Media Bias
Who controls the media? Conservatives claim the liberals hold more sway over it, the liberals accuse conservatives of owning it. Both sides of the debate actually have very compelling arguments to make their case, but the debate over ideological media-dominance ignores other important dimensions of bias and fails to address the question of whether bias is actually a bad thing.
The arguments over media bias are often flimsy at best, offensively reductionist at worst. Jews, Celebrities, Corporations, Liberals and Conservatives are just some of the demographics accused of manipulating factual reporting for their own ends. This top-down theory of media control ignores the bottom-up freedom consumers have in choosing the media they want to view. If you believe an evil-conspiracy of Jewish overlords controls the New York Times, then you have the right to buy the New York Post, which others believe is run by a megalomaniac corporatist, Rupert Murdock.
Another argument often heard, especially in the blogosphere, is, “Why isn’t the media covering this?” With a finite amount of minutes in the day and paper to print on, news networks must exercise some degree of selectivity in what news to cover. Very few stories can take the center stage and often stories important to one demographic will get bumped in favor of stories that appeal to everyone. This is a bias toward populism and profits, not one of ideology.
More often this spurious evidence of media bias is actually proof of the media’s integrity. The blogosphere is a breeding ground for rumors and innuendo. The major news outlets have a responsibility not to report any story without all the facts.
Take for instance two case studies in media coverage. When Matt Drudge broke a story about John Kerry having an affair with an intern on his blog the Drudge Report, the major media did not bite and there was much outrage in the blogosphere because of it. The story was quickly proven a falsehood, essentially fabricated entirely by Matt Drudge himself, and subsequently vanished with no repercussions to Matt Drudge’s reputation.
Now consider the major repercussions to CBS for presenting forged documents damning George Bush’s service in the National Guard. The major media worked slowly, attempting to uncover the truth of the matter, and the story grew slowly into a massive embarrassment for CBS.
In both of these cases there was much outrage over the fact that the media was not giving sufficient coverage to these stories and was therefore biased, but in each case the media acted responsibly and the truth of the matter was discerned accurately for public consumption. We can see, therefore, the debate over media bias more often reveals the bias of the debaters than any systemic illumnatus-style conspiracy within the news networks.
Demographic Demands
Debates over ideological bias completely ignore the regional dimension of bias in news networks. Al Jazeera, the Arabian news network, has often been decried by the American government, especially the Pentagon, for spreading anti-American propaganda. Al Jazeera’s news coverage indisputably tells a story of events in the middle East far different from America’s. In the Iraq war and following American occupation, the news network has focused almost exclusively on civilian casualties and other deleterious effects of these events. Is this propaganda?
That’s entirely a matter of perspective. British Broadcasting, the BBC, when covering disasters such as plane crashes or bombings, always takes a moment to focus on the number of British citizens killed. A similar phenomenon takes place in American news media, where American citizens killed overseas are the focus for coverage. A terrorist attack in a foreign country will get more airplay on American news networks if American’s are among the victims.
This is not propaganda, but merely catering to audience demographics. The Arab world is concerned with civilian casualties in Iraq and Al Jazeera must therefore make that its focus. The Arab world is highly skeptical of American intentions in the Middle East and Al Jazeera must play the media watchdog for those concerns.
Consider Al Jazeera’s polar opposite, FOX News. A channel that has practically acquired the American flag as its station’s logo. Fox News emphasized the humanitarian efforts in Iraq immediately following the war, and provided little coverage of civilian casualties. Again, this is not propaganda, but customizing their coverage appropriately to their viewer ship.
Fox News has risen up to compete with CNN due to its more in-depth analysis and Al Jazeera’s English website has become an invaluable resource for covering stories American media overlook. Some critics state that somewhere in between Al Jazeera and Fox News is an acurate characterization of events, but a more accurate statement might be: Fox News plus Al Jazeera is a more accurate characterization of events.
Plus The Guardian plus The New York Times plus The Wallstreet Journal plus The Economist… etc… etc…
Problems With All Media
There are problems with all news sources that we must remain aware of else we fall victim to a lopsided view of the world.
Sensationalism
Protesters who comport themselves respectfully get drastically less coverage then rioting students in the streets or people painted up or baring insulting posters. This is the Catch-22 of organized demonstrations, you can either behave and get little to no media coverage, or you can riot and get plenty of bad coverage.
News Networks, beholden to advertising revenue, must maintain ratings. They must capture their viewer’s attention and keep them transfixed. Because of this, the Human Interest “Feel Good” stories take a backseat to more threatening news. A scared audience is a faithful audience.
Normalization
“all the radios agree with all the TV’s and all the magazines agree with all the radios and I keep hearing that same damn song everywhere I go!” Ani Difranco laments in her song “Fuel,” and the need for media to appeal to the “lowest common denominator” has a great deal to do with the echo-chamber effect many stories take on across different news networks. Just as media apply sensationalism to harvest audience attention, so to do they echo one another, lest one network steal its competitor’s audience by covering a story the other passed on.
