Fwd: How do you tell when the news is biased? It depends on how you see yourself

39 views
Skip to first unread message

Peggy Holman

unread,
Jul 1, 2012, 11:34:09 AM7/1/12
to JTMlist
A fascinating read on bias.  I wonder if anyone has insight into how best to deal with it?

Peggy




Begin forwarded message:

From: Bill Densmore <wpden...@gmail.com>
Subject: How do you tell when the news is biased? It depends on how you see yourself
Date: June 28, 2012 11:46:07 AM PDT
To: Peggy Holman <pe...@opencirclecompany.com>

http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/NiemanJournalismLab/~3/z3RERjVWUV0/

How do you tell when the news is biased? It depends on how you see yourself

June 27, 2012 10:30:22 AM

Jonathan Stray

Take a moment with the headlines from this screenshot of The New York Times homepage from January. Really — it’s a little experiment. Click the image above for a larger view if you need to.

Ready?

How did you feel about these headlines? Does it matter to you to learn that they actually came from Fox News on the same day? (Screenshot for proof.) This faux home page was created by Dan Schultz, the MIT grad student also responsible for Truth Goggles, using his NewsJack point-and-click “remixer.”

Knowing what you know now, do these headlines seem different to you? If so, you’ve just proved that we detect and judge bias based on things other than what journalists actually write.

This effect has been noticed before. At the University of Michigan, William Youmans and Katie Brown showed the same Al Jazeera English news clip to American audiences, but with a catch: Half saw the news with its original Al Jazeera logo intact, and half saw the same video with a CNN logo instead. Viewers who saw the story with the original Al Jazeera logo rated Al Jazeera as more biased than before they had seen the clip. But people who watched the same footage with the fake CNN logo on it rated CNN as less biased than before!

Does this mean that we judge “bias” by brand, not content? Many people have tried to define what media bias is, and attempted to measure it, but I want to try to answer a different question here: not how we can decide if the news is biased, but how each of us actually does decide — and what it means for journalists.

The hostile media effect

During the Lebanese civil war in 1982, Christian militias in Beirut massacred thousands of Palestinian refugees while Israeli solders stood by. In 1985, researchers showed television news coverage of the event to pro-Israeli and pro-Arab viewers. Both sides thought the coverage was biased against them.

This effect — where both sides feel that a neutral story is biased against them — has been replicated so many times, in so many different cultural settings, with so many types of media and stories, that it has its own name: hostile media effect. The same story can make everyone on all sides think the media is attacking them.

Like a lot of experimental psychological research, the hostile media effect suggests we’re not as smart as we think we are. We might like to think of ourselves as impartial judges of credibility and fairness, but the evidence says otherwise. Liberals and conservatives can (and often do) believe the same news report is biased against both their views; they aren’t both right.

But why does this happen? Specifically, why does it happen for some stories and topics and not others? Discussion of climate change often provokes charges of bias, but discussion of other hugely significant science stories, such as the claimed link between vaccination and autism, usually produces a much smaller outcry.

You see bias when you see yourself as part of a group

Communications researcher Scott Reid has proposed that we can explain the hostile media effect through the psychological theory of self-categorization. This is a theory about personal identity and group identity, and it says that we “self-stereotype,” placing conceptual labels on ourselves just as we might make assumptions about other people. We all have multiple identities of this kind: gender, age, political preferences, race, nationality, subculture, and so on.

To test this, he performed a series of recently published experiments with American students. In the first, he used a survey to ask people whether they thought the media was biased, as well as their personal political orientations, both on a numerical scale from liberal to conservative. The catch was different groups got different cover pages with different sets of instructions. The first set of instructions was neutral:

The purpose of this questionnaire is to get your views of the news media in general.

The second set of instructions was designed to play up feelings of partisanship:

In recent times the differences between Republicans and Democrats have become highly polarized. Many of the issues discussed in the media are seen very differently by Republicans and Democrats. In this context, it is important to gauge people’s views of the media.

The third set of instructions was also designed to reinforce an identity, but in this case an identity that might be common to both liberals and conservatives — that of being an “American” versus the rest of the world.

With increasing globalization, it has become apparent that the media differs across countries and cultures. Al Jazeera has become the voice for much of the Arab world, both within the United States and in the Middle East. Given these changes, it is important to gauge people’s views of the news media in the United States.

