With all due respect, you either don't live in the US or are living under a rock if you feel like you need citation. Denying the US's propaganda machine is like denying climate change at this point. The news corps don't tell flat lies, they cherry-pick facts and events, often reporting them out of proportion to paint a narrative; which is almost as bad as telling flat lies.

I suggest not using the term 'propaganda' in this context becuase in all but very specific cases, that would be the wrong term.

MSNBC doens't generally run 'propaganda' for Pfizer, so much as they will avoid stories that make them look bad as they are big advertisers.

During a pandemic or war, the news system will close ranks and the stories come out differently but there are civil reasons for that.

And FYI I'm not denying propaganda exists, but it's of a very different nature that most of the bias in the press.

If all we had to deal with was state supported propaganda it would be frankly refreshing.

Agreed. Pull up Fox News and MSNBC... they're never consistent, so who's telling the truth?

I was after a citation for the claim that talking about media bias is correlated with media bias.

You seem to be talking about the general existence of media bias, for some reason.

This isn't Wikipedia. It's a discussion.

Almost everything that someone posts is an anecdote, and you can't expect everyone to come armed with reams of well-researched facts.

Another issue is the ease of cherry picking supporting "facts" to suit one's argument.

I don't expect that. Just a single reference so I can go and have a read.

I don't know what purpose you think what you're saying has, but it seems negative for discussion purposes and for fact-finding purposes.