FAIR is the national progressive media watchdog group, challenging corporate media bias, spin and misinformation.
How we visualize the news is just as important as the written content. By reflexively relying on the most sinister and bias-reinforcing images to depict Iran, we help perpetuate the idea—even if unconsciously—that Iran is an anti-American hellscape.
Every time the media mindlessly report Iran has a “nuclear weapons program” rather than a “nuclear program” (or, better, a “nuclear energy” or “nuclear power program”), they further advance the myth that Iran’s intentions or “ambitions” are to build a nuclear bomb, which is something we have no evidence it is doing or plans to do
After mass violence, corporate media seem more than willing to spread the specter of ISIS responsibility without any objective basis.
What constitutes “extremism” is…ideologically worthless
The attack on the press that kicked off the Trump administration—the arrest and subsequent threatening of two journalists with 70 years in prison—has been met with total silence from most corporate media outlets.
Where did all the concern over deficits go? After two years of the media lamenting, worrying and feigning outrage over the cost of Bernie Sanders’ two big-budget items—free college and single-payer healthcare—the same outlets are uniformly silent, days after the largest military budget increase in history.
As consensus emerges not just around the science of climate change, but also its amplifying effects on extreme weather events, Murdoch’s media empire—and the Republican Party that its talking points inform—will remain the last holdout.
Since the Charlottesville attack a month ago, a review of commentary in the six top broadsheet newspapers—the Wall Street Journal, New York Times, USA Today, LA Times, San Jose Mercury News and Washington Post—found virtually equal amounts of condemnation of fascists and anti-fascist protesters.
When Sen. John McCain seems to be threatening to kill 25 million Koreans, isn’t it worth clarifying what precisely he’s calling for?
Ed Rogers’ boilerplate Republican talking points could be better written by any number of Heritage fellows, and he is an actual paid lobbyist for an assortment of sleazy industry interests, via his lobbying firm BGR Group. So why does a major paper feel the need to continue to give him column inches?
Heartwarming tales of perseverance in the face of impossible odds are ideological agitprop meant to obscure and decontextualize the harsh reality of dog-eat-dog capitalism.
Far more egregious than a simple conflict of interest problem is that the New York Times decided to give an opinion column to someone linked to murder, money-laundering and a whole host of other legally and ethically repugnant behavior.
A Washington Post op-ed argues, in a wholly incoherent fashion, that Donald Trump’s failures can be chalked up to a cultural difference between New York City and Washington, DC.
As President Donald Trump tries to make the case for staying indefinitely in Afghanistan, the stakes for those actually living there are rarely broached by US corporate media.
As it turns out, there’s no way to suggest that unruly leftists are as bad as neo-Nazis without suggesting that neo-Nazis are no worse than unruly leftists.
The Washington Post, Boston Globe, AOL News, The Hill, BBC and Sky News UK all chose to frame the ramming of a car into anti-fascist protesters as “clashes.”
Which “conspiracy theories” the media decide to care about and which they don’t is largely a function of who is advancing those conspiracy theories, and whose interests they serve.
These stories are typically shared for the purposes of poor-shaming, typically under the guise of inspirational life advice. A healthy press would take these anecdotes of “can do” spirit and ask bigger questions, like why are these people forced into such absurd hardship?
A review of 190 articles about Amazon.com from the New York Times, Wall Street Journal and the Bezos-owned Washington Post over the past year paints a picture of almost uniformly positive–ofttimes boosterish–coverage.
In a fawning editorial, pillar of the national security establishment Washington Post fell over itself to commend a John McCain that never existed, instead lavishing praise on a well-curated PR facsimile developed over decades.
