FAIR is the national progressive media watchdog group, challenging corporate media bias, spin and misinformation.
A FAIR survey of US opinion journalism on Venezuela found no voices in elite corporate media that opposed regime change in that country. Over a three-month period, zero opinion pieces in the New York Times and Washington Post took an anti–regime change or pro-Maduro/Chavista position.
It is virtually an iron law of journalism that descriptions of US government-friendly groups will be designed to signal readers that they deserve support.
Election Focus 2020: Why, one is compelled to ask, do longtime, diehard conservatives care so much about what’s in the Democratic Party’s best interests?
Thirty-five percent of think tank sources on NPR’s morning news show were from conservative or center-right groups, while 19 percent involved progressive or center-left groups.
When the New York Times wanted to recap reactions—“from the right and left”—to Donald Trump’s recent summit with Russian President Vladimir Putin, the choice of pundits it turned to to represent “the left” was exceedingly bizarre.
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.
What counts as “far left” to the Washington Post, the newspaper owned by the world’s richest human?
None of the supposedly taboo ideas listed by New York Times columnist Bari Weiss are remotely taboo; they’re the kind of things that are expressed routinely in outlets like the New York Times.
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 rise of social media platforms like Twitter (launched in 2006) and Facebook (opened to the general public in the same year) allowed people to share news and opinions directly, giving them an opportunity to gravitate towards outlets and outlooks that resonate with them.
The rise of social media platforms like Twitter (launched in 2006) and Facebook (opened to the general public in the same year) allowed people to share news and opinions directly, giving them an opportunity to gravitate towards outlets and outlooks that resonate with them.
New York Times editorial page editor James Bennet—likely the most influential gatekeeper in all of media—told Times staffers in a closed-door meeting last December that the paper of record was “pro-capitalism.”
What constitutes “extremism” is…ideologically worthless
Why has Jonah Goldberg, author of How Liberals Cheat in the War of Ideas, appeared as a guest on National Public Radio’s most widely distributed news hours 25 times since April 2016—making him one of the network’s most regularly consulted commentators?
In the past few years, the Democratic Party’s rank and file has shifted left on major issues. In contrast, nominally liberal media—or major media whose editorial line is reliably pro-Democratic—have drifted rightward.
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.
The New York Times’ op-ed page’s latest right-wing hire, Bret Stephens, doesn’t like Donald Trump—but he loves Trump’s worst ideas.
The orthodoxy on the New York Times op-ed page isn’t “liberalism”; Bret Stephens is the third representative of his ideological niche, the anti-Trump conservative, to currently have a home there.
Bret Stephens’ hiring highlights the radical asymmetry at work when considering what is and isn’t a fringe opinion. When one goes to the far right, there doesn’t seem to be a line that can’t be crossed, while anything slightly to the left of Hillary Clinton is nonexistent in the staff opinion section at the New York Times.
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.
