FAIR is the national progressive media watchdog group, challenging corporate media bias, spin and misinformation.
FAIR studies explore particular media issues or outlets in-depth, adding hard numbers to debates over media content and journalistic practices.
In major-paper opinion coverage of the Singapore summit, the people with the most to lose and gain from the summit, the people whose nation was actually being discussed—Koreans—were almost uniformly ignored.
A survey by FAIR of the top 100 papers in the US by circulation found not a single editorial board opposed to Trump’s April 13 airstrikes on Syria. Twenty supported the strikes, while six were ambiguous as to whether or not the bombing was advisable. The remaining 74 issued no opinion about Trump’s latest escalation of the Syrian war.
The curators of American public opinion at the three most influential broadsheets in the United States have decided that dissent from the build-up to new airstrikes on Syria is not really an opinion worth hearing.
The statewide teachers and school staffers strike in West Virginia—just concluded earlier this week with a stunning victory by the union—offers an ominous case study of the state of labor coverage in the national press.
The opinions showcased during the recent government shutdown in three major US newspapers—the New York Times, Washington Post and Wall Street Journal—showed a striking lack of concern for the fate of the Dreamers and many variations of the same take on the need for a “bipartisan compromise” for immigration reform.
For the popular US cable news network MSNBC, the largest humanitarian catastrophe in the world is apparently not worth much attention—even as the US government has played a key role in creating and maintaining that unparalleled crisis.
A review of New York Times articles, columns, op-eds and reports shows a clear emphasis on documenting and condemning perceived suppression of conservative voices at American universities,
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.
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 their respective opinion pieces analyzing the Six-Day War and its subsequent effect on the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, major US media have favored Israeli and pro-Israel American voices at the expense of Palestinians by a wide margin.
A new FAIR study finds that Republicans dominated coverage of Donald Trump’s appointments, with GOP partisans making up 47 percent of total sources and outnumbering their Democratic counterparts by a 5-to-2 ratio.
Of the top 100 US newspapers, 47 ran editorials on President Donald Trump’s Syria airstrikes last week: 39 in favor, seven ambiguous and only one opposed to the military attack.
Five major US newspapers—the New York Times, Washington Post, USA Today, Wall Street Journal and New York Daily News—offered no opinion space to anyone opposed to Donald Trump’s Thursday night airstrikes. By contrast, the five papers ran a total of 18 op-eds, columns or “news analysis” articles (dressed-up opinion pieces) that either praised the strikes or criticized them for not being harsh enough.
A new FAIR study finds that 45 percent of the reporters Spicer called on were from conservative outlets. Fifteen percent of questions came from journalists working under the Fox brand.
An attack on a Canadian mosque could have provided a critical lesson in the fallacy, and the danger, of singling out particular categories of people. That is, if US media had paid more than passing attention to the story.
Corporate media coverage of the Verizon strike illustrated the fundamental asymmetry of power that still exists between multi-billion-dollar corporations and comparatively small unions.
A new report from FAIR looks at a year’s worth of anonymity in the New York Times, with media critic Reed Richardson taking an in-depth look at how unnamed sources were used in the paper in 2015.
Far from being a “last resort,” anonymous sources remain stubbornly common within the New York Times, and are even more likely to be found lurking among high-profile and front-page stories.
Since the election of Obama in 2008, Americans have become increasingly polarized about racial issues. At the same time, Americans have also become more polarized in their news media viewing habits. In the wake of horrifying events like the racially motivated mass murder in a Charleston church, some have connected these trends; Jon Stewart (Comedy […]
Establishment media figures who have moderated the debates have thus far focused the discussion on a narrow range of topics, a FAIR analysis of debate questions finds.
