If you want to see bias in action on Fox, you have to watch the morning show, “Fox and Friends” where the hosts and guests are free to editorialize at will. Down to calling people’s opinions and assertions “stupid” and “foolish.” I often watch it with a dropped jaw. It’s quite entertaining, but you have to know while you watch it that it’s not a news program, it’s infotainment.
The trouble is when editorializing creeps into shows that aren’t meant to be infotainment. This does happen from time to time – one of the most egregious examples is outlined in Bernard Goldberg’s book Bias when Erik Enkberg blatantly editorialized about candidate Steve Forbes during election 2000 and no one, not the site or line producers, not the editors, not the show packager ever stopped and questioned whether a reporter (not a commentator) should refer to a candidate’s plan as “laughable” – but is usually quite subtle.
One of the sneakiest ways, and one that’s especially important right now (because of the upcoming elections) is the use of unnecessary descriptors, no matter how accurate. Ask yourself this – when was the last time you heard a Democratic presidential candidate other than Dean who was mentioned without it being pointed out that he’s an “underdog” “long shot” or “running in the back of the pack” and ask yourself why you need to know that? Then ask yourself why members of the media might want you to know that and know it quite clearly.
There are all kinds of biases - they aren’t just political on the left/right, statist/libertarian axes. They are racial, social, educational, geographical and personal and they bleed through every time a talking head opens his mouth or a reporter’s fingers touch his keyboard. The trick isn’t just in finding and recognizing it, but in analyzing and cutting through it.
To recognize bias, you must first accept that bias is everywhere, in one way or another. Selectively paying attention to details that reinforce what you want to believe is a very strong human tendency. Look at all the research psychologists have done on “confirmatory bias” within ordinary people for example.
I feel that objectivity in the media is mostly an illusion. Reporters are human beings first and foremost, and it is a very rare reporter who can avoid letting his/her emotions and opinions influence the choice of facts and phrasing that are used in the report.
I dare say that this very thread demonstrates bias in action.
Notice that most of the replies focus on Fox News as an example of bias. This is NOT because Fox News is the ONLY biased news station. Instead, I think it’s because we have a liberal-leaning group here (compared to the American public as a whole), and Fox News’ conservative bias is simply easier for a liberal to DETECT than liberal bias elsewhere is.
It doesn’t set off alarm bells when we hear a reporter echoing our viewpoints, because we all tend to think our personal opinions are THE one true way of looking at things. So, when a liberal sees liberal views expressed in the media, they just see it as “Telling it like it is” and don’t even realize how biased it looks to conservatives (and vice versa, of course).
My advice on learning how to find bias is to get in the habit of trying to guess how a reporter feels about an issue from the words and facts they choose to use. I consider it a sign of good quality journalism when I CAN’T tell how the reporter feels about the topic, and can’t see a clear “good guy” and “bad guy” portrayed in a news article.
Be aware of your own biases and seek out the viewpoints of those who think differently so you can better recognize it when they’re portrayed unfairly…even if you still don’t agree with their viewpoint!
I have had this argument before about conservatives being more simple minded. I don’t think this is true at all. Its the impression that liberals want to throw out there about conservatives, but I don’t think it is true. There is just as many simple minded liberal arguments that I just will never buy as there are conservative ones. This argument irritates me because it implies that if everyone just thought about things long enough, everyone would all at once come around to the “correct” way of liberal thinking.
Bias, more than anything, I think, is in the eye of the beholder. If you don't agree with something, you're likely to think they are "biased" somehow. And maybe that is true, but an astute reader or listen will at least pause to challenge and question their own bias on a topic before coming to a conclusion. I don't think bias in reporting is reallly a problem as long as people recognize it is present. This brings me back to the original point about conservative and liberal bais. I think conservatives are more likely to at least admit the bias in the news coverage they listen to. Most conservatives likely aren't going to deny a bias from Fox News or Rush Limbaugh or others like them. Ask some liberals, though, about possible bias on NPR and they will deny, sometimes angrily, to the bitter end. They will acuse you of being a neo-conservative that just does not understand or recognize good reporting and does not appreciate a well thought out argument. Not being able to recognize the bias of the reporting you here is just as dangerous as ignoring any reporting you don't agree with, in my opinion.
And for the record, before someone asks or brings it up, I listen to NPR on a regular basis and think they do great reporting. I rarely listen to Fox News (or really any other TV News station for that matter).
That’s why it amuses me when NPR’s Morning Edition or All Things Considered jusxtapose letters accusing them of being too right wing and too left wing.
