Media Bias
I‘ve never been someone that had a real sympathy with theories of media bias. I thought that they sort of ripped apart whomever. Two recent experiences have changed my mind.
The first was the Foley scandal. I don’t really have any problem with lambasting Foley. He was certainly worth ruining politically. I did, however, have a problem with the way it became the Hastert scandal, and the media played a big part in the way Hastert became a target. When Democrats began calling for Hastart’s head, the articles had headlines like “HASTERT COVERS UP FOR FOLEY, says aide.” They didn’t really say Hastart was guilty, but they made it hard to miss the implications. Every time a democrat called for “accountability,” it was taken as a given that Hastert should have done something. At worst, Hastert knew Foley had done some dumb things–he didn’t know about the text messages which were pretty vile–no one says he did. He may have known that he asked a page for a photo, and when asked he gave a plausible explanation that fit the facts. When republicans indicated that if democrats knew about this and were saving it for political advantage and should thus be included in investigations, it was reported as political opportunism, and the views to that effect were always given straight from the mouths of democratic leadership. I was a registered democrat until I moved to Hawaii (where you don’t have to register for a party), but that doesn’t mean I agree with such blatant abuse of the media’s power.
But that’s just partisan politics as usual, though I was finally convinced that the media, most of it, is firmly on one side of the political fence. The other day I had a more disturbing experience. There was a news story about how people don’t tend to vote based on what they know of people’s personal lives. It could have been an interesting piece on trends in public opinion, but it wasn’t. It had lots of triumphal speeches by Bill Clinton excerpted in it, etc, so that the bias was clear, we no longer get caught up in the distraction of personal character. What was worse, however, was that the piece (on the internet, CNN, though the title of the video keeps changing) was preceded by an ad from a political activist group about how we should vote the issues and not get involved in what sort of person the candidate might be. (I haven’t gotten this ad again, though I’m not sure if that’s because they aren’t always showing it or they place a cookie so that I get different ads. I can’t believe it was coincidence the first time.)
The message was clear. It was my civic duty to vote for anyone that might be presented, regardless of their character, whom a party might get to say the right things. It makes politics easy. No need at all to think about finding a candidate with character. Just make them run the list of party talking points. It wasn’t so partisan, perhaps, but it did show me that the most of the big media is on the side of government without values, a sort of amoral demagoguery that runs on opinion polls. First they argued for religion that doesn’t affect our lives (If it does, it violates separation of church and state). Now they argue for lives that don’t affect politics. In the end, religion does affect our lives, and lives are political, and politics is real and affects people’s lives. I hope with the elections coming, we will go to the polls precisely to choose candidates that have character. Certainly, what they feel to be right is important, but more important is that they have the moral conviction to do what they feel to be right. If we vote for someone who feels differently than we do on some issues and is committed to their views, we know that they we get some certain percentage of the government we want. If we vote for someone without character, but who tells us what we want to hear, we get randomness and corruption.
I share some of your concerns about media bias. Having been a journalist on and off in recent years, I think one factor that cannot be underestimated is the fragmentation of media and the economic struggles (especially print media outlets), and how poorly journalists are paid and how overworked they are. This makes the average journalist much more susceptible to “spin,” which I think was the problem in the Foley scandal.
Only a very few elite journalists have the time to really focus on a story and invest the time to make their own conclusions.
It also means that rank-and-file journalists often don’t have time to get the story RIGHT. It isn’t intentional by any means, but they just grab what they can and run with it. Both my husband and I can tell horror stories about how our work was misrepresented by journalists.
I don’t think this phenomenon has a particular party or philosophy to it, though. In my state, the Republican candidate for governor, who is polling ahead, is a divorced man with no children. I have SERIOUS doubts about his ability to look out for the interests of families and children of our state.
Comment by Naismith — 10/29/2006 @ 7:53 pm
What is equally infuriating is the fact that the media has moved from reporting the news to entertaining with the news. A recent study cited here http://newsinfo.iu.edu/news/page/normal/4159.html explains that content in the main news programs are rivaled by that in the Daily Show with John Stewart.
Beyond that, is the fact that news has become a competitive phenomenon. This helps to explain the recent trend in news toward “investigative” journalism which degrades and panders to the lowest common denominator.
Finally, if there is little that is newsworthy, there seems to be an inclination toward manufacturing new when there is a “slow news day”.
An expample is the summer of the shark a couple of years back. The fact is that there were actually fewer shark attacks that year.
All in all a deeply disturbing representation of the media.
Comment by Craig S. — 10/29/2006 @ 8:18 pm
Well, the Foley scandal was even called out by Paglia in Salon.com.
I have to admit that I just can’t stomach tv news. The local news is always tabloid sensationalism and the national is just tripe. We don’t have expanded cable, so I don’t really know what it is like, except to say that I hear foxnews as the target of great ire. I don’t know how biased it is or not, but many people loath it.
I like NPR and a sampling from most major Newspapers online.
Comment by J. Stapley — 10/29/2006 @ 8:56 pm
I tend to agree with you about Hastert, but I’m not sure.
I think the argument is that there were lots of rumours and reports and he really should have investigated. Once the media got wind of the story, they were able to find the incriminating material very quickly. I’m not sure if this is a good argument, but I can’t dismiss it as quickly as you do.
Also, how can you tell which candidates have “character?”
