When trying to spot bias, ask yourself these questions:
1. What kind of information is it?
News? Opinion? Ad? Does it appeal to your emotions or does it make you think?
2. Who and what are the sources cited and why should you believe them?
Is the source given? Is the source associated with a political party or special interest group?
3. What’s the evidence and how was it vetted?
What’s the evidence and how was it vetted? Is the source a document? Witness? Or is it hearsay/speculation?
4: Is the main point of the piece proven by the evidence?
Did the sources provided justify the conclusion or main point of the story?
5. What’s missing?
Was there an aspect or point that was not covered or unclear that you are left wondering about?
Based on American Press Institute.
Search EBSCO, Gale, Infobase or ProQuest for articles.
Want more on finding articles? Try our How to Find Articles guide.
Search OneSearch for books. Search CREDO, Ebook Central, EBSCO eBooks, Gale eBooks, or OverDrive for eBooks.
Want more on finding books or eBooks? Try our How to Use Books & eBooks guides.
Evaluating Media Bias
Media bias has been a hot-button issue for several decades and it features prominently in the post-2016 political conversation. Yet, it receives only spotty treatment in existing materials aimed at political communication or introductory American politics courses. Evaluating Media Bias is a brief, supplemental resource that provides an academically informed but broadly accessible overview of the major concepts and controversies involving media bias. Adam Schiffer explores the contours of the partisan-bias debate before pivoting to real biases: the patterns, constraints, and shortcomings plaguing American political news. Media bias is more relevant than ever in the aftermath of the presidential election, which launched a flurry of media criticism from scholars, commentators, and thoughtful news professionals. Engaging and informative, this text reviews what we know about media bias, offers timely case studies as illustration, and introduces an original framework for unifying diverse conversations about this topic that is the subject of so much ire in our country. Evaluating Media Bias allows students of American politics, and politically aware citizens alike, the means of detecting and evaluating bias for themselves, and thus join the national conversation about the state of American news media.
Fake News and Media Bias
Although news outlets are meant to be impartial, they have never been perfectly unbiased. Another layer was added to the ongoing debate over the role of news media after the 2016 U.S. presidential election, when allegations of fake news surfaced. How can people know which news sources to trust? This volume explores the fake news phenomenon and offers readers tips on how to be critical of what they see reported. Full-color photographs, engaging sidebars, and discussion questions enhance the compelling text as it explores this crucial aspect of a democratic society.
Media Bias in Presidential Election Coverage 1948-2008: Evaluation via Formal Measurement
Accusations of partisan bias in Presidential election coverage are suspect at best and self-serving at worst. They are generally supported by the methodology of instance confirmation, tainted by the hostile media effect, and based on simplistic visions of how the news media are organized. Media Bias in Presidential Election Coverage 1948-2008 by Dave D'Alessio, is a revealing analysis that shows the news media have four essential natures: as journalistic entities, businesses, political actors, and property, all of which can act to create news coverage biases, in some cases in opposing directions. By meta-analyzing the results of 99 previous examinations of media coverage of Presidential elections from 1948 to 2008, D'Alessio reveals that coverage has no aggregate partisan bias either way, even though there are small biases in specific realms that are generally insubstantial. Furthermore, while publishers used to control coverage preferences, this practice has become negligible in recent years. Media Bias proves that, at least in terms of Presidential election coverage, The New York Times is not the most liberal paper in America and the Fox News channel is substantially more conservative in news coverage than the broadcast networks. Finally, Media Bias in Presidential Election Coverage 1948-2008 predicts that no amount of evidence will cause political candidates to cease complaining about bias because such accusations have both strategic potential in campaigns and an undeniable utility in ego defense.
The News and Its Future
The News and its Future considers how the Internet and other technological advancements will continue to impact news gatherings and change the way the public keeps itself informed. Special attention is paid to emerging journalistic forms, such as blogging and twittering, as well as more traditional methods like the newspaper and broadcast news.
