Centerfield: Media biases -- but not the ones you think

June 21, 2004

Media biases -- but not the ones you think

One weblog that I read on a regular basis is Andrew Cline's Rhetorica.net. In his words:

I am, as I indicated above, a former journalist. I am an assistant professor of journalism at Southwest Missouri State University (starting fall 2004). I earned my Ph.D. in the Interdisciplinary Ph.D. program at the University of Missouri-Kansas City; my fields are rhetoric and political science.

On the subject of 'media bias', here's part of what he has to say:

There is no such thing as an objective point of view.
No matter how much we may try to ignore it, human communication always takes place in a context, through a medium, and among individuals and groups who are situated historically, politically, economically, and socially. This state of affairs is neither bad nor good. It simply is. Bias is a small word that identifies the collective influences of the entire context of a message.
...
Journalists, too, speak from political positions but usually not overtly so. The journalistic ethics of objectivity and fairness are a strong influence on the profession. But journalistic objectivity is not the pristine objectivity of philosophy. Instead, a journalist attempts to be objective by two methods: 1) fairness to those concerned with the news and 2) a professional process of information gathering that seeks fairness, completeness, and accuracy. As we all know, the ethical heights journalists set for themselves are not always reached. But, all in all, like politics, it is an honorable profession practiced, for the most part, by people trying to do the right thing.

The press is often thought of as a unified voice with a distinct bias (right or left depending on the critic). This simplistic thinking fits the needs of ideological struggle, but is hardly useful in coming to a better understanding of what is happening in the world.

Note that he is speaking about journalism as a profession, which has the goal of keeping the citizenry informed. What the journalist does not do is attempt to persuade. Those who do that are columnists, editorial board members and pundits such as Bill O'Reilly on FOX or Al Franken on Air America.

Journalism by it's very nature has built-in biases -- what Cline terms structural biases:

I use the word "bias" here to challenge its current use by partisan critics. A more accepted, and perhaps more accurate, term would be "frame." These are some of the professional frames that structure what journalists can see and how they can present what they see.

Here's his list:

• Commercial bias.
• Temporal bias.
• Visual bias.
• Bad News bias.
• Narrative bias.
• Status quo bias.
• Fairness bias.
• Expediency bias.
• Glory bias.

You can view an explanation of each at the above link, however I think the following are interesting in view of the frequent comments about the public not being informed about all the good things that have happened in Iraq:

Commercial bias: The news media are money-making businesses. As such, they must deliver a good product to their customers to make a profit. The customers of the news media are advertisers. The most important product the news media delivers to its customers are readers or viewers. Good is defined in numbers and quality of readers or viewers. The news media are biased toward conflict (re: bad news and narrative biases below) because conflict draws readers and viewers. Harmony is boring.
Bad news bias: Good news is boring (and probably does not photograph well, either). This bias makes the world look like a more dangerous place than it really is. Plus, this bias makes politicians look far more crooked than they really are.

Narrative bias: The news media cover the news in terms of "stories" that must have a beginning, middle, and end--in other words, a plot with antagonists and protagonists...Good storytelling requires drama, and so this bias often leads journalists to add, or seek out, drama for the sake of drama. Controversy creates drama. Journalists often seek out the opinions of competing experts or officials in order to present conflict between two sides of an issue (sometimes referred to as the authority-disorder bias). Lastly, narrative bias leads many journalists to create, and then hang on to, master narratives--set story lines with set characters who act in set ways. Once a master narrative has been set, it is very difficult to get journalists to see that their narrative is simply one way, and not necessarily the correct or best way, of viewing people and events.

I hope that one of the points taken here is that a perceived 'under-reporting' of good events (Iraqi girls attending newly opened schools) and 'over-reporting' of disturbing events (I'm sure I need not provide an example!) is more a result of the media's structural biases and less an effort to discredit the administration's efforts.

The reason for making this point is that I believe it's important for citizens to realize that many (not all!) accusations of media bias are themselves political rhetoric meant to cast doubt on the motives of journalists and news organizations.