And, oddly enough, the same survey gave different results, depending on the instructions:

Each of the lines on this graph shows how people’s perception of bias varied with their political orientation. The downward slope means that the more conservative someone was — the farther to the right on the “political position” scale — the more they perceived the media as hostile to Republicans, just as expected.

The surprising thing is that the strength of this perception depended on the framing each group had been given. When people were prompted to think about Republicans and Democrats, they perceived more media bias against their views, as indicated by the steep dashed line. When they were instructed to think about America vs. the world, they perceived slightly less bias then the neutral condition, as indicated by the shallow dotted line. Our perception of bias changes depending on the self-identity we currently have in mind.

This self-categorization explanation also predicts that people who are more partisan perceive greater bias, even when the news is in their favor. In Reid’s second experiment, people read an article about polling numbers for the 2008 presidential primaries, containing language like “among Republicans, former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani maintained a 14-point lead over Arizona Sen. John McCain for the Republican presidential nomination,” and similar statements about the Democratic candidates. This time, the source of the information was manipulated: One group saw the poll attributed to the “Economic Policy Institute, a Democrat think tank and polling agency,” while the other was told it came from the “American Enterprise Institute, a Republican think tank and polling agency.”

In this purely factual scenario — dry-as-toast poll numbers, no opinions, no editorializing — respondents still had completely different reactions depending on the source. As you might expect, people who believed that the poll numbers came from the American Enterprise Institute thought that the story was biased towards Giuliani (and vice versa), confirming the hostile media effect. But the perception of favoritism increased not according to whether the reader personally identified as Republican or Democratic, but on how strong this identification was. The implication is that if you feel strongly about your group, you’re likely to see all news as more biased — even when the bias favors you.

Reid’s final experiment tested perceptions of overt attacks. He used a scathing review of Michael Moore’s Fahrenheit 911, originally published on Slate, which begins:

One of the many problems with the American left, and indeed of the American left, has been its image and self-image as something rather too solemn, mirthless, herbivorous, dull, monochrome, righteous, and boring.

The copy given to subjects (falsely) claimed the author was a member of either a Democrat or a Republican think tank. (In reality, the author was the late Christopher Hitchens.) As you might expect, people who identified as Republicans saw the review as more neutral, regardless of who they thought wrote it. The strange thing is that strong Democrats actually saw the review as slightly in favor of Democrats when they believed it was written by a Democrat! We interpret criticism completely differently depending on how we see the relationship between ourselves and the author.

What’s a journalist to do?

The first defense against accusations of bias is to report fairly. But the hostile media effect pretty much guarantees that some stories are going to be hated by just about everyone, no matter how they’re written. I suppose this is no surprise for any journalist who reads the comments section, but it has implications for how news organizations might respond to such accusations.

This research also suggests that the longstanding practice of journalists hiding their personal affiliations might actually be effective at reducing perceived bias. But only up to a point: To avoid charges of bias, the audience needs to be able to see the journalist as fundamentally one of them. This might require getting closer to the audience, not hiding from them. If we each live inside of many identities, then there are many possible ways to connect; conversely, it would be helpful to know, empirically, under what conditions a journalist’s politics are actually going to be a problem for readers, and for which readers.

We might also want to consider our framing more carefully. Because perceptions of bias depend on how we are thinking about our identity in that moment, if we can find a way to tell our stories outside of partisan frames, we might also reduce feelings of unfairness. The trick would be to shy away from invoking divisive identities, preferring frames that allow members of a polarized audience to see themselves as part of the same group. (In this regard, the classic “balanced” article that quotes starkly opposing sides might be a particularly bad choice.)

Encouraging the audience to perceive itself as unified — this seems simplistic, or naïve. But the consideration of identity is foundational to fields like mediation and conflict resolution. Experimental evidence suggests that it might be important in journalism too.




Sent from my iPhone

Robin Miller

unread,
Jul 1, 2012, 3:43:18 PM7/1/12
to JTMlist

I've been at this journalism thing so long that I'm now technically retired, although some of my old employers and freelance clients still want me to write and make videos for them. That's right: I'm an old man with a white beard. So I Know Things. And one of the things I know about is bias in journalism, because I've been accused of bias by groups ranging from the NRA to Communist Party.

Here's the definitive word:

"A biased journalist is one who does not agree with me on every single issue."

That's it. If you agree with me, you are not biased. If you don't agree with me, you are biased.

I need more coffee. 

