Back to Home

Request Correction

Use this form to request corrections to the paper metadata. Select the fields that need correction and provide the correct information.

Correction Guidelines

  1. Click the edit button next to a field to report a correction.
  2. Fill in the suggested correction value for each field you want to correct.
  3. Provide your name and email so we can contact you if needed.

Paper Information

lrec2026-ws-indor-05

Media Bias within Information Disorder: Bridging Two Research Communities through a Systematic Review

Paper Fields

Click the edit button next to a field to report a correction.

Title

Media Bias within Information Disorder: Bridging Two Research Communities through a Systematic Review

Abstract

Information disorder research overwhelmingly focuses on fabricated or manipulated content (fake news, deepfakes, propaganda) while comparatively neglecting the most pervasive form of distorted information: media bias. Unlike outright falsehoods, media bias operates within the boundaries of factual reporting, distorting public understanding through framing, omission, and word choice rather than fabrication. This makes it harder to detect, harder to regulate, and paradoxically more influential, since it originates from trusted mainstream sources rather than marginal actors. In this position paper, we argue that media bias should be recognized as a first-class category within information disorder frameworks. Drawing on the Wardle and Derakhshan (2017) taxonomy, communication theory, and a systematic review of over 100 studies on automated media bias detection, we demonstrate that current frameworks inadequately account for the systematic distortion of true content. We present a consolidated taxonomy of media bias types organized by linguistic level, compare detection paradigms across the information disorder and media bias communities, and identify four properties that make media bias uniquely dangerous: its scale, its source credibility, the invisibility of omission, and its cumulative normative effect. We conclude with an integrated research agenda grounded in specific gaps identified through the review.


Authors

Expand an author to correct their information. Use the remove button to request author removal, or add a new author.


PDF Attachment

You may attach a PDF as a corrected version of the paper. Max file size: 10MB. Only PDF files are accepted.

Drag & drop a PDF here, or click to select

Your Information

Author Declaration *

Select at least one field to correct using the edit buttons above.