Posted by Erasmus at June 21, 2004 12:18 AM

Comments

Thank you for finding that.

Sure, anyone can find examples of articles that seem to have a liberal or conservative bias. But all in all, journalists try their damndest to report the most important news while being fair and balanced.

Whether it's CNN, Fox News, The Washington Post, or The Washington Times, reporters do their best to be objective and fair.

Posted by: Staunch Moderate at June 21, 2004 10:40 AM

An excellent review of ingrained biases by Cline, but the whole thing needs to be read to be understood. There are indeed all kinds of biases in news reporting, a point I made here in Centerfield just a few weeks ago. Especially in a war zone where the journalists have limited numbers and limited resources, bad news will always get much more coverage than good news. The stories will follow the path with the most promise to produce ratings. That is not an indicator of political bias.

And yes, Cline admits, there are political biases in reporting. What Cline doesn't mention is that, while there are indeed biases in both directions depending on the reporter, there are an overwhelmingly greater number of liberal/progressive Democrat journalists than conservative Republican journalists. (Don't take my word for it, check the Pew surveys of the political inclinations of journalists.) Cline's own apologia, when cross-checked against reality, essentially admits that there will be many more liberally-slanted stories than conservatively-slanted stories.

Cline's strongest point, the one that should be made over and over, is that if you want a "nuetral" view of the facts, you have to do your own filtering by knowing the biases of the particular journalists and organizations that are reporting the stories. In other words, you have to use your own intelligence and over-ride your own known biases in order to attain an objective view. And another great point is that most people have trouble understanding the difference between editorialism and journalism--even journalists.

Cline also spends a good bit of space arguing that journalistic nuetrality is impossible. While I would certainly concede that point to some extent (you can't get away from your own frames of reference) Cline sounds like he's arguing for the total abandonment of journalistic standards of objectivity on relativistic grounds, an argument I would utterly reject. Just because perfection in objectivity is not possible is no reason not to strive to for it. Indeed, it's one of the finest marks of good journalist, the ability to step beyond their own biases in order to present as objective an account as possible.

Posted by: Tully at June 21, 2004 12:39 PM

Tully,

Here's an interesting issue: if most journalists are 'liberal' (and are we talking SOCIAL liberals or ECONOMIC liberals?...my own GUESS would be socially liberal, economically right of center) can one immediately conclude that they all let their personal leanings color their reporting to such an extent that there is a significant 'skew'? Especially given your concluding statement: "Indeed, it's one of the finest marks of good journalist, the ability to step beyond their own biases in order to present as objective an account as possible."

Also, how about media ownership? If a liberal reporter works for a conservative media organization, which is more likely to affect what/how they report? Any studies on this?

Your comments about the ultimate responsibility being that of the consumer/listener and a blurring of the distinction between reporting and editorializing are right on! And what does this all mean in a world saturated with visual media and ideological media-ghettos? (Yes, FOX does spring to mind!)

I'm thinking that these are important issues for moderates/independents/centrists to understand if we are to figure out how to have more infulence.

Posted by: erasmus at June 21, 2004 02:01 PM

I have said for a while now that there are too many too many media types and everywhere wasting time and space. Journalists? Reporting? Viewpoint yelling shows? Hey, the only thing all these overpaid jackasses should be doing is making sure the facts are correct when they rip whatever off the wires--because that's all the reporting they do anyway. I quit caring what any of them think a long time agoe. They cost us too much in our goods and services too.

This guy is just another intellectual hack to me.
Rhetoric and poli sc? Just more of Univ asses esoterica and PinHead Dopes? Intellectuals and giving you their pap all your life? Get real.

The genuinely Smart and Savvy think all these paper professionals (all the yuppy asses that they are and with their yuppy offspring) have been ruining this country.

Posted by: Alex at June 21, 2004 03:14 PM

Here's an interesting issue: if most journalists are 'liberal'...can one immediately conclude that they all let their personal leanings color their reporting to such an extent that there is a significant 'skew'?

