The following article illustrates some of the methods employed by certain media contributors to create a bias in news reports.


Please note, that the article itself is skewed toward a political ideology.

Excerpts From
"How to Identify, Expose
and Correct Liberal Media Bias"
by the MRC's Brent Baker

Sometimes liberal bias reflects a conscious choice by the reporter or editor. Sometimes it stems from mere laziness; it can take a lot of work to produce balanced news stories on a consistent basis. And a reporter under deadline pressure may just not understand the conservative viewpoint well enough to explain it in his story. So if the conservative expert he called doesn't call back in time, that perspective won't make it into the story.

But none of these are valid excuses. A reporter's job is to present a balanced story. (Of course, the reporter who tries but fails because he's just so rushed and can't get a conservative to comment deserves more understanding from you than the reporter who never bothers to call a conservative and regularly writes or broadcasts biased stories.)

As you read, listen and watch news stories you probably already notice stories that you think are biased. To see if they really are biased, you need to determine if the story falls into at least one of several forms in which bias occurs:

Types of Bias: Descriptions and Examples of Each

Bias by commission
Bias by omission
Bias by story selection
Bias by placement
Bias by the selection of sources
Bias by spin
Bias by labeling
Bias by policy endorsement or condemnation
What Isn't Bias

Identifying and Documenting Bias in News Stories

Bias by Commission:

A pattern of passing along assumptions or errors that tend to support a left-wing or liberal view.

This is the most common form of bias. Within the space or time limit constraining them, reporters are supposed to provide roughly equal time to presenting the best arguments of both sides of an issue. If liberals say "A" and conservatives say "B" then the story should summarize both perspectives. For example, liberals cite government statistics to show that during the 1980s the rich got tax breaks while the middle class and poor paid more taxes. Conservatives, on the other hand, contend federal figures demonstrate that the rich paid more of federal tax receipts as everyone else paid less. Who's correct? A properly done story would recite the figures and analysis behind both views, so that a news consumer could make up his own mind about which perspective makes more sense.

If the reporter presents only one perspective or passes along only the "facts" espoused by liberals without any acknowledgment that conservatives disagree, then he has committed bias by commission.

Documenting bias by commission often requires research. Unfortunately, while reputable books and studies include citations or footnotes, the media (especially television reporters) often ask you simply to believe them. So when reporters cite a specific group or study, try to get a copy of the original report. Most of the time you'll recognize bias by commission because the reporter will have presented only the liberal slant on an issue you know has another side. If you're not sure, find an expert in the field, and ask him if a story's statistics ring true. The offices of conservative state legislators are excellent sources to consult on any issue facing state lawmakers. If they don't know, try a conservative group that specializes in the area in question, or a conservative-leaning professor at a local college.

Bias by Omission:

Ignoring facts that tend to disprove liberal or left-wing claims, or that support conservative beliefs.

To catch this kind of bias you'll have to be knowledgeable about the particular subject. If you know the various points of view on an issue, then you'll recognize when one side is left out. Bias by omission can occur either within a story, or over the long term as a particular news outlet reports one set of events, but not another.

To find instances of bias by omission, keep abreast of the conservative perspective on current issues. See if that perspective is included in stories on a particular event or policy. If it's not, you may have uncovered bias by omission.

Bias by Story Selection

A pattern of highlighting news stories that coincide with the agenda of the Left while ignoring stories that coincide with the agenda of the Right.

Bias by story selection often occurs when a media outlet decides to do a story on a study released by a liberal group, but ignores studies on the same or similar topics released by conservative groups.

Like bias by omission, to identify bias by story selection you'll need to know the conservative and liberal issue agenda -- the events of concern to the two sides of the political scene. See how much coverage conservative issues get compared to issues on the liberal agenda. If a liberal group puts out a study proving a liberal point, look at how much coverage it got compared to a conservative study issued a few days or weeks earlier. If charges of impropriety are leveled at two politicians of approximately equal power, one liberal and one conservative, compare the amount of coverage given to each.

Bias by Placement:

A pattern of placing news stories so as to downplay information supportive of conservative views.

