One way of how to spot media bias

[Beet]

Fact- many people only read the first few paragraphs of a story, and skip the rest.

So in a news story where there are 2 different sides, if the story begins on paragraph 2 with quotes exclusively from one side, then doesn't begin quoting the other side until the middle of the story, then you can be sure many readers only read the quotes from the side covered first.

A balanced story should have views from both sides fit within the beginning of the story. Just something to notice as you read the news.

[Lunar]

Sometimes newsworthy 'events' are partisan in nature.  So if Senator Frist gives a big speech, it's reasonable for the first two paragraphs to be quoting and paraphrasing his key points with the Democratic rebuttal later down.

[Beet]

Sometimes newsworthy 'events' are partisan in nature.  So if Senator Frist gives a big speech, it's reasonable for the first two paragraphs to be quoting and paraphrasing his key points with the Democratic rebuttal later down.

True, though this makes it especially unusual when the viewpoint opposite of the newsmakers are quoted first, as in this associated press story.

[Inverted Things]

Worst example of liberal media bias I've ever seen:

"Death toll in Iraq continues to rise"--Seen on MSNBC circa May 2003 refering to Iraq war casualties. How exactly would a death toll fall?

Worst example of conservative media bias I've ever seen:

"Minnesota Welfare Reform a Failure"--Seen in the Saint Paul Pioneer Press circa October 2003. The article admits that
1.) Minnesota has fewer people living in poverty than nearly all of the other states
2.) The number of people on welfare in Minnesota is declining.
How exactly is that evidence of a failed program? The author was bitching about how there were people who were getting renewed for welfare despite the time limitation.

[ATFFL]

Worst example of liberal media bias I've ever seen:

"Death toll in Iraq continues to rise"--Seen on MSNBC circa May 2003 refering to Iraq war casualties. How exactly would a death toll fall?

Worst example of conservative media bias I've ever seen:

"Minnesota Welfare Reform a Failure"--Seen in the Saint Paul Pioneer Press circa October 2003. The article admits that
1.) Minnesota has fewer people living in poverty than nearly all of the other states
2.) The number of people on welfare in Minnesota is declining.
How exactly is that evidence of a failed program? The author was bitching about how there were people who were getting renewed for welfare despite the time limitation.

The second may be liberal bias as well.  WHo put the welfare reform into place?  If it was a conservative, it is a liberal bias.

[J-Mann]

Fact- many people only read the first few paragraphs of a story, and skip the rest.

So in a news story where there are 2 different sides, if the story begins on paragraph 2 with quotes exclusively from one side, then doesn't begin quoting the other side until the middle of the story, then you can be sure many readers only read the quotes from the side covered first.

A balanced story should have views from both sides fit within the beginning of the story. Just something to notice as you read the news.

This is not necessarily a good indicator of bias; Lunar is right that many stories are partisan just by the nature of the subject they are covering.  Plus, news articles don't necessarily need to have a spin in both directions, so long as they're factual.  Several recent New York Times articles on the investigation into the CIA leak case may seem biased against the administration, but in reality they're just presenting the honest and most important facts -- they just don't look good for the administration.

News organizations should never be held to trying to represent everyone's point of view -- they should report facts alone. Article leads should always contain the most important information of the story, and if that excludes one side, so be it.

I didn't do much reporting in my brief foray into the world of journalism, but here are a couple of examples of a murder trial that I covered.  In the first, I remained as dry and factual as possible:

http://www.kstatecollegian.com/article.php?a=5180

In this next one, a few weeks later, I focused more on the family of the victim, because they were the big story at the time.

http://www.kstatecollegian.com/article.php?a=5466

The articles had a different feel because the story had changed.  I think the same goes for any news article -- the article leads should never have to be "A Republican says this, a Democrat says this" just because the general public is too impatient to read a full story.

[MODU]

I tend to read/view media reports from multiple sources.  You tend to see the reoccuring "news" mixed in with opinions and bias.  Of course, most writiers/reporters, in this on-demand news world we live in, throw a lot of opinions and assumptions into their reports lately, and reading multiple sources just show you how little real information is truly out there.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Number one way to spot media bias, no American media covered the Florida scrub list after the 2000 election. It was covered on the BBC, and in Britian, libel rules are stronger, so there's higher standards for running a story.