Similar to the art/life influence question, it is fair to ask whether events dictate the media’s content or does media dictate the content? Each influences the other. Events with popular appeal command media coverage. At the same time, Media coverage of events increases their appeal. There is a complex system of emergence occurring here.
Consolidation
Normalization is a type of consolidation, one of populism, but here we use the term in relation to the trend of media sources coming under the management of a single corporation or individual. Public airwaves are a limited resource, and if one company were to monopolize them, then communities would only be hearing information deemed appropriate by the one company. A media monopoly could dictate political outcomes by suppressing coverage of Candidates it deemed unacceptable. It could eliminate competing products from the airwaves and advertise only those products the company produces itself.
The Federal Government prevents the establishment of media monopolies, just as it prevents market ones. Print media and the Internet are especially resistant to monopolization, but often audiences are unaware of what media corporations own. If the same corporation produces several newspapers in a single community, or controls several radio or television stations, then the community may erroneously believe they are obtaining news from different sources.
Objectivity
Objectivity was removed from the Society of Professional Journalists’ code of ethics in 1996. On its face, presenting the facts alone seems honest and fair, but Journalists have a greater responsibility to their audience than to play stenographer to talking heads. Corporations, Lobbyists, and Politicians all use the news media to get their messages out, and a news network that merely relays their message is nothing more than an infomercial for their cause.
Sports Commentator Frank DeFord gives the best example of why objectivity in journalism is a very bad thing. When Candidate A says that the world is flat, the only thing the Objective Journalist can do is give Candidate B’s statement that the world is round. The audience has no way to tell which Candidate is telling the truth.
Imagine a Football coach lying about their achievements and not being challenged by the interviewer. It does not happen, but in politics our journalists must remain neutral while politicians lie, lest they be accused of bias. A more responsible ethic for the journalist is to provide context, serving the needs of their audience in presenting the truth.
Go Eclectic
Thank Computer Science for the Internet. We are no longer restricted to any one news source. We can pick and choose our coverage from a variety of sources, culling the best ideas out of them for a mosaic of perspectives on the world.
This approach to news isn’t for everybody. I understand that most people are far too fragile cognitively to engage a news source that may report facts in conflict with their worldview. But I do urge this approach for everyone. Consider occasionally venturing out of the ideological shelters provided by Fox News and the Washington Post an exercise in challenging your cognitive schema.
Here are some news sources and my take on them:
CNN: The endless stream of data CNN provides 24 hours a day is the result of thousands of reporters and 40 bureaus world-wide. Having to cram such a deluge of information into 30-minute segments means the news is summarized, never getting past the first paragraph of the story. Thus the title “Headline News.”
FOX News: Lacking CNN’s army of reporters and bureaus, Fox has managed to earn its market share with in-depth analysis of events from a right-leaning perspective. Personality-based commentaries are the focus, drawing hypotheses out of the headlines.
These two approaches to reporting have resulted in very different, but equal market shares of viewer ship. CNN’s flat data-stream has resulted in a larger cumulative viewer ship than Fox (more individuals watching for shorter time spans), while Fox’s in-depth commentary approach has a larger average viewer ship (less individuals watching for longer time spans). (source)
The Washington Post: The left-leaning coverage provided by the Washington Post serves as a counter-balance to Fox New’s right-leaning coverage. Where Fox provides important skeptical inquiry into the Democrat’s agendas, the WP provides important critical coverage of the Republican’s. Like the Arab versus American medias, the truth is found by combining Fox and the WP–neither source is as unfairly biased as their detractors would have you believe.
The Wall Street Journal: The right-leaning WSJ has successfully diversified its reporting out of strictly financial coverage into political commentaries, lifestyles, and current events.
The New York Times: The left-leaning “Paper of Record” earned its title originally by passing up many big-headlines to wait until all the facts were solidified. A recent, in-depth and self-critical analysis of their mistakes in reporting leading up the the Iraq war may signal a return to this standard.
National Public Radio: Listener-supported NPR is one of the few networks that can deflect any accusations of bias due to Corporate ownership. The corporations and organizations that do donate to NPR come from across the moderate political spectrum, including the PEW Research Center and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.
The London Times: It’s wonderful to step outside of the American perspective and see what the rest of the world’s perspective is on current events.
Al Jazeera: This news network’s journalists were among the few to forgo “embedding” with American forces, and their unique perspective between the combating forces earned it a reputation on both sides as a propaganda factory for both America and Iraq. The network’s highly pro-Democracy stance has prompted many Middle Eastern countries to ban it. Monitoring this news source, the most popular source in the Middle East, is crucial to understanding the public opinion in the Arab world. (Note: The web address for the Al Jazeera News Network is http://english.aljazeera.net/ NOT www.aljazeera.com/, which is NOT associated with the Qatari based Satellite Channel.)
Like I said, this is just a small smattering of what’s out there. Going eclectic means going beyond these examples. Enjoy the adventure!