No Longer Newsworthy: How the Mainstream Media Abandoned the Working Class
Until the recent political shift pushed workers back into the media spotlight, the mainstream media had largely ignored this significant part of American society in favor of the moneyed "upscale" consumer for more than four decades. Christopher R. Martin now reveals why and how the media lost sight of the American working class and the effects of it doing so. The damning indictment of the mainstream media that flows through No Longer Newsworthy is a wakeup call about the critical role of the media in telling news stories about labor unions, workers, and working-class readers. As Martin charts the decline of labor reporting from the late 1960s onwards, he reveals the shift in news coverage as the mainstream media abandoned labor in favor of consumer and business interests. When newspapers, especially, wrote off working-class readers as useless for their business model, the American worker became invisible. In No Longer Newsworthy, Martin covers this shift in focus, the loss of political voice for the working class, and the emergence of a more conservative media in the form of Christian television, talk radio, Fox News, and conservative websites. Now, with our fractured society and news media, Martin offers the mainstream media recommendations for how to push back against right-wing media and once again embrace the working class as critical to its audience and its democratic function.
Partisan Journalism: A History of Media Bias in the United States
In Partisan Journalism: A History of Media Bias in the United States Jim A. Kuypers guides readers on a journey through American journalistic history, focusing on the warring notions of objectivity and partisanship. Kuypers shows how the American journalistic tradition grew from partisan roots and, with only a brief period of objectivity in between, has returned to those roots today. The book begins with an overview of newspapers during Colonial times, explaining how those papers openly operated in an expressly partisan way; he then moves through the Jacksonian era's expansion of both the press and its partisan nature. After detailing the role of the press during the War Between the States, Kuypers demonstrates that it was the telegraph, not professional sentiment, that kicked off the movement toward objective news reporting. The conflict between partisanship and professionalization/objectivity continued through the muckraking years and through World War II, with newspapers in the 1950s often being objective in their reporting even as their editorials leaned to the right. This changed rapidly in the 1960s when newspaper editorials shifted from right to left, and progressive advocacy began to slowly erode objective content. Kuypers follows this trend through the early 1980s, and then turns his attention to demonstrating how new communication technologies have changed the very nature of news writing and delivery. In the final chapters covering the Bush and Obama presidencies, he traces the growth of the progressive and partisan nature of the mainstream news, while at the same time explores the rapid rise of alternative news sources, some partisan, some objective, that are challenging the dominance of the mainstream press. This book steps beyond a simple charge-counter-charge of political bias in the news in that it offers an argument that the press in America, except for a brief period, was essentially partisan from its inception and has returned with a vengeance to its original roots. The final argument presented in the book is that this new development may actually be healthy for American Democracy.
Stereotypes: The Incidence and Impacts of Bias
Provides an invaluable primer on how culturally accepted stereotypes are impacting people throughout the United States. Stereotypes--both intentional and unconscious--and the harms they cause are increasingly featuring in the news. Here a team of top researchers examines current and emerging research on how stereotypes begin, grow, and harm the members of society--and what can be done to stop them. The authors explain what actions lead to the development and manifestation of stereotypes against groups ranging from racial, ethnic, sexual, and religious minorities to men, women, immigrants, the disabled, and more. They detail the newest studies to help us understand the psychological and social processes that spur and sustain stereotypes, how those affect behavior and decision-making, and how the targeted groups are affected by micro-aggressions and nonverbal behaviors. This volume will interest students of psychology, counseling, social work, law enforcement and legal studies, race and ethnicity, LGBTQ studies, gender studies, public policy, and politics. Suggests remedies based on the principles of good government and the elimination of dehumanization that can move the U.S. away from its present-day segregation, a condition that is fatal to democracy Bridges the gap between research and application via academic work grounded in the context of modern stereotypes and social justice issues Explains both explicit (conscious) and implicit (unconscious) stereotypes and how they affect human behavior Includes a list of additional resources
Think Before You Like: Social Media's Effect on the Brain and the Tools You Need to Navigate Your Newsfeed
Guy P. Harrison, an upbeat advocate of scientific literacy and positive skepticism, demonstrates how critical thinking can enhance the benefits of social media while giving users the skills to guard against its dangers. Social media has more than two billion users and continues to grow. Its widespread appeal as a means of staying in touch with friends and keeping up with daily news masks some serious pitfalls-misinformation, pseudoscience, fraud, propaganda, and irrational beliefs, for example, presented in an attractive, easy-to-share form. This book will teach you how to resist the psychological and behavioral manipulation of social media and avoid the mistakes that millions have already made and now regret. Harrison presents scientific studies that show why your subconscious mind loves social media and how that can work against your ability to critically evaluate information. Among other things, social media reinforces your biases, clouds your judgment with images that leave a false impression, and fills your brain with anecdotes that become cheap substitutes for objective data. The very nature of the technology keeps you in a bubble; by tracking your preferences it sends only filtered newsfeeds, so that you rarely see anything that might challenge your set notions. Harrison explores the implications of having digital ofriendso and the effects on mood, self-esteem, and the cultivation of friendship in the real world. He discusses how social media affects attention spans and the ability to consider issues in depth. And he suggests ways to protect yourself against privacy invasion, cyberstalking, biased misinformation, catfishing, trolls, misuse of photos, and the confusion over fake news versus credible journalism.