In terms of bias, this article estimates that on a scale from 0 (perfectly right wing) to 100 (perfectly left wing) Fox News (Special Report) scores a 29 or 36, depending on how you’re counting. ABC World News Tonight scores a 53 or 59. Ironically, they use this to conclude that Fox is more balanced, since the U.S. Congress is right-leaning.
I’ve always found NPR is be quite noticably liberal. CNN and MSN.com are usually pretty fair IMHO.
Overall, however, I’ve got to agree with the sentiment that “objective reporting” is an illusion. Reporting seems to be fair and balanced because the reporters have biases that are similar to yours.
BTW: I’m glad that I’m not the only person who is turned off by all the cheerleading in the news. It’s made me question just how free our press is.
So those of us on the right are too stupid / uneducated / unimaginative to consume “real” news, and can only focus our puny attention spans on ten second sound grabs?
Let’s have a look at this (sorry, I can only give Australian examples):
I stuck with the left-leaning Sydney Morning Herald for years, because I preferred its broadsheet format ( I still often read it ), but increasingly I’m reading the tabloid Daily Telegraph, because it’s unpretentious and it’s lifted its game (no page 3 girls, for example) over the last decade. Although the Herald is big enough to give me a hernia carrying it home, if you take away all the BMW and waterfront real estate ads (chardonnay socialism is alive and well, my friends), and throw away the biased political liftouts and reviews of trendy restaurants, the smaller Telegraph has more actual news in it (and it confines its slight right wing bias to its editorial columns - usually).
Radio is the same. In this case the right can’t complain too much because we are, sadly, responsible for those redneck shock jocks. However, the state-run Radio National with its hour-long interviews of Rumanian feminist poets who use the word ‘existentialism’ a lot, and its NPR rebroadcasts may appeal to several folks in this thread, but it usually manages to take only about one or two percent of the listening audience. The other 98% of us sit on our porch with our shotguns.
A small but very annoying example of bias on Fox News is their insistence on using the term “homicide bombers” to describe Middle Eastern suicide bombers. A suicide bomber who successfully kills someone else is, of course, a bomber who has committed a homicide, so the term is technically accurate; however, Timothy McVeigh and Ted Kaczynski were homicide bombers. There are good reasons for distinguishing between people who are willing to kill other people with bombs and who make an attempt at escaping with their own lives, and people who are willing to kill other people with bombs and who make no attempt at getting away with their own lives and in fact plan on dying in the explosion from the very start. (See “The Logic of Suicide Terrorism” by Bruce Hoffman from The Atlantic Monthly to understand why Fox News is full of shit.)
Australian media: Left (ABC): Asylum Seekers Right (Commercial): Illegal Immigrants
Both technically correct. Both emotionally-charged terms. The term “boat people” may not be PC these days, but it’s preferable to either of the above, IMHO.
How can they both be correct? Most other countries make it legal to seek asylum and I assume Australia is no different in which case asylum seekers can’t be illegal immigrants. And if they are illegal immigrants, then they can’t be seeking asylum. Either the Left or the Right are correct and the other is lying or grossly incompetent.
Other countries have laws requiring broadcasters to adhere to strict standards of impartiality. And that includes Fox’s owner who has a station in the UK which presents fair and balanced news (according to the Watch Dog and viewers. I don’t know)
In terms of news, the people get what they want; if you want laws protecting objectivity get the laws passed. Without them, media will be corporate, biased infotainment serving the agenda of the owner(s) all the time i.e. nonsense.
That’s an excellent point. Australian border security laws are currently in a state of flux, and frankly, I don’t think even an expert in the field could answer you one way or the other at the moment. If anything, the Left’s “asylum seekers” is on the money, but even that is unsure. I’m more interested in illustrating the difference in the various media outlets’ usage. They religiously stick to one or the other, whereas both terms are heard on the street.
Something that’s also important to remember - news reporting gives us our frame of reference. RE: the OP - were there any stories you noticed that were reported on one channel but not on another.
Remember - the news not only has the power to try to tell us what to think, it also has the power to tell us what to think about. If they don’t report it, it might as well not have happened.
I’m thinking specifically of May Day protests in years gone by. Despite massive protests, an enormous police turn-out, and huge disruption to the daily lives of Londoners, the May Day protests were barely reported on the evening news. Something that should have been front page was relegated to page 6 or 7. But when the Tube has problems, it’s right there on the front page. It happens all the time - the people who control the news control the agenda.
Bias can be more subtle than it would at first seem. It’s important to look at the bigger picture.