Changes

==Academic Studies and theories of media bias==

==Academic Studies and theories of media bias==

''The Media Elite,'' co-authored in 1986 by political scientists Robert Lichter, Stanley Rothman, and Linda Lichter is among the most cited academic study of political bias in news reporting. These researchers surveyed journalists at national media outlets such as the [[New York Times]], [[Washington Post]], and the broadcast networks. They found that most of the responding journalists were Democratic voters whose attitudes were far to the left of the general public on a variety of topics: homosexual rights, abortion, affirmative action, and so on.  The study argued that the way in which journalists wrote about controversial issues was directly related to their personal political positions.

''The Media Elite,'' co-authored in 1986 by political scientists Robert Lichter, Stanley Rothman, and Linda Lichter is among the most cited academic study of political bias in news reporting. These researchers surveyed journalists at national media outlets such as the [[New York Times]], [[Washington Post]], and the broadcast networks. They found that most of the responding journalists were Democratic voters whose attitudes were far to the left of the general public on a variety of topics: [[homosexual]] rights, [[abortion]], [[affirmative action]], and so on.  The study argued that the way in which journalists wrote about controversial issues was directly related to their personal political positions.

Independently corroborating the findings above, is the 2002 book length study by political communication researcher Jim A. Kuypers: Press Bias and Politics: How the Media Frame Controversial Issues. In this study of 116 mainstream US papers (including The New York Times, the Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, and the San Francisco Chronicle), Kuypers found that the mainstream print press in America operate within a narrow range of liberal beliefs. Those who expressed points of view further to the left were generally ignored, whereas those who expressed moderate or conservative points of view were often actively denigrated or labeled as holding a minority point of view. In short, if a political leader, regardless of party, spoke within the press-supported range of acceptable discourse, he or she would receive positive press coverage. If a politician, again regardless of party, were to speak outside of this range, he or she would receive negative press or be ignored. Kuypers also found that the liberal points of view expressed in editorial and opinion pages were found in hard news coverage of the same issues. Although focusing primarily on the issues of [[race]] and [[homosexuality]], Kuypers found that the press injected opinion into its news coverage of other issues such as [[welfare reform]], [[environmental protection]], and [[gun control]]; in all cases favoring a liberal point of view.

Independently corroborating the findings above, is the 2002 book length study by political communication researcher Jim A. Kuypers: Press Bias and Politics: How the Media Frame Controversial Issues. In this study of 116 mainstream US papers (including The New York Times, the Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, and the San Francisco Chronicle), Kuypers found that the mainstream print press in America operate within a narrow range of liberal beliefs. Those who expressed points of view further to the left were generally ignored, whereas those who expressed moderate or conservative points of view were often actively denigrated or labeled as holding a minority point of view. In short, if a political leader, regardless of party, spoke within the press-supported range of acceptable discourse, he or she would receive positive press coverage. If a politician, again regardless of party, were to speak outside of this range, he or she would receive negative press or be ignored. Kuypers also found that the liberal points of view expressed in editorial and opinion pages were found in hard news coverage of the same issues. Although focusing primarily on the issues of [[race]] and [[homosexuality]], Kuypers found that the press injected opinion into its news coverage of other issues such as [[welfare reform]], [[environmental protection]], and [[gun control]]; in all cases favoring a liberal point of view.