where can i find evidence of media bias?

Question

i keep seeing people going on and on about how the new york times is biased, cnn is biased, the "main stream media" is biased.

can anyone show me some actual hard data on this?

or are we just showing our own viewpoints?

koalatcomics, that has nothing to do with my question.

Answer 1

You could check out mediamatters.org. They seem to be fairly fact-based and reliable.

Answer 2

Read, listen and watch more on different forms of mass media. Listen to both antagonistic parties and observe which aspect of their own version of the story is common. Whatever it is, that's the truth. The rest are mere bias.

Answer 3

Most news media is left wing and biased. You will never hear any of the liberal news stations (CNN, NBS, CBS, CNBC, PBS, ABC, etc) report any good news about the war or any good that our soldiers are doing. This is b/c they (the media) also has an agenda. The news is very much censored. They let you see what they want you to see.

Answer 4

All media are bias. One example is they try to sway public opinion. All newspapers are bias. If a piece is written its gives a one sided view, plus the writer is expressing their policical opinion. Same with TV stations

Answer 5

You have to watch news in another country, like Canada or the UK

The CNN the play in Europe is so different from the show they put out over here

Answer 6

just follow the media. the media has its agenda..which unfortunately is the far left...and the information they feed the public is not the truth, but exagerations to prove their point. People that do the funding like Skoras--who incidentlaly as a Jew fled Germany, and now attacks the countries that gave him refuge. he pours an enormous amount of money into Moveon.org ran by the bloated Michael More..

Answer 7

exciting concept, yet Edwards falling by the wayside does not have helped Hillary. i'm from Iowa, and at that factor, Hillary grew to become into by skill of a few distance the excellent common candidate, and persons have been the two for Hillary or for somebody else. the persons who didn't wish Hillary have been chop up over who to chosen. in the 1st "vote", my caucus had approximately 40% Obama, 25% Clinton, 20% Edwards, and 15% supported different applicants who weren't achievable (Richardson, Dodd, Biden, and Kucinich) . under Caucus rules, that 15% had to bypass to between the three achievable communities for the acceptable count type. there have been approximately 40 5 people from non-achievable communities, and not one in all them went to Hillary on the 2nd poll, maximum went to Obama and a few went to Edwards, so as that the acceptable count type grew to become into 50% Obama, 25% Edwards, and 25% Clinton. because of the fact Clinton grew to become into so nicely common, she grew to become into the two the 1st or final selection of maximum Iowans. So if Edwards had not been in the race Obama would have gained by skill of a lots wider margin, Hillary would have complete 2nd, between the others, probable Richardson, would have executed lots greater effective. rather of 38% Obama, 30% Edwards and 29% Clinton, it would have been something like 50% Obama, 35% Clinton and 15% Richardson. Hillary in basic terms in no way controlled to win over Iowans, i'm unsure why. yet because of the fact the primaries wound down, polls confirmed Iowa continuously favoring Obama over McCain by skill of five-10 factors on an identical time as Clinton vs McCain grew to become into everywhere from a tie to a 5 factor McCain lead.

Answer 8

The media bias is anything that goes against the conservative media. The largest bias is Rush, the pill popper, and fox news.

Answer 9

Anytime a paper leans towards one side and not the other or in this case embraces the democrats it's biased.

Answer 10

in the media I guess.