Comment by ed johnson — 10/29/2006 @ 9:10 pm
Ironically, the LDS Church encourages its members to get out and vote based on the good character and moral values of those vying for office, regardless of party affiliation. Thus the media message (as you have described it) is 180 degrees out of sync with the guidance the Church is giving to its members.
Comment by Dave — 10/30/2006 @ 8:21 am
I’ve been watching the differences in the way the Deseret News and the SLC Tribune covers the same stories. They’re both biased. I’m coming to the conclusion that we have to make up our own minds. What a concept, huh?
Comment by annegb — 10/30/2006 @ 10:29 am
Of course the blasting of Hastert was opportunistic.
I think media insiders are simply bitter that the scandals that really should have discredited the Republican party in the eyes of Americans, were simply met with slack-jawed indifference. People were apparently too dumb to realize there was a problem.
But bring up sex, and suddenly everyone gives a care. So full speed ahead!
The folks at NPR are probably consoling themselves by saying “well, at least Americans are finally running these bozos out of town… even if it is for the wrong reasons…”
I’ll admit I have a hard time finding any sympathy for Hastert and the GOP right now. I’ve been listening to the news for the past month with what might be fairly described as “scarcely concealed malicious glee.”
Comment by Seth R. — 10/30/2006 @ 11:00 am
The following is an interesting paper done at UCLA creating a scale by which media outlets could be compared and assigned a number describing the extent of their bias in reporting the news. Figure 2 is most fascinating as it compares the media scores to those of prominent politicians.
There is no question that bias exists. It is the plague of the medical research community and has been the undoing of many a good researcher caught up in its wily ways. The world of academia goes to great lengths to root it out, yet it can still taint even the best journals. I suppose that if it can sneak past intellectually honest peer review, the modern media outlets (the village idiots of information processing) are not only susceptible, but are fertile fields for its growth and dissemination. I confess that I know very little about how CBS news checks its facts or decides what to report and when to report it, but if you can watch the newscast and honestly say that it is sincere unbiased reporting, you are as dumb as they think you are.
Comment by Chris S. — 10/30/2006 @ 12:46 pm
Arrgh! one of these days I’ll figure the link thing out. Let’s try again:
http://www.polisci.ucla.edu/faculty/groseclose/Media.Bias.8.htm
Comment by Chris S. — 10/30/2006 @ 12:48 pm
Whoa Chris! Nice Cite!
Comment by Craig S. — 10/30/2006 @ 1:14 pm
Naismith,
I also don’t see the latter trend as entirely partisan. I think that the media is both decidedly partisanly democratic and decidedly amoral–that is not to say anti-ethical. The two make for an interesting combination, but both are not the same.
J,
I couldn’t find the Paglia article, but I do appreciate her rigor. She is a committed materialist (not to say that all materialism is bad–more on that later), but at least that commitment keeps her honest. She calls them as she sees them, and sometimes that makes her controversial on both sides of all sorts of lines.
Ed,
My real problem is that what the media claimed about hastert seems really explainable. If we called for the investigation of every congressman that did something odd (liks asking for a picture of a page), we’d have no time for legislation. When you hear something that pushes the line, you make it clear to the person that they are being unprofessional and you make it clear that they’d better not do it again. I think the minority party would love to have an investigation of every little alegation because it tends to shake things up. The problem is that people tend to shrug off such allegations when the politician is a democrat because there is this sense that it shouldn’t matter. Gerry Studds got away with actually having sex with a page. Not only was he not thrown out, he was re-elected, because, hey, it doesn’t matter what his personal life is, right?
Seth,
Even if you thin there are things wrong in the legislature, and there are, this isn’t the way to solve them. I think it’s naive to think that the only people in the legislature with skeletons are republicans.
Cris,
I’m not sure if I trust, entirely the study’s methodology, measuring by how many times different groups are cited, but if it is worth anything, it shows why Fox gets hammered. While it’s OK to be decidedly liberal, it is seen as lacking in integrity in the journalistic world to be decidedly conservative. I actually think that fox is occasionally less biased, even though they are more open, I think, about the bias they have. A lot of these outlets claim to be neutral, and I think it’s damaging because the idea is to convince people that your opinions are nothing but facts, and are undeiable. All news is opinionated, but when we try to disguise opinions as news, its just a bit shady for me.
Comment by Steve H — 10/30/2006 @ 1:35 pm
This is exactly the reason I get all of my news from fark.com 🙂
Comment by Capt. Obsidian — 10/30/2006 @ 2:57 pm
Capt. Obsidian,
Thanks for a new favorite to add to my bookmarks.
Comment by Steve H — 10/30/2006 @ 3:17 pm
Steve,
I agree that the study’s methodology is inherently flawed, but I admire the effort to create an objective way to look at media bias. Most people typically only see bias if it contradicts their own views. Rush cries foul with CNN and Al Frankin cries foul with Fox News.
Comment by Chris S. — 10/30/2006 @ 3:52 pm
My biggest problem with the media of either bias (let’s pick Fox and CNN) is how easily they seem to be spun. Someone high in a party like Melman or Cheney will talk about something, usually using a certain phrase to drive the point home. Within hours it seems like every reporter on the network (Fox for the GOP or CNN for the Dems) will be repeating that phrase word-for-word, I’m guessing without any investigation at all. This is how within 24 hours the White house can go from “Stay the Course” to “We’ve never said Stay the Course” without a reporter on Fox batting an eye.
These networks have gone from reporting the news to repeating the story they have been spoon-fed.
Comment by jjohnsen — 10/30/2006 @ 8:07 pm