Tilt? The Search for Media Bias
Nine in ten Americans believe the media are biased. Trust in journalists ranks beneath that in lawyers, and even the media themselves regularly portray their own industry as slanted toward Democrats and liberals. These perceptions, however, do not coincide with reality, as David Niven reveals in his bold new take on an often-debated subject. "Tilt? The Search for Media Bias" presents the first comprehensive review of the charges, the evidence, and the effects, beginning with a simple but altogether overlooked premise: to measure media bias or fairness, one has to have a fair baseline with which to compare coverage. Using situations in which presidents, governors, mayors, and members of Congress from different political parties have produced the same results in office, "Tilt?" compares media coverage of Democrats and Republicans in situations in which they clearly deserved equal treatment. The lack of evidence for partisan media bias is only part of the story. The media cover allegations of bias as if their industry has already been tried and convicted, while the American people readily accepted the premise that their main sources of information are selfishly slanted toward reporters' personal political agendas. Niven's findings, unmistakable and consistent, reveal that when the output of politicians is the same, media coverage follows--a conclusion that is as provocative as it is timely and necessary.
What's Fair? The Problem of Equity in Journalism
What's fair? It is an old question in journalism. In 1999, it seems more difficult to answer than ever. The cycle of story, spin, and counterspin that surrounds the White House is only the most obvious part of the problem. In the past 25 years, the practice of journalism has changed enormously--particularly in the United States. The demarcation of public and private life that once ruled certain kinds of stories out-of-bounds has eroded, leaving reporters with the unenviable challenge of having to cover events whose seaminess inevitably taints all who touch them. Commercial pressures, and a tidal wave of information and entertainment media, have engulfed the news business--leaving the definitions of journalism and journalistic standards vague and uncertain. And the technology of news reporting is speeding up news cycles in ways that leave little time for sober and measured judgments.What's Fair? is a collection of essays from experts in the field that are sure to spark compelling questions and ideas about journalism and its place in our time. In "Fairness--A Struggle," journalists explore a subject that they normally share only with close friends and colleagues--their own struggles with fairness that occurred in places as different as South Africa, Washington, and the South Bronx. In "Fairness--A History," nine contributors examine the history of the fairness question, specifically the establishment of the Hutchins Commission report of 1947, which is evaluated here by a historian, a journalist and a First Amendment authority. In a comparative vein, two authorities on international communications law examine British regulations for fairness in broadcasting at the end of the 20th century. In "Fairness--A Goal," contributors explore what struggles for fairness mean in a variety of contexts, from American newsrooms to post-Communist Poland to Northern Ireland.Many discussions of fairness are either numbingly abstract or impossibly righteous. To avoid those hazards, Robert Giles and Robert Snyder have grounded this volume in stories--the kind of stories journalists tell each other and the kind of stories people tell about journalism. This volume is a testament to journalism that is free yet fair, probing yet credible and authoritative in content yet open to many voices.Robert Giles is editor-in-chief of Media Studies Journal, senior vice president of the Freedom Forum and executive director of Media Studies Center. Formerly the editor and publisher of The Detroit News, he is the author of Newsroom Management: A Guide to Theory and Practice.Robert W. Snyder is editor of the Media Studies Journal, a historian, and most recently author of Transit Talk: New York's Bus and Subway Workers Tell Their Stories. He has taught at Princeton University and New York University, from which he holds a doctorate in history.
A study (PDF) on media bias from University of Chicago economists Matthew Gentzkow and Jesse Shapiro, used text as data to look at common Democratic and Republic phrases in Congress. You can consider these phrases when you are trying to determine if a source or politician is conservative of liberal. See some examples of terms frequently used by democrat's or republicans, below. You can read the study to find even more terms.
|
Democrat workers rights cuts to child support private accounts tax cuts for people |
Republican personal accounts growth and job creation global war on terrorism tax relief |
© 2022 COM Library
1200 Amburn Road, Texas City, Texas 77591
409-933-8448 . FAX 409-933-8030
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License