Does a story appear across the top half of the front page, or is it buried back with the obituaries and the horoscopes? News editors exercise great discretion in their placement of stories. The news they consider most important and/or most likely to sell papers goes "above the fold" on the front page, where it can be read as the newspaper sits on the rack. Less important stories go on the bottom half of the first page, on the first page of other sections of the paper, on page two or three, and so on.

Bias by placement can occur with television or radio news -- making a story the lead versus running it 25 minutes into an hour-long newscast. But, it's a lot easier to identify this kind of bias in a newspaper where placing a story on page one versus on the bottom of an inside page makes for a dramatic contrast.

There are limitations on a newspaper editor's discretion, of course. He must fit stories together in an attractive way and place stories around advertising, a job that is like assembling a giant jigsaw puzzle. He must use graphic elements such as charts, graphs, and photos effectively. But as a general rule story placement is a measure of how important the editor considers the story.

Another form of bias by placement is the placement of facts within a story. Again, this is a kind of bias that occurs much more in print than broadcast media. A television or radio story lasts anywhere from a few seconds to two minutes, and so only has time for one or two brief soundbites from each side. It really doesn't matter where in the story the two sides are presented, just as long as they are given equal time and weight.

Newspaper stories are usually written in a "pyramid" style -- that is, the most important facts are supposed to appear early in the story, with each paragraph a little less important than the previous paragraph. Newspapers use that style for two reasons: (a) so that editors, editing a story to fit the available space, can cut from the bottom up, and (b) so that the average reader will get the most important facts. Editors know that, the farther down you go in a news story, the fewer readers you have.

Studies have shown that, in the case of the average newspaper reader and the average news story, most people read only the headline. Some read just the first paragraph, some just the first two paragraphs, and some read just to the bottom of the column and don't bother to read the continuation. Very few people read the average story all the way through to the end, especially if it is continued to another section of the paper.

To locate examples of bias by placement, observe where a newspaper places political stories. Compare the placement of a story that makes a liberal point or makes a conservative look bad to a story on a similar topic that makes a liberal look bad. Whenever you read a story, see how far into story the conservative viewpoint first appears. In a fair and balanced story, the reporter would quote or summarize the liberal and conservative view at about the same place in the story. If not, you've found bias by placement

Bias by the Selection of Sources:

Including more sources in a story who support one view over another. This bias can also be seen when a reporter uses such phrases as "experts believe," "observers say," or "most people think."

When a reporter says "most experts believe...," he often means, "I believe..." Quoting an expert by name does not necessarily add to the credibility of a story, because the reporter may choose any "expert" he wants. The same goes for the use of politicians or "man on the street" interviews.

Experts in news stories are like expert witnesses in trials. If you know whether the defense or the prosecution called a particular expert witness to the stand, you know which way the witness will testify. And when a news story only presents one side, it is obviously the side the reporter supports.

To find bias by use of experts or sources, stay alert to the affiliations and political perspective of those quoted as experts or authorities in news stories. Not all stories will include experts, but in those that do, make sure about an equal number of conservatives and liberals are quoted. If a story quotes non-experts, such as those portrayed as average citizens, check to be sure that about an equal number come from both sides of the issue in question. Also check to see if a reporter's generalization about how "economists across the political spectrum" or "most health care specialists" is supported by subsequently cited experts. If they are all or overwhelmingly from one side of the political spectrum, then you've come across bias by use of sources.

Bias by Spin:

Emphasizing aspects of a policy favorable to liberals without noting aspects favorable to conservatives; putting out the liberal interpretation of what an event means while giving little or no time or space to explaining the conservative interpretation.

Party spokesmen who talk with reporters after a presidential debate, seeking to convince them that their candidate won, are called "spin doctors." One expert on the news media, Professor Michael Robinson, explains "spin involves tone, the part of the reporting that extends beyond hard news" it's a reporter's "subjective comments about objective facts."

