Types of Media Bias

Word Choice Bias

One journalist’s “terrorist” is another journalist’s “freedom fighter.”

How a journalist or reporter chooses to describe their subject can often betray their bias. In some cases, such as the “terrorist” versus “freedom fighter” example, the bias can prove obvious. More often than not, however, biased word choice can be subtle and seemingly innocuous, yet crucial in defining the issue being reported. A “pro-abortion” rally may be perceived differently than a “pro-choice” rally, though they may indeed describe the same event. “Racial quotas” and “affirmative action” might refer to the same program, but they elicit differing reactions in a reader. Likewise, an economy which grew by 1% could be characterized as “expanding” or “anemic.” Merely changing one word can alter the public’s opinion of an issue without changing the facts at hand.


Source Bias

“Observers say that most people believe expert sources are correct.”

Journalists can’t be everywhere at once. Most articles rely on testimony from expert or first-hand sources. This opens up the possibility of introducing the source’s bias. If, for example, an article cites a source stating that the government’s response to a disaster was prompt and efficient, its veracity could be in doubt if that source is a government official. In other words, if the source has a stake in the event being reported, he or she might be more inclined to slant the facts in their favor. All sources should be clearly identified in order to allow the audience to judge for themselves whether the testimony provided is skewed by a conflict of interest. Reporters who merely preface statements with ambiguous references to “experts” are, at best, omitting important information from their story. At worst, statements such as “most people believe” or “sources say” give readers a false sense of consensus. Fully revealing sources is one of the most important ways of combating bias.

Sources can enlighten the reader to inside information, or merely serve as propaganda bolstering one side of an issue. Journalists must be wary of presenting sources from only one side of a debate, or risk introducing bias into their story.


Photo Bias

Pictures don’t lie?

Photographers take hundreds of pictures of every event the cover. Yet only one makes it to the newspaper. Therein lays the rub.

The newspaper’s choice of which photo to run is comparable to a journalist’s choice of words and descriptions. Different angles, lighting, exposures, timing, and backdrops can dramatically alter viewer’s perception. The same subject can be made to look enthusiastic or tired, resolute or defeated, charismatic or unattractive. Thus the photograph that you see in your morning newspaper was specifically chosen by newspaper staffers to convey a tone, and, in many cases, a bias.

Even more insidious is the use of modern image editing tools to alter a photograph after it has been taken. Recent controversies surrounding image alteration include the intentional manipulation of an image showing the aftermath of an Israeli air strike in Lebanon. Smoke was added using a Photoshop-type software tool, possibly in an effort by Reuters to overstate the resulting destruction in Lebanese neighborhoods.

Time magazine was also caught doctoring a mug shot photograph of O.J. Simpson on its cover. The picture was darkened, resulting in tone that was perhaps more menacing. Regardless of intention, the result of image manipulation is an artificial reaction among viewers; a reaction which might not have taken place had the picture been unaltered.


Omission Bias

If a tree falls in the forest and nobody is around to hear it, does it make a sound?

News which is not reported might as well never have happened. Most people do not witness an event first hand, and are therefore at the mercy of the media to provide the news of the day. By choosing not to exercise their duty to the public, either by purposeful omission or by insufficient allocation of news-gathering resources, the media can bias public perception of an issue’s importance.

There are several levels of omission bias, ranging from disregarding a relevant fact to ignoring of an entire story. In either case, consumers can only recognize omission bias by reviewing stories from multiple media outlets and comparing the facts being presented.


One-sided Debate

Because experts can’t disagree with themselves.

Similar to omission bias, a story may be biased if it presents only one side of a debate. By omitting potentially conflicting opinions, the journalist is limiting his audience’s understanding of the issues. An article on a labor dispute, for example, which only cites the striking workers, completely omits the management’s perspective. Exceptions may exist when one side of a debate refuses comment. But an unbiased journalist should still make every effort to find opposing (or supporting) viewpoints from all sides of the issue, and to clearly state which sources refused comment.

Some reporters disguise their report’s one-sided nature by merely assuming what the other side might say. This is one of the most common types of bias. A statement such as “Democrats would say that this bill does not adequately fund education” is, at best, lazy journalism. The reporter is inserting his or her own judgment for one side of the debate. An unbiased reporter would instead, in this example, seek out the Democrats’ viewpoint and let a party representative speak for themselves.


Theme Bias

It was the best of times, it was the worst of times…

Every novel or movie has a theme. Be it the theme of personal sacrifices necessary to wage war, as in Saving Private Ryan, or the theme of epic logistics and manpower necessary to wage war, as in The Longest Day. Both movies view the same subject (the D-Day invasion of World War II), but each frames the story differently.

Journalism is no different. Each article has a central theme. A story about a battle in Iraq could be framed from the point of view of the participants in the battle, soldiers who are fighting and dieing in a hard-fought engagement, or it could be framed in the context of a strategic event aimed at eliminating threats to the Iraqi government. And while both articles cover the same facts, the angle used to convey these facts is different, and leads to a different emotional response in the reader. In some cases, the choice of theme reveals a biased intent by the author to elicit a specific response from the reader.


Placement Bias

OBAMA TALKS THE ISSUES…. Pg. 1
Clinton discusses platform… Pg. 637

Placement can refer to the location of an article in a newspaper, the time when a report runs relative to the beginning or end of a newscast, or the position in an article in which facts are presented. Placement has a significant effect on reader perceptions. The first article on a newspaper’s front page or the lead story on a nightly news show is usually the most viewed feature, and tends to be perceived as the most important story of the day. The decision of where to place a story, therefore, can reflect the media’s bias. If stories about one political side are consistently featured first or prominently displayed, the public perception is influenced accordingly. Conversely, if an article is buried in the back pages, its importance is downplayed.


Headline Bias

GLOBAL WARMING CONTINUES UNCHECKED WHILE MCCAIN VACATIONS IN TROPICS

Many readers only have time to scan the headlines, and the editors know this. As such, a newspaper staff must attempt to summarize each story in a short headline. But while the article body affords its writer ample room to covertly include his or her bias, headline writers have no such luxury. If they want to elicit a specific reaction from the reader, they have just a few inches and a couple of words to do it. Headlines, therefore, are a difficult place to hide bias, and, consequently, an easy place to spot bias.

The headline sets the tone for the article to come. In some cases, the tone a headline sets may contradict the tone found in the article. A headline can also emphasize points that are, in fact, barely mentioned in the main body. When one considers that many newspaper readers only scan the headlines and never actually read the article, headline bias is a very powerful form of bias indeed.


Labeling Bias

“My guests tonight are Pat Buchanan and radical left wing progressive liberal Senator Chuck Schumer...”

Journalists and reporters often use ‘expert’ sources to add third-party information and commentary to their features. As discussed above, sources oftentimes have their own personal biases. It is important, therefore, for the journalist to disclose the ideological slant of these ‘experts’ so that the reader can judge for themselves the impartiality of the information presented. This can be achieved by appropriately labeling each expert during their introduction. For example, an analyst from the Republican National Committee should be introduced as a “conservative expert.”

Bias occurs when the journalist fails to identify the political persuasion of any experts cited. The reader may thus be given the false impression that the source is neutral and unbiased.

Conversely, a reporter may overstate a source’s political affiliation. “Ultra-conservative” or “far left” labels can discredit sources in the mind of the reader. This is especially affecting when experts from an opposite political perspective are referenced with milder labels. Readers, when thus presented with two opposing expert opinions, may judge more credible the expert who was introduced with milder, nonspecific, or centrist labels.


Spin

My facts are better than your facts.

Analysis of the news is more prone to bias than simple presentation of the news, especially when the story in question can be interpreted in more than one way. If the journalist favors one side of the story over another, he or she is injecting their own personal beliefs into the debate. This is known as spinning a story.

By utilizing the various types of bias discussed above, a reporter can nudge the reader into favoring one particular interpretation of events. By omitting alternative explanations, for example, a reporter can spin the facts to produce a biased angle of perception.

While common, accepted, and sometimes even necessary in op-ed pieces, journalistic spin is not ethical in straight news reporting. Disguising opinion as news is misleading to those expecting an impartial accounting of issues and events. Instead, readers should be presented with the facts allowed to draw their own conclusions.


Conflicts of Interest

Tonight on Fox News, we’ll discuss the incredible Fox fall lineup of hilarious sitcoms…

The media is like any other business; it doesn’t survive without money. And where the money comes from can lead to a conflict of interest. Sponsors, affiliates, corporate partners, etc. are oftentimes directly responsible for funding the journalists covering issues related to them. This relationship may place pressure on the journalist to tone down any criticism of those interests, or to forego criticism altogether.

One example illustrating the appearance of conflicting interests took place on June 10th of 2008. A Fox news piece on Your World with Neil Cavuto calling for more drilling of domestic energy resources was immediately followed by a commercial from an American energy concern calling for legislation to allow more domestic drilling. Be it coincidence, targeted marketing by the energy concern, or kowtowing by Fox, the incident raises questions over the journalistic integrity of the Cavuto segment.

Journalists should always disclose any potential conflicts which may impact their reporting. For example, NBC News should (and usually does) conclude any report mentioning General Electric with a disclosure stating that “G.E. is the parent company of this network.”

But the most direct conflict of interest comes when the media itself is the story. Issues such as plagiarism, unreliable sources, and yes, media bias are usually swept under the rug by a news industry unwilling to subject itself to the same critical analysis it affords all other industries.

That’s where we come in. Media watchdogs such as Unbiased America perform the critical task of news industry oversight. In doing so, the issue of bias in the media can hopefully be explored more thoroughly without the pressure of conflicts of interest.