Find out the level of bias of specific news/media sources. Click "Explore Methodology" to read the methodology for how each news/media source is rated.
Wikipedia: Uses and Cautions
Wikipedia is a tool that can be useful for your research as long as you understand how to use it and its limitations.
It is an encyclopedia, which is a reference source, and is meant to provide you with background information so that you can move on and find more in-depth information (usually in articles or books). You should not be citing encyclopedias in your papers, but rather getting your information from articles, books, and other sources with in-depth information.
It’s edited by a community and so relevant information or key sources may be missing or incorrect.
For example, the Wikipedia page on witch hunts, as of January 24, 2020, presented the topic as if it were a gender neutral issue, without mention of sexism. In contrast, Forbes (2015) does discuss gender as an aspect of witch hunts on pages 125-126 of a chapter entitled 'Black Death and Witch Hunts" in America's Favorite Holidays: Candid Histories, a reference book available through Pacific University Libraries. This is an example of an important aspect of a topic being omitted, without which, the issue really can't be understood.
Get your news from credible journalistic sources instead of social media. Any sources that you do see on social media, ignore the comments and headlines -- click through and read the source itself and any sources it cites.
Americans are increasingly turning to social media for political information. However, given that the average social media user only clicks through on a small fraction of the political content available, the brief article previews that appear in the News Feed likely serve as shortcuts to political information. Yet, in addition to sharing political news, social media also allow users to make their own comments on news posts, comments which may challenge or distort the information contained in the articles. In this paper, we first analyze how social media posts on Twitter and Facebook differ from the actual content of their linked news articles, finding that social media comments regularly misrepresent the facts reported in the news. We then use a survey experiment to test the consequences of these information discrepancies. Specifically, we randomly assign individuals to read a full news article, a news article preview post (as seen on Facebook), or a news article preview with misinformative social commentary attached. We find that individuals in the social commentary conditions are more misinformed about the featured topic, tending to report the factually-incorrect information relayed in the comments rather than the factually-correct information embedded within the article preview.