# How does media bias work (within the organization itself?) **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 30, 2019, 7:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-does-media-bias-work-within-the-organization-itself/833277 "2019-04-30T19:53:43Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2019, 7:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-does-media-bias-work-within-the-organization-itself/833277/21 "2019-05-01T19:27:11Z")
Such power the liberal journalists have! It’s no wonder Trump didn’t have a chance in hell of winning the last election. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2019, 7:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-does-media-bias-work-within-the-organization-itself/833277/22 "2019-05-01T19:42:14Z")
> [@puddleglum](#): > > A [poll](https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/media-bias-left-study/) of financial journalists found that 4.4% were conservatives, 37% were moderate, and 58% were liberal. The Center for Public Integrity [found](https://publicintegrity.org/federal-politics/journalists-shower-hillary-clinton-with-campaign-cash/) that of journalists who donated to a campaign 96% donated to Clinton, and 4% Trump. > > It is indisputable that the vast majority of journalists are liberal and thus biased against conservatives. Which leads to a self-reinforcing cycle - liberals hire other liberals, and so on. > [@Czarcasm](#): > > Such power the liberal journalists have! It’s no wonder Trump didn’t have a chance in hell of winning the last election. Yup - that’s what they told each other, over and over. And underlies much of the Trump Derangement Syndrome we see in the MSM - they were wrong about his chances of being elected, and are furiously determined to either drive him from office, or prevent his re-election, to sort of retroactively justify themselves. And having systematically excluded any POV but the liberal one from their ranks, the press is blindsided by the fact that the rest of the country does not see the liberal POV as self-evident. Who was the winner of the SDMB contest to predict the electoral college totals in 2016? It wasn’t a Hilary supporter - they had all convinced themselves of what was going to happen. Will the MSM learn anything from this? I doubt it. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2019, 7:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-does-media-bias-work-within-the-organization-itself/833277/23 "2019-05-01T19:54:57Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > Who was the winner of the SDMB contest to predict the electoral college totals in 2016? It wasn’t a Hilary supporter - they had all convinced themselves of what was going to happen. Who was the winner of the SDMB contest in 2012? Was it a Romney supporter? Not sure what this tells us about anything. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2019, 8:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-does-media-bias-work-within-the-organization-itself/833277/24 "2019-05-01T20:19:17Z")
Make up your mind, **Shodan** -Do liberals journalists have too much influence, or are they ineffective boobs? _Do_ try to be consistent when rehashing tired old talking points. ---
**Author:** ![Kent\_Clark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kent_clark/32/105_2.png) [@Kent\_Clark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kent_Clark)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2019, 9:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-does-media-bias-work-within-the-organization-itself/833277/25 "2019-05-01T21:00:21Z")
> [@puddleglum](#): > > A [poll](https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/media-bias-left-study/) of financial journalists found that 4.4% were conservatives, 37% were moderate, and 58% were liberal. The Center for Public Integrity [found](https://publicintegrity.org/federal-politics/journalists-shower-hillary-clinton-with-campaign-cash/) that of journalists who donated to a campaign 96% donated to Clinton, and 4% Trump. > > It is indisputable that the vast majority of journalists are liberal and thus biased against conservatives. And this is proven by the fact that the Wall Street Journal, Forbes, Businnes Week, Bloomberg, CNBC, Fox Business, et al have overwhelmingly pushed for Bernie Sanders’ and Alexandria Occasio Cortes’ “democratic socialism” in their coverage. Are you claiming that 58% of business coverage is “liberal and thus biased against conservatives?” Also, you conveniently omit some other things the article states. > [@](#): > > About 430 people who work in journalism have, through August, combined to give about $382,000 to the Democratic nominee, the Center for Public Integrity’s analysis indicates. I know journalism is supposed to be a dying profession, but I thought it still employed more than 430 people. Oh, wait a second. > [@](#): > > And while some journalists do give politicians money, the vast majority do not. But we know that of the certainly