With all of the talk about the alleged bias of various pundits, news reporters and organizations circulating throughout New York University’s journalism department, it should come as no surprise that I have had media bias on my mind. So I googled those two controversial words.
I scrolled past two entries for a conservative media watchdog group, a Wikipedia posting, and an entry on bias, before stumbling upon a report released by the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) on December 14, 2005 that intrigued me. It began:
“While the editorial page of The Wall Street Journal is conservative, the newspaper's news pages are liberal, even more liberal than The New York Times. The Drudge Report may have a right-wing reputation, but it leans left. Coverage by public television and radio is conservative compared to the rest of the mainstream media. Meanwhile, almost all major media outlets tilt to the left.â€
The report was based on research performed by UCLA political scientist Tim Groseclose, University of Missouri economic and public policy Jeffrey Milyo, and 21 research assistants. They
“based their research on a standard gauge of a lawmaker's support for liberal causes. Americans for Democratic Action (ADA) tracks the percentage of times that each lawmaker votes on the liberal side of an issue. Based on these votes, the ADA assigns a numerical score to each lawmaker, where "100" is the most liberal and "0" is the most conservative. After adjustments to compensate for disproportionate representation that the Senate gives to low population states and the lack of representation for the District of Columbia, the average ADA score in Congress (50.1) was assumed to represent the political position of the average U.S. voter.â€
These standards were then applied to the media. The results, well, were to be expected.
“Of the 20 major media outlets studied, 18 scored left of center, with CBS' "Evening News," The New York Times and the Los Angeles Times ranking second, third and fourth most liberal behind the news pages of The Wall Street Journal.
Only Fox News' "Special Report With Brit Hume" and The Washington Times scored right of the average U.S. voter.â€
The report was interesting, employing a unique methodology to discover media bias. Yet, these findings aren’t revolutionary. The conclusions drawn in the paper may still be hotly debated within certain circles, but are in fact, widely accepted. The researchers may have taken a novel approach to assess media bias, but that appears to be the only novel element within the report.
I’m sick of the way the debate about media bias only seems to go in circles, partial to the bias of the individual conducting it. (I concluded that the report only adds to this debate after googling Groseclose's name.) We know media bias exists, and I believe that to some extent everyone is somewhat biased.
So? Doesn’t anyone have any impartial, practical and innovative ideas can be thrown into the conversation on how guard against bias? Maybe the pundits and op-ed writers screaming media bias, could put their time to better use by coming up with solutions.
Just a thought.
Anne Noyes @ September 24, 2006 - 9:22pm
I think you're right, Clare, in asserting that "to some extent everyone is somewhat biased." Journalists, editors, and publishers are all human -- as are the sources journalists must interview in order to gather information for stories. As such, they are all fundamentally influenced by formative past experiences, loyalties, and perceptions of the world. Long story short: despite even the best efforts to consciously eliminate bias, it will inevitably creep in to rear its ugly head from time to time.
But I've begun to wonder if what is frequently identified as "bias" isn't perhaps mislabeled? Perhaps "bias" (or, more specifically, "political bias") is not the real culprit here. After all, journalists don't operate in a vacuum -- their work, and the industry itself, is driven by a number of logistical factors and pragmatic realities.
For example: deadlines. The US trend of shrinking newsrooms, which is often propelled by budget cuts instituted by business-minded people focusing on bottom-line profit margins, means that fewer reporters are left to cover the same range and quantity of news that a larger staff of journalists would previously have handled. Given these increased work demands facing smaller staffs who have fewer resources at their disposal, I imagine that deadline pressure must be tremendous. And when deadlines are pressing, it's not unreasonable to assume that incomplete or low quality work occasionally slips through the editorial review process. If an article cites three sources all voicing similar opinions -- is it bias, or was the beleaguered reporter too swamped with other assignments to find an alternative perspective by press time?
Also, I think it's important to consider another factor that is especially relevant for broadcast journalists: entertainment value. Pressure to achieve the impressive television ratings that attract increased advertising revenue for networks have driven television newscasts to focus on sensationalized reporting of dramatic, emotional events (graphic violence, juicy scandals, etc.), rather than on, say, substantive segments examining international policy and news developments.
Moreover, I wonder if the pressure to entertain, rather than inform, might produce an even more insidious result: I'll call it the "jazz it up" phenomenon. I would venture that newscasts generally seek to incorporate "jazzier" language and catchy buzzwords (e.g. "hard-line," "strong man," etc.) in an effort to snag the attention and interest of restless viewers who have easy access to an expansive array of media, entertainment, and news options. At its core, this sexier language aims to increase the entertainment value and appeal of news items that lack reliable audience-magnets (the aforementioned violence and scandal -- or better yet, both!) and which otherwise might convey all the "jazziness" of the average NewsHour with Jim Lehrer broadcast (which, by the way, is renowned for its substance, accuracy, and refusal to cater to the "entertain or perish" philosophy of TV news). But, here's the kicker -- when applied carelessly, these sensational descriptive labels and "jazzy" catch-phrases can send loaded messages to viewers and, in turn, these can be interpreted in any number of ways to support accusations of media bias that implicate and benefit any number of players on the American political scene.
Rather than railing against virtually inescapable human biases, perhaps we should stop to consider the pragmatic, logistical elements of the media status quo that can complicate or even prevent journalists' efforts to carry out their duties with the highest standards of professionalism and quality.
»