/CS1/Date validation (view source) (protected)
Module:Citation/CS1/Identifiers (view source) (protected)
Module:Citation/CS1/Utilities (view source) (protected)
Module:Citation/CS1/Whitelist (view source) (protected)
Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css (view source) (protected)
Module:Delink (view source) (protected)
Module:Disambiguation/templates (view source) (protected)
Module:Format link (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Hatnote (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Hatnote/styles.css (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Hatnote list (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Labelled list hatnote (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Message box (view source) (protected)
Module:Message box/ambox.css (view source) (protected)
Module:Message box/configuration (view source) (protected)
Module:Namespace detect/config (view source) (protected)
Module:Namespace detect/data (view source) (protected)
Module:Navbar (view source) (protected)
Module:Navbar/configuration (view source) (protected)
Module:Navbar/styles.css (view source) (protected)
Module:Navbox (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Navbox/configuration (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Navbox/styles.css (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Ns has subpages (view source) (protected)
Module:Pagetype (view source) (protected)
Module:Pagetype/config (view source) (protected)
Module:Pagetype/disambiguation (view source) (protected)
Module:Pagetype/setindex (view source) (protected)
Module:Pagetype/softredirect (view source) (protected)
Module:Portal (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Portal-inline (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Portal/images/c (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Portal/images/j (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Portal bar (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Portal bar/styles.css (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:SDcat (view source) (protected)
Module:Sidebar (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Sidebar/configuration (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Sidebar/styles.css (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:String (view source) (protected)
Module:TableTools (view source) (protected)
Module:Unsubst (view source) (protected)
Module:Webarchive (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Webarchive/data (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Wikitext Parsing (view source) (protected)
Module:Yesno (view source) (protected)
Return to Media bias in the United States.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_bias_in_the_United_States"