a large majority of the small minority of journalists who donated to Clinton over Trump, it wasn’t 96% of _journalists_, it was 96% of _contributions_. > [@](#): > > About 50 identifiable journalists have combined to give about $14,000 to Trump. (Talk radio ideologues, paid TV pundits and the like — think former Trump campaign manager-turned-CNN commentator Corey Lewandowski — are not included in the tally.) Which means the average liberal donation was $888.37, and the average conservative donation was $280. Maybe conservative journalists are just cheap. And for that matter why do they say “About 430 people who work in journalism” when they talk about liberals, but say “About 50 identifiable journalists” when they talk about conservatives? Are those two terms exactly comparable? I can “work in journalism” as an advertising sales representative, a printing press operator, or a TV camera operator who works on news programs without being an “identifiable journalist.” Last but not least > [@](#): > > But major news organizations often restrict, if not prohibit, their journalists (and occasionally non-journalist employees) from making political campaign contributions. Would you agree we don’t really know whether those people, who work for the very news organizations we call “mainstream media” are liberal, conservative, or poltically indifferent? ---
**Author:** ![Max\_S](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/46a35a/32.png) [@Max\_S](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Max_S)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2019, 9:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-does-media-bias-work-within-the-organization-itself/833277/26 "2019-05-01T21:12:03Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Was? > > It still **is**. You’re right, it has always been a fringe position. I should have said “significant minority”. There exist localities where enough people are anti-vax as to warrant local coverage of the issue. For example, just over 1/3 of my workplace was “anti-vax”, as in not going to vaccinate themselves or their kids, despite the fact that we literally administered vaccines to (willing) patients. When vaccine stuff is in the news, I hear patients in our lobby take sides. By my estimate, from personal experience, one in ten people around me don’t trust vaccines. It would make sense for a local newspaper to run a story about the vaccine controversy. It might even make sense for a national paper to run a story, so far as I know. A quick search of the internet for real statistics yields a 2015 Washington Post article called “Here’s how many Americans are actually anti-vaxxers”[1]. They cited a 2015 Pew Research Center poll of 1,000 American adults, which found that 9% of the American adult public thinks the MMR vaccine is unsafe for healthy children[2]. The same report says a different poll found 30% of Americans said parents should be able to decide not to vaccinate their children[3]. If a significant number of people take a position, that position becomes newsworthy regardless of how right or wrong it is. Media organizations can cover both sides of that story without bias. They have to be careful, but it can and should be done. [1] Blake, A. (February 9, 2015). Here’s how many Americans are actually anti-vaxxers. _The Washington Post_. Retrieved from [https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/02/09/heres-how-many-americans-are-actually-anti-vaxxers/?noredirect=on](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/02/09/heres-how-many-americans-are-actually-anti-vaxxers/?noredirect=on) [2] 83% Say Measles Vaccine Is Safe for Healthy Children. (2015). _Pew Research Center_. Retrieved from [83% Say Measles Vaccine Is Safe for Healthy Children | Pew Research Center](https://www.people-press.org/2015/02/09/83-percent-say-measles-vaccine-is-safe-for-healthy-children/) [3] Anderson, M. (2015). Young adults more likely to say vaccinating kids should be a parental choice. _Pew Research Center_. Retrieved from [Young adults more likely to say vaccinating kids should be a parental choice | Pew Research Center](https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/02/02/young-adults-more-likely-to-say-vaccinating-kids-should-be-a-parental-choice/) ---
**Author:** ![Max\_S](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/46a35a/32.png) [@Max\_S](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Max_S)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2019, 9:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-does-media-bias-work-within-the-organization-itself/833277/27 "2019-05-01T21:22:57Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > Make up your mind, **Shodan** -Do liberals journalists have too much influence, or are they ineffective boobs? _Do_ try to be consistent when rehashing tired old talking points. I’m not Shodan but I think that’s a false dilemma. With enough effort and discipline even diehard liberals can (theoretically :D) minimize their bias. It is the ethical thing for a journalist to do and I have faith that hundreds of journalists try very hard to do so every day. These same qualities are in fact the _only_ way to break out of the cycle of confirmation bias. In all practicality, it is much easier to let another person keep you in check. That’s where editors and salaries (not freelancers) and workplace diversity comes into view. It falls on the managers and higher-ups to encourage this sort of in-house journalistic peer review, as described by Hilarity N. Suze. ~Max ---
**Author:** ![Kent\_Clark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kent_clark/32/105_2.png) [@Kent\_Clark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kent_Clark)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2019, 9:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-does-media-bias-work-within-the-organization-itself/833277/28 "2019-05-01T21:25:45Z")
Too late to edit, but regarding my last point > [@kunilou](#): > > Would you agree we don’t really know whether those people, who work for the very news organizations we call “mainstream media” are liberal, conservative, or poltically indifferent? > [@](#): > > About 28 percent of journalists say they affiliate with the Democratic Party, 7 percent the Republican Party and 14 percent an “other” party, according to a 2014 study by Indiana University-Bloomington professors Lars Willnat and David H. Weaver. > > The rest of journalists — more than 50 percent — say they’re not affiliated with any political party. Which, incidentally,[means that fewer journalists identify as Democrats than the general population.](https://www.people-press.org/2019/03/14/political-independents-who-they-are-what-they-think/) But that 14% “other” is a pretty big number. Are they Libertarians, Greens, Constitutional Unionists? Who knows. All we can tell is that 72% of journalists say they AREN’T Democrats. ---
**Author:** ![octopus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/octopus/32/3716_2.png) [@octopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/octopus)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2019, 10:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-does-media-bias-work-within-the-organization-itself/833277/29 "2019-05-01T22:54:14Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > Make up your mind, **Shodan** -Do liberals journalists have too much influence, or are they ineffective boobs? _Do_ try to be consistent when rehashing tired old talking points. Disproportionate influence and always getting one’s desire are two different things. ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2019, 10:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-does-media-bias-work-within-the-organization-itself/833277/30 "2019-05-01T22:59:20Z")
> [@Jackmannii](#): > > Where bias should stop is at a competent and professional editor’s desk. Obviously this doesn’t happen much. > > The result is a Daily Mail-style Liberal/Ocasio-Cortez Outrage Of The Day over at FOX, and a Trump/MuellerMuellerMueller Foam-At-The-Mouth Of The Day at ABC and CNN. I really have to strongly object to this kind of blatant false equivalence. While it’s true that CNN is currently on an anti-Trump kick, it’s only because Trump went to war with them, declared them an “enemy of the people”, and banned one of their reporters from the White House for asking difficult quesitons – a ban that was subsequently overturned by the justice system. But that’s largely a side issue. The major truth here is that networks like ABC and CNN strive to present the facts. When confronted with this reality, conservatives like to cite instances when, say, CNN said something that wasn’t true. No. If CNN “said something that wasn’t true”, it was a mistake. A rare one, but the kind that inevitably happens in journalism. What Fox News does is **LIE**. **Consistently, systematically, systemically** – they omit key facts, present one-sided versions, and spin the news to suit the demented Republican audience that they serve. And they have become laughably detached from any sane reality. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2019, 11:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-does-media-bias-work-within-the-organization-itself/833277/31 "2019-05-01T23:02:22Z")
> [@](#): > > …try to be consistent when rehashing tired old talking points. No evidence has been offered that tired old talking points are degraded by the process of rehashing. Nor that consistency is an improvement. ---
**Author:** ![Max\_S](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/46a35a/32.png) [@Max\_S](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Max_S)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2019, 11:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-does-media-bias-work-within-the-organization-itself/833277/32 "2019-05-01T23:18:58Z")
> [@kunilou](#): > > But that 14% “other” is a pretty big number. Are they Libertarians, Greens, Constitutional Unionists? Who knows. Honestly dude, if I had to actually [DEL]deal with[/DEL] report on some of these politicians on a day-to-day basis I would renounce my party affiliation too. Even if I was on the other side. ~Max ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2019, 11:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-does-media-bias-work-within-the-organization-itself/833277/33 "2019-05-01T23:40:06Z")