--
Robin 'Roblimo' Miller
Bradenton, Florida, USA

Peggy Holman

unread,
Jul 1, 2012, 5:59:26 PM7/1/12
to JTMlist
So we know that audience is biased and journalists are biased.  It's all part of the territory.  It makes me wonder, what, if any, responsibility do journalists have to work with these given conditions?  As professionals with a responsibility to inform, how can journalists work with their own and their constituency's biases?

Peggy


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Journalism That Matters" group.
To post to this group, send email to jtm...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
jtmlist+u...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/jtmlist?hl=en
WEBSITE: http://www.journalismthatmatters.org

Robin Miller

unread,
Jul 1, 2012, 9:02:56 PM7/1/12
to JTMlist
On Sun, Jul 1, 2012 at 5:59 PM, Peggy Holman <pe...@peggyholman.com> wrote:
So we know that audience is biased and journalists are biased.  It's all part of the territory.  It makes me wonder, what, if any, responsibility do journalists have to work with these given conditions?  As professionals with a responsibility to inform, how can journalists work with their own and their constituency's biases?

Admit your biases. And editors, try to even things out over the course of a month instead of trying for fake evenhandedness in every story.

Reader, let's face it: you prefer strong stories, which almost always means stories that contain strong opinions. So enjoy them, and use those online comment boards to state YOUR opinion. Start all communications with, "I am appalled...." because editorial letter-writers have traditionally been appalled. 

"You ignorant slut" and "You ignorant thug" are two other traditional openings. As an American, remember, you have a right to exercise your Freedumb of Speech, as famous Prodigy flamer James Kotyk used to  put it.

Or as the songster wrote:

From the mountains,
To the prairies,
To the milkman,
White with foam...
 

Tracy Record, WSB Editor

unread,
Jul 1, 2012, 10:03:41 PM7/1/12
to JTMlist, Peggy Holman
This may not speak completely to the question, but I have to bring it up, as the accusation of "bias" is such a tired way to shake your finger at someone telling you what you don't want to hear:

As a fervent believer in non-advocacy journalism - in focusing on finding and presenting as much information as possible so that those who choose to consume and consider it can make their own decisions and take their own actions (or not) - and as someone who believes that news organizations have NO business editorializing or advocating - I side closer to "Roblimo." 

Every human being has beliefs, feelings, opinions. Why do people in this business have to have theirs hyper-analyzed - unless that is how we choose to do business with people in ALL fields? Do you need to know that the line cook who prepared your steak is a vegetarian? Does it matter that your doctor personally prefers vitamin supplements to prescription medication? Do you need to know that the exterminator you hire won't even so much as stomp a spider in her/his off-hours? If not, then why do you think it matters if for example a journalist who is covering the Democratic convention happens to vote Republican most of the time? (No, I do not cleave to "journalists shouldn't vote," by the way. That's insane.) It's incumbent upon them to do the best job possible in presenting information. If they don't, they have no business working, and should either be fired, or (if they're independents) ignored.

The real solution is for the people formerly known as the audience to dedicate themselves to being informed. And if they believe a news organization is not providing the straight scoop, do not watch it/listen to it/read it/etc. The great thing about this era is that there are SO many places to get information ... you can often compare ... and decide who is doing the best job of coverage. And that coverage is no longer the only way they get information, anyway. I get schooled by commenters now and then, no matter how thorough I think I've been ... and all I can do is thank them profusely for coming up with the new info-bit that makes the coverage even better, and to consider them collaborators (we call ourselves a "community-collaborative news service"). 

This just is NOT the day any more when there is a media provider sitting high and mighty on the mountaintop declaring "HERE NOW THE NEWS. YE SHALL BELIEVE IT AND CLEAVE TO IT." We flatter ourselves if we really think we are the influencers we once allegedly were, back when people did NOT live on the shores of a rich, fast-running river of information . I'm NOT saying our work doesn't matter. I'm saying we need to recognize that our role has changed - and I know many who refuse to recognize that, unfortunately.

TR



--- On Sun, 7/1/12, Peggy Holman <pe...@peggyholman.com> wrote:

Mike Green

unread,
Jul 2, 2012, 5:12:48 AM7/2/12
to jtm...@googlegroups.com, Peggy Holman
I think you have hit the nail on the head.

