Difference between revisions of "Media bias"

Revision as of 05:53, November 6, 2014

Media bias is advocacy journalism gone wild, where one-sided arguments masquerade as objective reporting. It "is rarely expressed through distortion of the facts, but rather through the omission of certain facts that would be inconvenient for the outlook of the person or group reporting."^[1] A good example is Paul Krugman's claim, in his New York Times opinion piece, that "Everyone knows that the American right has problems with science that yields conclusions it doesn’t like."^[2] This statement completely ignores the much worse "problems" the American left has with science, specifically the climate science which refutes the junk science used by liberals to prop up their global warming theory and their "solution" to the "crisis" (see Kyoto Protocol, carbon credits, etc.).

It manifests distortion of news, commentary, non-fiction articles, textbooks, documentaries, speech codes and the like to favor one side's ideas over another's (see partisanship). Dictatorships and other authoritarian regimes which suppress freedom of the press are notorious for their media bias, particularly when all media are controlled directly by a one-party government.

Most journalism schools in free countries address the issue of eliminating bias, although efforts are rarely successful. The U.S. media is strongly polarized, with multiple outlets have strong liberal and conservative biases, depending on which station (or newspaper) is considered. Overall, however, many, including some academics with scientific backing, maintain that the media has a general liberal bias.

Sources of bias

Example of deliberate propaganda, with an un-presidential photo and a lead headline in a purported "news magazine": "She's bad news for the GOP--and everybody else, too." The goal is to give Palin opponents ammunition to fight her popularity. Newsweek issue dated Nov. 23, 2009

1. Deliberate propaganda: Presenting bias with the intention of benefiting the media establishment.
2. Institutional bias: The reporters and editors of a media organization may hold political views, which influence their reporting. Reporting on the Vietnam war has been cited as a notable example of such.
3. Sensationalism: Media depends on viewership for financial support from advertisers. Thus stories that have little political value but much entertainment value may receive attention disproportionate to their impact. Scare stories are also an example of sensationalism.
4. Omission: The inverse of sensationalism, media may overlook important but boring stories.
5. Political correctness or sensitivity: Fearful of appearing racist or discriminatory, media may avoid any stories which reflect negatively on a ethnic, social or religious group, especially if the group is a minority.
6. Confirmation bias: a type of selective thinking whereby people tend to report what confirms their beliefs, and to ignore, or undervalue what contradicts their beliefs.
7. Audience bias: Readers or viewers tend to read news sources with which they agree. Thus, media must reinforce the existing views of their audience, or risk losing them. This source of bias can also reinforce the effect of a moral panic. In this case, the public may receive a distorted perspective that is a result of their own preferences, because the news media will deliberately deliver news not only suitable and desirable to the general public, but may also incorporate bias that would similarly suit the viewer.

Academic Studies and theories of media bias

The Media Elite, co-authored in 1986 by political scientists Robert Lichter, Stanley Rothman, and Linda Lichter is among the most cited academic study of political bias in news reporting. These researchers surveyed journalists at national media outlets such as the New York Times, Washington Post, and the broadcast networks. They found that most of the responding journalists were Democratic voters whose attitudes were far to the left of the general public on a variety of topics: homosexual rights, abortion, affirmative action, and so on. The study argued that the way in which journalists wrote about controversial issues was directly related to their personal political positions.

Independently corroborating the findings above, is the 2002 book length study by political communication researcher Jim A. Kuypers: Press Bias and Politics: How the Media Frame Controversial Issues. In this study of 116 mainstream US papers (including The New York Times, the Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, and the San Francisco Chronicle), Kuypers found that the mainstream print press in America operate within a narrow range of liberal beliefs. Those who expressed points of view further to the left were generally ignored, whereas those who expressed moderate or conservative points of view were often actively denigrated or labeled as holding a minority point of view. In short, if a political leader, regardless of party, spoke within the press-supported range of acceptable discourse, he or she would receive positive press coverage. If a politician, again regardless of party, were to speak outside of this range, he or she would receive negative press or be ignored. Kuypers also found that the liberal points of view expressed in editorial and opinion pages were found in hard news coverage of the same issues. Although focusing primarily on the issues of race and homosexuality, Kuypers found that the press injected opinion into its news coverage of other issues such as welfare reform, environmental protection, and gun control; in all cases favoring a liberal point of view.

See also

• Liberal bias
• History Channel Documentary on KAL 007: a critical review - a study in Media bias and distortion
• Anecdotes of good will misconstruing
• Time magazine
• Wikipedia prejudice and KAL 007
• Vietnam War

Notes

• Christian groups accuse BBC drama of inciting anti-Christian bias ^[3]

• Canadian Jewish Authors Castigate Anti-Christian Media Bias ^[4]

• European Media and Anti-Israel Bias, A British journalist in Israel, Fatah leader caught by an Israeli army camera saying, "Don't start the stoning yet" ^[5]

• Recognizing Bias in Middle East Reporting: Rules for Reporters. What is media bias and why is it practiced against Israel? The Media's Anti-Israel Bias ^[6]

• Anti-Israel Bias – An Endless Battle, trying to counter the anti-Israel bias in the media is an increasingly challenging proposition. ^[7]

• Does the Media's anti-Israel bias matter? ^[8]

• Fighting hate & bias ^[9]

• Addressing Anti Israel Media Bias · European Media and Anti-Israel Bias ^[10]

• The day when the media will not be anti-Israel biased ^[11]

• Tom Gross on New York Times & Israel on National Review Online ^[12]

• French Media Bias Against Israel Blamed for Anti-Semitic Violence ^[13]

• WorldNetDaily: Liberal bias against Christians? Not a chance! ^[14]

External links

• Accuracy in Media (AIM) non-profit, grassroots citizens watchdog ^[15]
• Media Matters for America, another notable media watchdog.
• CAMERA Dedicated for accuracy in reporting on the middle east ^[16]
• ChronWatch A noted media watchdog and conservative news organization, with a mission to provide honest, alternative views to the increasing liberal-bias ^[17].
• Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR) A media watchdog organization.^[18]
• HonestReporting A fast-action website that monitors Mideast media bias, ^[19]
• IHateTheMedia.com - Pointing out Liberal Bias daily
• MediaResearch (MRC) A leading media watchdog^[20]
• NewsBusters A blog dedicated to "Exposing & Combating Liberal Media Bias" ^[21]
• Take a pen Encourages fighting it ^[22].
• Types of Media Bias - Student News Daily
• How to detect bias in the news
• Politmus a crowdsourced site that allows members to rate and comment on examples of media bias they encounter^[23]

References