> [@D\_Anconia](#): > > Fox News recently hired Donna Brazile. Hired as a “contributor”. Fox News likes having pretend disagreements. Makes for good TV. And Brazile is [ethically flexible](https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2016/11/01/some-questions-for-cnn-on-donna-brazile/?utm_term=.9f1c06e7eb57). Fox material for sure. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2019, 11:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-does-media-bias-work-within-the-organization-itself/833277/34 "2019-05-01T23:47:02Z")
> [@Velocity](#): > > Without doubt, a lot of the bias is in the hiring to begin with - Fox News wouldn’t hire many if any liberals. But suppose that a Fox News journalist wrote an article that praised Elizabeth Warren (or some MSNBC writer penned an article that praised Trump) - would they be pulled into the chief editor’s office and threatened, “You had better change the tone of this article if you know what’s \*\*\*good \*\*\*for you?” Some bias is overt. Some implicit. Some news sources proclaim their bias, others hide it or pretend it is not there. A good news organization should have an editor that stomps on overt bias and chews out the person who wrote the piece. Implicit bias is a lot harder to combat. Choice of words and how things are phrased can be anywhere from blindingly obvious to incredibly subtle. It is near impossible to stamp out completely. Again, a good editor can often spot such things and have it cleaned up before publishing. This assumes they strive to not have bias in their reporting but these days editors are an expensive luxury many publications are getting rid of and other publications embrace being on one side or the other (which is ok if they advertise their bias). The worst of the lot are the likes of Fox News who pretend at “fair and balanced” reporting but are anything but. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2019, 12:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-does-media-bias-work-within-the-organization-itself/833277/35 "2019-05-02T00:10:03Z")
> [@puddleglum](#): > > A [poll](https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/media-bias-left-study/) of financial journalists found that 4.4% were conservatives, 37% were moderate, and 58% were liberal. The Center for Public Integrity [found](https://publicintegrity.org/federal-politics/journalists-shower-hillary-clinton-with-campaign-cash/) that of journalists who donated to a campaign 96% donated to Clinton, and 4% Trump. > > It is indisputable that the vast majority of journalists are liberal and thus biased against conservatives. Sorry, it was disputed before. It is enough to notice that bias outside the organization does not = bias in the organization. [https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=18227265&postcount=15](https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=18227265&postcount=15) > [@Me in 2015](#): > > No matter how liberal reporters or owners can be, they cannot talk day in and day out about matters that the left considers important, while the right wing continues to pound on the Benghazi dead horse every day. > > To see why even liberal owners can not talk about issues that they consider important all the time, I pointed before to a very early example from the book Witness to a Century- By George Seldes in the "Spain broke the heart of the world.” chapter: > > J.David Stern was the owner of the New York Post. In a conversation, George Seldes mentioned that Stern was a liberal, and that liberalism was not being reflected at all in the obvious conservative slant that the news from the Spanish civil war were getting. Stern replied: > > “What do you want me to do, take a quixotic stand, print the truth about everything including bad medicine, impure food and crooked stock market offerings, and lose all my advertising contracts and go out of business- or make compromises with all the evil elements and continue to publish the best liberal newspaper possible under these compromising circumstances?” > > Amazingly, that was in **1936** , and it looks like things have not changed much. [Underline added] ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2019, 12:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-does-media-bias-work-within-the-organization-itself/833277/36 "2019-05-02T00:25:42Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > “What do you want me to do, take a quixotic stand, print the truth about everything including bad medicine, impure food and crooked stock market offerings, and lose all my advertising contracts and go out of business- or make compromises with all the evil elements and continue to publish the best liberal newspaper possible under these compromising circumstances?” Is the contention that liberal news can not attract advertisers? Is the world so screwed that corruption can not be reported on because you can not do business without corrupt money? ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2019, 12:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-does-media-bias-work-within-the-organization-itself/833277/37 "2019-05-02T00:32:35Z")