And my answer would be, look at the evidence. Every study of the political inclinations of journalists for the last 20 years shows roughly the same ratio of self-identified liberals to conservatives, about 5 to 1. Anecdotal and observational evidence indicates the ratio is even higher--those calling themselves "moderates" are doing so in the context of the media they operate in, which is majority liberal. Fish don't notice the water they swim in--a "moderate" in the newsroom is likely a centrist Democrat elsewhere, inclined toward the middle but still to the left of it. If Cline's arguments are correct, the conclusions are inescapable.

Especially given your concluding statement: "Indeed, it's one of the finest marks of [a] good journalist, the ability to step beyond their own biases in order to present as objective an account as possible."

Unless you'd like to allege that most journalists are good journalists doing fine work most of the time, see my first statement. [grin] But I've always felt Sturgeon's Law was universal. In any case, by Cline's argument even an excellent journalist doing their best to give an unbiased and accurate report will still show their own biases in their reporting. Thus, if the ratio of liberals to conservatives in the media is five-to-one, where political bias is present it will run in about the same ratio.

Where I differ from Cline is that I don't think that excuses journalists from consciously noting their own biases and allowing for them in trying to live up to those impossible ideals.

NPR ombudsman Jeff Dvorkin has an interesting piece on the most recent Pew Survey here. What I found particularly interesting were his comments on how journalists as a class tend to be remarkably homogenous, and their concerns about "creeping commercialism." The remark about "muzzling sheep" was also amusing....

Posted by: Tully at June 21, 2004 03:58 PM

"The genuinely Smart and Savvy think all these paper professionals (all the yuppy asses that they are and with their yuppy offspring) have been ruining this country."

Alex,

Is there anything you actually like? You seem to think everyone and everything (other than your own "Smart and Savvy" types) are ruining the country. Apparently, these Smart and Savvy people advocate elimination of lawyers, journalists, yuppies, right-wingers, left-wingers, corporations, professional sports, intellectuals, political scientists--have I missed anything? And how do journalists cost us goods and services? I must be missing something--I guess I'm not Smart and Savvy.

Posted by: MWS at June 21, 2004 05:07 PM

Alex,

Where'd you learn all the neat epithets? What's the most you've been able to include in a single comment? What is the maximum noise to signal ratio you've been able to achieve?

Oh, and how does one differentiate between an 'intellectual hack' and a plain ol' dumb-ass?

Just curious.

Posted by: Erasmus at June 21, 2004 08:39 PM

Intellectuals are asses of hot air just on the opposite end.

This American model was not designed for princely lifestyles. Yuppies and their offspring are ruining the country. ____ the legacy into the wind.

Dream on if you don't think the trade deficits, the govt. debt, the overpaid paper professionals, the overpaid overbenefited govt. employees and their bloated pensions, the outsourcing, the lack of technological prowess, gorging on entertainments, massive immigration that is wreaking havoc, buying all those foreign made products at Home Depot for your overpriced real estate (which is not real wealth to the country but result of basically racketeering by housing lobbies)and all the funny moneys that goes with most of this list are not screwing up this country.

______________________

Besides, how dumb are people? Anything you can read you don't need to spend hours for at some university and waste all that money on. What a racket. That should be obvious to any thinking persons out there. All you have to do is look at the state of what I mentioned in the preceding.

And to the commenter re:
Yes, the media asses do cost us in increased costs of goods and services. Same goes for all the high costs for marketing/advertising asses out of New York and Hollywood centers.

Posted by: Alex at June 21, 2004 11:23 PM

"Whether it's CNN, Fox News, The Washington Post, or The Washington Times, reporters do their best to be objective and fair."

Probably true. Unfortunately, on most days I think their best isn't very good. (I'll make an exception for The Economist).

Posted by: David Fleck at June 22, 2004 08:42 AM

What David said, only I think The Economist has its own, more subtle biases. They're remarkably good at keeping the tone of the magazine consistent with their own economic philosphy.

While there are some studies like Pew's that have measured the political inclinations of journalists, there is a real lack of studies of actual bias in news presentation by the various outlets, at least from unbiased sources. (AIM and FAIR are both agenda-driven, and not objective no matter how high-falutin' their rhetoric.)

By happy coincidence, Drudge has a great link today to a UCLA/Stanford paper that studied media bias at major news outlets and came to the startling (to some, not to me) conclusion that the most centrist outlets in the study were Drudge and Fox News Report.

Although we expected to find that most media lean left, we were astounded by the degree. A norm among journalists is to present both sides of the issue. Consequently, while we expected members of Congress to cite primarily think tanks that are on the same side of the ideological spectrum as they are, we expected journalists to practice a much more balanced citation practice, even if the journalist's own ideology opposed the think tanks that he or she is sometimes citing. This was not always the case. Most of the mainstream media outlets that we examined (i.e. all those besides Drudge Report and Fox News Special Report) were closer to the average Democrat in Congress than they were to the median member of the House.

I have some quibbles with the study (a narrow sample of media outlets, if the biggest ones, and one can always criticize methodology in the social "sciences") but the results don't surprise me a bit. Posted by: Tully at June 22, 2004 10:14 AM

Added to my other Commenting at this topic:

As stated previously, you're becoming slavelike.

And

Intellectuals are jackasses that largely ruined Europe. Univs perpetuate mental hot air and are a racket for those perpetuating. PinHead Dopes and overeducated idiocy. I resent the bamboozling and the racket. They grab too young and far too inexperienced persons and INDOCTRINATE them with their garbage. Let's throw in the Quota crap that has been ruining the country too-- and the socialists confiscating our tax dollars to pay for lower levels to get our tax dollars and then screw all our kids over in reverse discrimination. Oh, yes, have seen it over and over and over again and it's still going on and worsened. Then, they give them high spots when they get out. I know many, many people who quit or their kids quit the positions to get away from an ass Quota boss.
How about the interviewing for the last 20 years where the quotas were on the sheets? Oh, yes. All the millions wasted at each univ --and for decades. Most of the people, staff, and programs don't belong there! You pay for their salaries, benefits, pension looting and I'll work to find ways that only they pay for--including going retroactive on their 20 years of looting. Get real. Deans? Provost spots? What the hell is that crap? Just how hard does a min. wage employee have to work? Hell,they have Nazi race cops in every city and on every campus--for more wasted bucks. They have special Tutors to help racial Ph.D. whatevers. They even create special Deans positions to handle the White and U.S. born Asian kids complaining re what they know they are doing against their interests. So, get real what your univs are doing and have been doing to this country. Meanwhile, the kids who qualify as engineers and computer engineers, doctors, either can't get money to prepare for careers or they're all stressed out by the amounts of loans on their backs for years--or their univs have infiltrated foreigners to take over positions. Yes, even the foreigners are part of the Quotas, more of what the univ and Nazi attorneys done to your society.
Not the American type model to me --or many others.

Media jackasses waste time, space, and big moneys. Like priests from on high, they all want to filter and interpret everything for you, if you're ass enough to believe their crap. They're control freaks. Professionals, for the most part with doctors as one key exception, have developed their own rackets/ monopolies. Attorneys are the thugs that protect all the other professional screw-you-types. Attorneys are say-as-you-pay hired thugs--facts,truth,effects on citizens' lives, fair play be damned. The courts are a business monopoly of power and money ruling. Attorneys are hired thugs. Shylocks who extract insane fees for someone else's lifetime of injury and just because they take hours to fight with each other and drive up all the costs to do so. We do not need them past paralegal level functions--unless you're some retarded type. Wasting reams of papers. convoluted circular crap. Hours spent in Depositions. Draining people's lives, time, and moneys. Control freaking business monopoly over American citizens. Hey, I'm to the point of challenging "professionals" to duels to face the genuine responsbility for what their screw-ups do to people's lives. Besides, all laws should have been written in basic Bus. Eng. as of several decades ago. These segments bamboozled people. They are not of American type model. Now, some of us have seen enough and are ready and willing to speak out against the overeducated idiots and what they have done and are doing to this country until and unless stopped.

