Claims of media bias have been lobbed from news network to news network. It's a bit like Groundhog Day.
To make sense of all of this, it is critical to pin point what is meant by "the media." Second, but equally as critical, we must zero in on what we mean by bias.
In this case, we are talking about the news media as "the media:" network news, newspapers, cable news networks, and online news sources.
Bias is trickier: most claim some overriding ideological bias in news that favors liberalism over conservatism. But this is not as straight forward as many would like it to be. For example, the news media goes to great lengths to maintain confidence in the American political institutions, a indication of conservatism, to be sure. Media criticism tends to focus on the individuals, those representatives within government. The bias that is most evident in the news media is, ironically perhaps, the elite bias. This bias favors the voices of the powerful: Republicans and Democrats, business leaders, labor leaders, etc. There is a bias for the sensational: man bites dog rather than dog bites man. And, the news media has a short attention span: squirrel!
The effect on the public conscious of a short attention span and a tendency towards the sensational is notable: how is life in New Orleans since Katrina or the rebuilding efforts in Haiti? Squirrel!
But back to the question of bias. In an extensive study from May 29, 2012 to August 5, 2012, the Project for Excellence in Journalism tracked how media covered Governor Romney and President Obama. What they found illustrates the complex nature of media bias, and underscores that talking about "the media" as one giant Leviathan is misguided to say the least.
Here's some data:
From the first piece of data we see that the coverage this year is more like 2004 than 2008 or 2000. But more importantly this reveals what the next two charts underline: the news media is critical of presidents and those who want to be president.
For those who claim that "the media" is in the tank for Obama, these data do not support such claims. What to watch for is the old adage: good news begets good news. Since the Democratic National Convention the Obama campaign has been riding high. But good news for Obama means bad news for Romney.
"Poor" Romney, he can't catch a break. He too has seen consistently negative coverage. Couple this with the recent campaign missteps, and his campaign narrative will continue to take a beating. Bad news begets bad news. From these data, "the media" does not seem to be biased towards either candidate.
However, when we take a look within "the news media" to the fragmented segments, especially within the cable news universe, we see what can be considered bias.
The FOX News cable network has been "fair and balanced" in its coverage of Mitt Romney, but certainly not balanced in its coverage of President Obama.
MSNBC shows its bias. It is the mirror image of FOX or FOX is the mirror image of MSNBC (it doesn't really matter). Their coverage of Mitt Romney is as negative as FOX's coverage of Obama.
Thus, it is easy to see why many Liberals and Democrats view FOX as the media wing of the Republican Party and Conservatives and Republicans see MSNBC as the media arm of the Democratic Party.
What is important to note from these data, and something that should be discussed in diverse groups of people, is whether this new version of the partisan press is bad for democracy. Academics write about this and spend time thinking about this stuff, but the public is not engaged in this question. The partisan press is almost as old as our republic, but what is different now compared to then is that public is less likely to have face-to-face discussions today. TV and the Internet have made leisure time increasingly private. We may be less aware of what others think.
Cable news and the Internet has democratized our news media choices but at a cost to public dialogue. From looking at cable news viewing habits, Republicans pick multiple shows from the FOX News channel, while Democrats pick shows from MSNBC. We run the risk of creating a bubble; a bubble, yes a bubble. In the process, narrowing our view of the world. In an increasingly global world, this is bad.
Many people self-select news media that confirms rather than challenges what they believe. Compounding this behavior is the "Hostile Media Phenomenon:" people with highly committed points of view, such as strong Democrats and strong Republicans, perceive impartial news stories to be biased in favor of their opponents. We have a role in the mess within the news media.
To paraphrase Pogo: "We have met news media bias, and it is us."
No comments:
Post a Comment