> [@Max\_S](#): > > If a significant number of people take a position, that position becomes newsworthy regardless of how right or wrong it is. Media organizations can cover both sides of that story without bias. They have to be careful, but it can and should be done. The way then it should be done: Instead of climate change deniers, put vaccine deniers there: [![](https://img.youtube.com/vi/cjuGCJJUGsg/maxresdefault.jpg "Climate Change Debate: Last Week Tonight with John Oliver (HBO)") ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cjuGCJJUGsg&t=107) > [@](#): > > **John Oliver:** The only accurate way to report that one out of four Americans are skeptical of global warming is to say a poll finds that one out of four Americans are wrong about something because a survey of thousands of scientific papers that took a position on climate change found that 97% endorsed the position that humans are causing global warming. And I think I know why people still think this issue is open to debate because on TV it is and it’s always one person against one person, and it’s usually the same person: > > [Montage of a non scientist, versus a popularizer of science, Bill Nye.] > > Yeah that’s right, more often than not it’s Bill Nye the Science Guy versus some dude, and when you look at the screen it’s 50/50, **which is inherently misleading**. > > If there has to be a debate about the reality of climate change, and there doesn’t, then there is only one mathematically fair way to do it… > > **Narrator:** Last week tonight presents. A statistically representative climate change debate. > > **John Oliver:**"Good evening, joining me tonight, a climate change denier and naturally… Bill Nye the science guy! [Applause] > > **Bill Nye:** “yep humans are causing climate change”… > > **John Oliver:** no, wait, wait, wait, wait. Before we begin, in the interest of mathematical balance I’m going to bring out two people who agree with you climate skeptic, and Bill Nye I’m also going to bring out 96 other scientists! It’s a little unwieldy but this is the only way we can actually have a representative discussion… [96 scientists come in] all right, so yeah, please please file in again, again this is this is going to make this debate difficult, a debate we shouldn’t really be having it in the first place. ---
**Author:** ![D\_Anconia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/67e7ee/32.png) [@D\_Anconia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/D_Anconia)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2019, 12:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-does-media-bias-work-within-the-organization-itself/833277/38 "2019-05-02T00:44:33Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > Hired as a “contributor”. Fox News likes having pretend disagreements. Makes for good TV. > > And Brazile is [ethically flexible](https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2016/11/01/some-questions-for-cnn-on-donna-brazile/?utm_term=.9f1c06e7eb57). Fox material for sure. There’s also: Juan Williams James Carville Tamara Holder et al. Are they all “ethically flexible”? :dubious: ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2019, 12:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-does-media-bias-work-within-the-organization-itself/833277/39 "2019-05-02T00:57:33Z")
> [@D\_Anconia](#): > > There’s also: > > Juan Williams > James Carville > Tamara Holder > > et al. > > Are they all “ethically flexible”? :dubious: They are “liberals” working for Fox? Then yes, they are. They are tokens enabling an evil news agency and I am sure they know it. ---
**Author:** ![D\_Anconia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/67e7ee/32.png) [@D\_Anconia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/D_Anconia)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2019, 1:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-does-media-bias-work-within-the-organization-itself/833277/40 "2019-05-02T01:34:11Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > They are “liberals” working for Fox? You don’t know who they are? And “evil news agency” is the silliest argument that I’ve read on this board in quite a while. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-does-media-bias-work-within-the-organization-itself/833277.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-does-media-bias-work-within-the-organization-itself/833277.md?page=3)