In his nearly thirty years at CBS News, Emmy Award–winner Bernard Goldberg earned a reputation as one of the preeminent reporters in the television news business. When he looked at his own industry, however, he saw that the media far too often ignored their primary mission: objective, disinterested reporting. Again and again he saw that they slanted the news to the left. For years Goldberg appealed to reporters, producers, and network executives for more balanced reporting, but no one listened. The liberal bias continued. In this classic number one New York Times bestseller, Goldberg blew the whistle on the news business, showing exactly how the media slant their coverage while insisting they’re just reporting the facts.

A leading political scientist provides a rigorous and revealing analysis of liberal media bias: “I’m no conservative, but I loved Left Turn” (Steven Levitt, author of Freakonomics). Dr. Tim Groseclose, a professor of political science and economics at UCLA, has spent years constructing precise, quantitative measures of the slant of media outlets. He does this by measuring the political content of news, as a way to measure the PQ, or “political quotient” of voters and politicians. Among his conclusions are: (i) all mainstream media outlets have a liberal bias; and (ii) while some supposedly conservative outlets—such the Washington Times or Fox News’ Special Report—do lean right, their conservative bias is less than the liberal bias of most mainstream outlets. Groseclose contends that the general leftward bias of the media has shifted the PQ of the average American by about 20 points, on a scale of 100, the difference between the current political views of the average American, and the political views of the average resident of Orange County, California or Salt Lake County, Utah. With Left Turn readers can easily calculate their own PQ—to decide for themselves if the bias exists. This timely, much-needed study brings fact to this often overheated debate.

This book examines information reported within the media regarding the interaction between the Black Panther Party and government agents in the Bay Area of California (1967-1973). Christian Davenport argues that the geographic locale and political orientation of the newspaper influences how specific details are reported, including who starts and ends the conflict, who the Black Panthers target (government or non-government actors), and which part of the government responds (the police or court). Specifically, proximate and government-oriented sources provide one assessment of events, whereas proximate and dissident-oriented sources have another; both converge on specific aspects of the conflict. The methodological implications of the study are clear; Davenport's findings prove that in order to understand contentious events, it is crucial to understand who collects or distributes the information in order to comprehend who reportedly does what to whom as well as why.

"A probing critique of advocacy journalism, particularly its polarizing effect on society and politics, with reader guidelines for objectively evaluating news sources"--

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.

Argues that the nature of economic power has changed and that the U.S. must develop the will and the flexibility to regain its international leadership role.

Newly updated to examine Hillary Clinton's formidable 2008 presidential campaign, Women for President analyzes the gender bias the media has demonstrated in covering women candidates since the first woman ran for America's highest office in 1872. Tracing the campaigns of nine women who ran for president through 2008--Victoria Woodhull, Belva Lockwood, Margaret Chase Smith, Shirley Chisholm, Patricia Schroeder, Lenora Fulani, Elizabeth Dole, Carol Moseley Braun, and Hillary Clinton--Erika Falk finds little progress in the fair treatment of women candidates. The press portrays female candidates as unviable, unnatural, and incompetent, and often ignores or belittles women instead of reporting their ideas and intent. This thorough comparison of men's and women's campaigns reveals a worrisome trend of sexism in press coverage--a trend that still persists today.