So, check the spin on a story. If liberal politicians are offering one interpretation of an event or policy, and conservatives another, see which one a news story matches. Many news stories do not reflect a particular spin. Others summarize the spin put on an event by both sides. But if a story reflects one to the exclusion of the other, then you've found "bias by spin."

Bias by Labeling:

Attaching a label to conservatives but not to liberals; using more extreme labeling for conservatives than for liberals; identifying a liberal person or group as an "expert" or as independent.

The power to label politicians, activists and groups is one of the media's most subtle and potent powers. The paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould may be a Marxist, but he makes a valid point: that labels tell you as much about the person applying the labels as they tell about the subject being labeled. Gould wrote, "Taxonomy [the science of classification] is often regarded as the dullest of subjects, fit only for mindless ordering and sometimes denigrated within science as 'stamp collecting'....If systems of classification were neutral hat racks for hanging the facts of the world, this disdain might be justified. But classifications both direct and reflect our thinking. The way we [put things in] order represents the way we think." In other words, classifications, or labels, matter.

Terms like "right-wing" are used to describe hard-line communists and staunch capitalists, Israeli Zionists and Soviet anti-Semites, apartheid-loving bigots and Clarence Thomas supporters. And liberals complain about conservatives being "simplistic."

Bias by labeling comes in two forms. First, the tagging of conservative politicians and groups with extreme labels while leaving liberal politicians and groups unlabeled or with more mild labels. Responsible conservatives are sometimes stigmatized as "far right," "ultra-conservative," or "right-wing extremists," while radicals, even Marxists, are called "progressives," "liberals," or "moderates." In other cases, conservative groups are identified as conservative, while liberal groups are described in neutral terms such as "womens group" or "civil rights group," or favorable terms such as "children's rights supporters," "free-speech activists," or "clean-air advocates."

The second kind of bias by labeling occurs when a reporter not only fails to identify a liberal as a liberal, but describes the person or group with positive labels, such as "an expert" or "independent consumer group." In so doing, the reporter imparts an air of authority that the source does not deserve. If the "expert" is properly called a "conservative" or a "liberal" the news consumer can take that ideological slant into account when evaluating the accuracy of an assertion.

When looking for bias by labeling, remember that not all labeling is biased or wrong. A story calling Senator Helms "conservative" is accurate; as is a reporter's reference to Pat Buchanan as "the conservative co-host of CNN's Crossfire." But any story labeling conservatives should also label liberals. So, the story should read: "Pat Buchanan serves as the conservative co-host of CNN's Crossfire, sparring across the table each night with the liberal Michael Kinsley."

Bias by labeling is present when the story labels the conservative, but not the liberal; when the story uses more extreme-sounding labels for the conservative than the liberal ("ultra-conservative," "far right," and "hard right" but just "liberal" instead of "far left" and "hard left"); and when the story misleadingly identifies a liberal official or group as an "expert" or "independent watchdog organization."

Bias by Policy Recommendation or Condemnation:

When a reporter goes beyond reporting and endorses the liberal view of which policies should be enacted, or affirms the liberal criticism of current or past policies.

As described earlier, when reporters list possible solutions to society's problems, the solutions often follow the agenda of the Left ("raise taxes," "cut defense," "have taxpayers pay for abortions," "issue more government regulations"). And when reporters review past policies, their evaluations follow a liberal script ("Reaganomics made the rich richer and the poor poorer," "slashes in social spending caused increased infant mortality and homelessness," "the lack of an energy policy has made the U.S. dependent on foreign oil," "too much defense spending has driven us into bankruptcy").

Most news stories simply relate a sequence of events, but when a story mixes reporting with specific recommendations for government policy, that's bias by policy recommendation. When a reporter conclusively declares that a past or current policy has failed, that's bias by policy condemnation. Taken together, this bias occurs whenever a reporter, without any attribution, offers a definitive policy evaluation.