The public has already taken your advice. They have decided for themselves who is or is not to be trusted based upon their perceived bias and very real indicators of sloppy journalism and actual bias prominently on display. New technology has empowered the audience, which heretofore yelled at the radio and TV, and shredded newspapers (um, how did we get the moniker "fishwrap" and "lining for the bird cage"). The audience has long been fed up with being spoonfed cornball stuff (why do I know which box office movies made the most money and why don't I know that out of 1.9 million Black-owned businesses, 1.8 million are sole proprietors with no employees?).

Although Americans say repeatedly in polls every election cycle that the economy is their top concern, the overwhelming majority of America, including journalists (yes, business journalists too) know so little about how the job growth and wealth creation processes work in America that media is little more than an entertainment platform that provides reports on interesting, but less impactful, stuff going on around us.

When media cover international relations, do they seek to inform the public or merely boast about filing a 2-minute report on the latest occurrence in some faraway place without context, history or accuracy? For example, when media speak of Iran and the saber-rattling that continues between the U.S. and Iran, does the audience know the U.S. overthrew a democratically elected Iranian government in 1953 and installed our own puppet government for 26 years? Does the audience know that Iran's nuclear power program was initially built by the United States? Of course we don't know these contextual pieces of information.

When we hear reports of civil strife in Syria, are we aware that part of Syria, Turkey, Iraq and Iran was once a country called Kurdistan? Are we informed of the fact that the Kurds, who still occupy the same geographic region have resisted assimilation into all four countries and that all plays a part in the problems occurring in each country? Are we informed of the religious diversity mandated in the establishment of the Syrian government? No. As far as American media and American audiences are concerned, all foreign countries are monolithic entities to be categorized swiftly into mental boxes labeled either "chaotic" or "stable."

The bias perceived by American audiences in media may very well have a lot to do with how they see themselves. But that doesn't preclude the fact that American journalism has contributed significantly to the legitimacy of the perception.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Journalism That Matters" group.
To post to this group, send email to jtm...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to

Sue Ellen Isacksen

unread,
Jul 2, 2012, 9:03:09 AM7/2/12
to Peggy Holman, JTMlist

Thanks to all for this interesting thread. My thoughts:


Applying cognitive research to news audiences and journalists often yields interesting results. Thinking about how we as journalists think, and about how our audiences think, can bring some clarity to habits such as confirmation bias or catch more nuanced forms of stereotyping. It also can drive one to distraction, as ultimately, one never knows what is in the mind of the audience and, as the Harvard-based Project Implicit shows, journalists might not be full conscious about what is happening in their own minds when reporting and writing.


Concerning the last graf of the Nieman article: The author is advocating a common ingroup identity model. I call it "big umbrella journalism"; trying to report so that as many different perspectives that are fact-based and relevant are included in coverage. This is different from "getting both sides" coverage, as it seeks to put on equal footing only the perspectives that are evidence-based and observation-based, not advocacy-based. (Given that definition, Obama's birth origins don't get included, for example.)  I believe when journalists work from this orientation, they are more aware of their own cognitive biases and frames.


Will this operating model for news work change the hostile media effect? Journalists can only control themselves and what's in their own heads and hearts and how that translates into their work. They can't control the audience's reactions. Teaching media literacy (sourcing of news stories, validation of information, evaluation of information, etc.) in schools and universities is all the more important given all the outlets for all the varying levels of quality when it comes to information.





--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Journalism That Matters" group.
To post to this group, send email to jtm...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to



--

Assoc. Prof. of Journalism
Western Michigan University
269-387-3145
Twitter: @sechristian1
http://www.hhpcommunities.com/overcomingbias/

Melissa Scott

unread,
Jul 3, 2012, 5:20:52 PM7/3/12
to Robin Miller, JTMlist
To Robin, my journalist friend with the beard: I trust you. 

I trust you to know when you've discovered your personal biases and wrestle with them so that they don't enter into your professional journalism.  If they do, I trust that you will happily pursue and correct any mistakes. Eagerly show them to the world as we continue to perfect this experiment called democracy. The experiment is the master, not us. Let's keep going. The attached photo is for you.

Best and Happy 4th,

Melissa

From: Robin Miller <ro...@roblimo.com>
To:
Cc: JTMlist <jtm...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, July 1, 2012 3:43 PM
Subject: Re: {JTM} Fwd: How do you tell when the news is biased? It depends on how you see yourself

Screen shot 2012-07-03 at 5.05.39 PM.png
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages