Is the MSM biased?
Executive summary
Americans and observers disagree sharply about whether the “mainstream media” (MSM) is biased: critics on the right call it uniformly liberal and agenda-driven (examples in Townhall and AllSides commentary) while media analysts and some journalists say the charge has become a political cudgel used to delegitimize reporting (New Statesman) [1] [2] [3]. Empirical tools and studies offer mixed signals—media-bias trackers and academic research show measurable lean in some outlets or aggregators, but also note structural causes (ownership, format, social media) that feed perceptions of bias [4] [5] [6].
1. The claim: “MSM is biased” — who says it and why
Conservative columnists and alternative sites frame the MSM as institutionally skewed, linking editorial practices (for example, guidance in the AP Stylebook) to systemic unfairness; commentators urge conservative alternatives to “compete” (Townhall/Enter Stage Right pieces) [1] [7]. Right-leaning opinion outlets collected by AllSides repeat that narrative, treating mainstream outlets as metropolitan elites out of touch with ordinary people [2]. These critiques serve political and market goals: they delegitimize rivals and drive audiences toward partisan alternatives [1] [2].
2. The counterargument: delegitimisation as a tactic
Investigative and media-focused writers describe the “MSM bias” charge itself as a political tactic that has intensified since the Trump years, used to demonize reporting and shield powerful figures from scrutiny; the New Statesman documents how scepticism about the press in the U.S. metastasized into demonisation that harms democratic debate [3]. That strand of commentary says some attacks overreach by painting all mainstream outlets with the same brush, even when rigorous investigative work (e.g., on January 6) produced substantive journalism [3].
3. Evidence and measurement: mixed, context-dependent findings
Independent evaluators and academic observers show that bias is measurable but uneven. Media-bias trackers and charts exist (Ad Fontes Media) and outlets such as Media Bias/Fact Check assess slants and credibility for specific sites—these tools often find a slight-to-moderate liberal tilt for many mainstream sources but not monolithic bias across the board [6] [4]. Northeastern journalism analysis adds that structural features—like mixing news and opinion and the explosion of social platforms—contribute to perceived bias even when reporting standards remain similar [5].
4. Why perceptions diverge: selection, format and ownership
Researchers and commentators point to several drivers of disagreement: audience selective exposure (people choose friendly sources), conflation of opinion and news on digital platforms, and the role of billionaire owners and powerful platform figures in shaping narratives about the press [5] [3]. The New Statesman highlights that both right- and left-leaning media are owned by wealthy individuals, undermining claims that criticism comes from a single ideological direction [3].
5. How the AP Stylebook and newsroom practices fit in
Some critics argue style guides and diversity-focused editorial guidance introduce a bias into reporting; columnists cite AP guidance and unconscious-bias checks as evidence of an “Orwellian” tilt that prevents fairness [1] [7]. Media analysts, however, point to such guides as attempts to standardise language and improve representation rather than proof of coordinated ideological control—available sources report the critique but do not offer broad empirical proof that style rules alone produce systemic bias [1] [7] [3].
6. Practical implications for readers and civic debate
The debate has real consequences: accusations of bias increase public polarization and drive audiences toward partisan or alternative outlets, which in turn increases the circulation of hyperpartisan content that research links to greater societal polarization [8] [9]. Tools like bias charts and fact-checkers exist to help readers navigate coverage, but their conclusions vary and must be interpreted alongside knowledge of ownership, format and audience incentives [6] [4] [5].
7. Bottom line: nuanced, evidence-first verdict
Available reporting shows that bias in the MSM is real in some outlets and contexts, perceived differently by distinct audiences, and amplified by ownership, platform dynamics and partisan actors who weaponise the accusation [4] [3] [5]. Sources disagree on scale and explanation: conservative columnists present a system-wide bias [1] [2], while journalists and analysts warn that blanket denunciations obscure meaningful distinctions between outlets and may themselves be politically motivated [3]. Readers must use empirical tools, examine ownership and separate news from opinion to make informed judgements [6] [4] [5].