Blogs use media asses articles.

And, I really am not into whatever comes splat off someone's so-called brain or certain types.
So, no more.

Posted by: Alex at June 22, 2004 02:51 PM

Let us hope.

Posted by: Erasmus at June 22, 2004 06:07 PM

Re the study linked to by Drudge: I'm no statistics expert, so I don't have an opinion on that part of the study. However, the methodology is obviously one that is unproven and there are numerous issues left unresolved, such as the quality of the studies done by various think tanks (Which comes first, the supporting data or the conclusion?) and how close a relationship there is between the think tank and the politician (Are the same people funding the think tank studies also giving big bucks to the politician's campaign?). I could go on, but you get the point.

The whole issue of media liberal vs. conservative bias is 90% rhetorical, serving the interests of those who insist on finding 'the enemy within' to rail against.

Much more useful is to simply consider the source, evaluate the argument presented and get on with it. I really do not see the utility of doing otherwise. If others do see how I can use this information, I'm interested in hearing it.

Posted by: Erasmus at June 22, 2004 09:04 PM

Much more useful is to simply consider the source, evaluate the argument presented and get on with it. I really do not see the utility of doing otherwise.

Massive agreement!

Posted by: Tully at June 22, 2004 10:52 PM

I agree with much of what people here are saying (other than Alex, whom I can't figure out what the hell he is talking about). I think it is important to get lots of sources of information. I find when you read the other side, you realize there is no monopoly of truth.

I think much of the problem with the press is not bias, but simple incompetence. I would bet that anyone who has ever read a story about something that he or she really knows or has experience with is appalled with the inability of the media to get basic facts right. Much of the supposed bias in stories is, I think, simply a matter of the journalist not understanding what he or she is talking about.

Posted by: MWS at June 22, 2004 10:55 PM

I can second that too, Marc. For all the whining the subject generates (including my own) the bottom line is that if you bother to try you can still get to the facts, and if you're actually paying attention the obvious and overt bias and spin (ideological, commercial, etc.) is more annoying than anything else, and self-defeating. And the truly subtle bias and spin really doesn't have much affect anyway, being either accepted or ejected subliminally according to our own subconscious biases.

Posted by: Tully at June 23, 2004 12:22 PM

Erasmus, you certainly don't have to be a statistics experts to have problems with the methodology of the UCLA/Stanford study. Like most social "science" studies, it's built on pretty shaky ground, as you note.

What it mostly demonstrates is that reporters and politicians, like the rest of us, tend to use the sources that support their own beliefs and reject those that don't. Not exactly earth-shattering, eh?

Posted by: Tully at June 23, 2004 12:27 PM

Any of you left with Common Sense/horse sense genuine thinking abilites and a dislike for govt. spending and wasting, let me know. You can find my e-mail address.

No more here as stated.

A Footnote to comments:
The spending and social engineering Nazis to screw up the middle-class people in this country have taken over and confiscate their moneys to do so. Another $2M going to be given to Consultants to teach teachers how to teach, oh such difficult things that we haven't done for centuries such as Reading and basics! Why, because none of the Nazis are even ex-teachers. They said outright running like a corporation--people who live in million dollar houses and/or make over $120k off other people's tax dollars. PEOPLE WHO WOULDN'T KNOW WHAT "WORK" WAS IF IT HIT THEM ON THE HEAD WITH A 2X4. Then,they gave another $3M for another set of Consultants Snoopervision of teachers to tell them how to teach. Meanwhile, laying off huge numbers of Teacher Aides, etc.

Posted by: Alex at June 23, 2004 02:42 PM

Tully,

"Not exactly earth-shattering, eh?"

Not in the least! :}

Posted by: Erasmus at June 24, 2004 11:43 PM

Centerfield

A Weblog of Centrist Voices in American Politics

June 21, 2004

Media biases -- but not the ones you think