Bias by policy recommendation/condemnation should jump out at you, but be careful. A story or sidebar which includes recommendations is biased if it endorses one view over another or urges one particular policy. If a story, however, lists various options or summarizes the policies advocated by both liberals and conservatives, then it does not reflect bias by policy recommendation. Similarly, if it explains why liberals and conservatives feel the policies espoused by the other have been failures, then the story does not exhibit bias by policy condemnation. Bias by policy recommendation or condemnation occurs when the reporter endorses one side's policy recommendation or one side's policy condemnation.

What Isn't Bias

You may come across stories that you believe fit one of these eight definitions of bias. But, they still may not qualify as examples which you should criticize. With some narrow exceptions explained later in this section, you want to identify bias that occurs in news stories and which favors the liberal view over the conservative perspective.

What isn't bias falls into three broad categories:

Editorials or opinion columns
Stories or statements that make the conservative side look bad, but are accurate
Non-policy stories on a specific event that don't have to be balanced
Newspaper, radio and television station editorials are supposed to take a point of view. The same goes for columns which appear on the op-ed page and commentaries on television news shows. Don't equate a front page news story with an editorial. They are very different items. You should stick to analyzing news stories. They are supposed to be unbiased presentations of the news. When they are biased, the reporter is not doing his job. Editorial and column writers, in contrast, are supposed to take a point of view. They are under no obligation to be fair or balanced.

The only exception: If you are interested in showing that a newspaper's editorials are consistently liberal, or advocate liberal policies more often than conservative ones. Similarly, you can analyze the columnists run by your local paper if you want to prove that contrary to the paper's claim or public perception, they do not balance out.

http://www.fairpress.org/identify.htm

Now, this article addresses the common arena, that is, the domestic political sphere, however, much of this can be applied to any news story and not only the 'liberal' press, but the conservative equally.

To hear tell there is only liberal bias in the media...

But you really do have to tone it down with the racial/anti-anti-religious/gay bashing/misogynistic epithet and innuendo and stuff so I guess that is considered a liberal bias by some.

Since liberalism is all inclusive, meaning it tries to give all humans a fair shake, I would say that a liberal lean to media is not a bad thing... unless it destroys your agenda of wanting to make one type of human bad and then I can see how it would be a terrible thing for you at that point.

From my experience conservative lean is like being slimed a bit with all of the self deprecation and hatred of humans you can get all in one spot.

I think the fact that media bias even exists is inexcusable...Even though gallup poll statistics example a trend that shows more viewers feel media bias is decreasing, I feel it is increasing and peeps are just becoming "acutely" desensitized...The worst case scenario!...

Since so much media assessment, evaluation, and viewing choice is perception based, it's pointless to argue "who" is more biased...The country as a whole would be much better served if people looked at "why" media bias is so prevalent...

For me, the best way to decipher news is to become and remain fully informed by taking advantage of ALL news sources and comparing over time...When I do this, I am able to see patterns emerge that are specific to certain sources...This helps me determine the "why" factor....

Over one half of Americans polled either distrust news or believe it is biased one way or the other..It's a shame, a travesty of the truth built upon advertising dollars garnered from ratings....

there is a German Proverb.

Wes Brot ich ess, des Lied ich sing

Don't quarrel with your bread and butter.

He who has the gold makes the rules.

He who pays the piper, calls the tune

Good one!

Yes, I pointed out the article's bias in my opening statement, however, if one ignores this slant, the content is still applicable to all sides of the political spectrum. The thread is on how to identify bias and not about personal beliefs.

I agree, the rise of the tabloid newspaper and the acceptance of trash television has contributed to the growth of bias. Extreme bias contributes to the sensationalism and exploitation of fear that increases circulation and ratings.



It is pointless to argue 'who' is more biased. The article's content is pertinent to all aspects of the media, not just the left. I was disappointed in that this article clearly demonstrated bias against leftist media.



Exactly, examining the way content is delivered via the use of language, hyperbole and imagery is effective in determining an outlet's bias.



While that's true, don't you think it is up to us to equip ourselves with the knowledge to determine this when we see it?

Btw, Hello Beautiful!

"Other than an anecdotal story here or there, there is no suggestion that the managers of major media companies are individually or in concert fostering a political ideology or suppressing an ideology through the media properties they program. To the contrary, this paper examines and debunks numerous consolidation myths."


An often touted and unsupported scenario is that limited media ownership distorts the content for some 'evil' purpose.

https://netfiles.uiuc.edu/mehrlich/www/compaine.pdf

Although dated 2004, this eight page paper examines that myth
in detail.

"Finally, despite powerful myths about the virtues of mom and pop ownership of local media, researchers as well as observers unaffiliated with stakeholders have consistently found that media outlets controlled by local owners exert greater direction of editorial content than do chain owners, who tend to leave editorial decisions to local editors."

It was once a law that a TV news program had to give both points of view. That law changed in the 80s and we got things like fox news.

I get my news from NPR for the most part because if they have a liberal on they always have a conservative on too and they debate the issues giving respect to one another. No shouting matches, just a clear, frank discussion of the topic.

I agree. I get a feed from NPR and as an outlet, it tends to be more balanced and objective than many others. It is very similar to Australia's ABC (however, the ABC has leftist tendencies, but they are easliy identified).

Absolutely!..The more we understand about how and "why" media operates the way it does, the more desire we have to decipher the information it provides....The problem is not about media making money, the problem is about how the control it affords is used to manipulate the public...

But if one understands how the media works, and learns to recognise the linguistic techniques employed in persuasive literature, one is no longer being controlled.

I found this paper an excellent examination of Fox's influence on US voter behaviour.

Be warned, it's 54 pages in length, but it makes fascinating reading for those interested in media studies.

"We consider one of the most significant changes in the US media in recent years, the entry and expansion of the Fox News cable channel. We exploit the natural experiment induced by the timing of the entry of Fox News in local cable markets and consider the impact on voting."

http://www.nber.org/papers/w12169.pdf?new_window=1

"Does media bias affect voting? We address this question by looking at the entry of Fox News in cable markets and its impact on voting. Between October 1996 and November 2000, the conservative Fox News Channel was introduced in the cable programming of 20 percent of US towns. Fox News availability in 2000 appears to be largely idiosyncratic. Using a data set of voting data for 9,256 towns, we investigate if Republicans gained vote share in towns where Fox News entered the cable market by the year 2000. We find a significant effect of the introduction of Fox News on the vote share in Presidential elections between 1996 and 2000. Republicans gain 0.4 to 0.7 percentage points in the towns which broadcast Fox News. The results are robust to town-level controls, district and county fixed effects, and alternative specifications. We also find a significant effect of Fox News on Senate vote share and on voter turnout. Our estimates imply that Fox News convinced 3 to 8 percent of its viewers to vote Republican. We interpret the results in light of a simple model of voter learning about media bias and about politician quality. The Fox News effect could be a temporary learning effect for rational voters, or a permanent effect for voters subject to non-rational persuasion.

Yes, it would also make the "who" factor totally irrelevant thereby enhancing the possibility of having a civil and informative conversation about the "methods" of media bias...

Thanks for posting this, I'm looking forward to reading it...

Note to self: Research FCC history with Fox News...Google tips include Rupert Murdoch, GM, Cher, Janet Jackson, Tagline, etc,etc,etc.........

my elders have a phrase called 'lazy thinking',,,I believe that in the institutions of education and technology work in conjunction to create a culture of 'lazy' (maximum reward for minimum effort, instant access, instant gratification) and lazy thinking

if we go back to promoting a culture of individuals who use logic instead of impulse and emotion,,,,'slant' in media will loose its impact,,,,

Oh, so true!

I found the opposite in tertiary educational facilities, but then, I'm in another country. My studies constantly emphasised critical thinking and analysis. As I embraced logical thought processes, I began to shed my prejudice and my gullibility in the area of media manipulation (esp. advertising) and developed an empathy in areas I never experienced previously (unfortunately, not in regard to the stupidity of others, but I'm working on it).



I agree, it is clear that many are motivated by prejudice, ignorance and hate in their often highly vociferous views. Sadly, there will always be an element in society that will embrace an outlet's bias, merely because that slant will reinforce that individual's own prejudice.