...but Peter jennings reads Pravda! (and other ways to determine bias)

[specious_reasons]

As a good portion of you know, bias in the media is one of my favorite topics, and I was inspired by sundog's recent thread to ask a question or two.

The current book I'm reading is Rich Media, Poor Democracy which argues that the media industry is systemically unable to provide us with with the facts we need to make proper informed choices about the decisions that affect our lives.

In the introduction to the book, the author states that his argument is entirely based on a systemic analysis of the media industry. He even states that examples to the contrary (Peter Jennings reading Pravda is my made up example) are the exceptions which are "allowed" in the system.

I haven't gotten far enough into the book to critique how he represents the media industry "system", but I can understand, based on my own experience, that a systemic approach is a pretty effective way to show how bias influences results.

So, the question is:

How do you determine bias in the media? Or a specific media outlet?

Here's a couple of ways I thought of:

1. Pick one or more "news item" and sort through how it's handled.
2. Pick a fixed period of time, and sort through the news covered (and not covered).
3. Look at the composition of the staff, reporters, producers, editors, owners.
4. Look at the influences affecting the organization.

Me, personally, for media in general, I favor #4 and a little of #3. For individual media outlets, I usually rely on #2 and #3, with some of #1.

Another question is, how can you do any of this critically?

I obviously have a liberal bias, so I'm more "attuned" to finding that right-wing stuff that offends me. I don't see the "reflexive liberalism" others do. Since a lot of this bias is reflected in the subtlety of language, how do we measure it?

Any thoughts?

[DavidJames]

"1. Pick one or more "news item" and sort through how it's handled.
2. Pick a fixed period of time, and sort through the news covered (and not covered).
3. Look at the composition of the staff, reporters, producers, editors, owners.
4. Look at the influences affecting the organization."

Nice try - I think the more common (and simpler) way is:
1. Pick one or more "news item" and sort through how it's handled.
2. If you don't agree, it's biased.

For example, news show A says, Iraq people were killed in the war. This means the news show is biased, anti-war, anti-Bush, hates soldiers and probably secretly has homosexual fantasies.

News show B says, Iraq people will soon be liberated. This means news show B is pro-American, pro-soldier, calls out for God WAY before approaching death and never gets tired of hearing his "chicks" compliment the size of his "manhood".

There, I hope that clears things up.

And no sorry, I don't have anything serious to add. Having read through the various media bias threads I've come to the conclusion that, well, I just don't give a rats behind.

[Nasarius]

How FAIR does it:

http://www.fair.org/press-releases/power-sources-release.html
http://www.fair.org/extra/0203/think_tanks.html

[specious_reasons]

Originally posted by DavidJames

[snip]
Nice try - I think the more common (and simpler) way is:
1. Pick one or more "news item" and sort through how it's handled.
2. If you don't agree, it's biased.
[snip]
And no sorry, I don't have anything serious to add. Having read through the various media bias threads I've come to the conclusion that, well, I just don't give a rats behind.

That's OK, it brought a smile to my face.

I am interested in finding a more objective way to measure bias, primarily because I've challenged other people's opinions.

[Baker]

Originally posted by specious_reasons


That's OK, it brought a smile to my face.

I am interested in finding a more objective way to measure bias, primarily because I've challenged other people's opinions.

In which way to you feel it is bias to the left or right?

[specious_reasons]

Originally posted by Baker


In which way to you feel it is bias to the left or right?

I think the bias is towards profit, which, I think, skews the bias slightly conservative.

Primarily, I've challenged the proof of liberal bias on the notion that there are more reporters who identify themselves as Democrats. I think that systemic influences mitigate a reporter's liberal tendencies.

So, I think it's more complicated than looking at any one factor involved. I'd like to see an "agenda-less" way to determine bias, the organizations on the Left and Right each have different ways of measuring, that favor their own opinion.

[DavidJames]

specious_reasons

I apologize for the smart assed nature of my response. You wanted to start a rational discussion on a good topic and I should have responded accordingly.

I do believe the two step analysis I stated is the process used all to often.

Another topic was started here challenging those who saw bias to report it "in real time" and it could be discussed. That degraded into squabbling over the meaning of words like brutal and whining. Which in itself speaks pretty loudly about the depth of media bias ;)

The bottom line is I can't, at this point, think of a good method to try and capture the bias.

"I think the bias is towards profit"

I agree with this and would include sensationalism, ratings, "being first" as additional biases.

[Baker]

Originally posted by specious_reasons


I think the bias is towards profit, which, I think, skews the bias slightly conservative.

Primarily, I've challenged the proof of liberal bias on the notion that there are more reporters who identify themselves as Democrats. I think that systemic influences mitigate a reporter's liberal tendencies.

So, I think it's more complicated than looking at any one factor involved. I'd like to see an "agenda-less" way to determine bias, the organizations on the Left and Right each have different ways of measuring, that favor their own opinion.

These are links that I have posted in other forums showing the liberal bias in the media.
http://www.ratherbiased.com/
http://www.mediaresearch.org/cyberalerts/2003/cyb20030410.asp#2

[aerocontrols]

I read an article (http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/10/international/africa/10BANT.html?pagewanted=all&position=top) in the New York Times about the US bringing in 12,000 Somali Bantu refugees.

In this article about people who were treated brutally in Africa (quotes from the article: "'treated like donkeys" living with neighbors who "'come into your house and beat you" who now believe that in America they "'will be human beings, not slaves, for the first time" and who previously had been "disproportionately [sic] victims of rapes and killings") we have the following commentary added by the reporter, that somehow managed to make it past the editors:

The refugees watch snippets of American life on videos in class, and they marvel at the images of supermarkets filled with peppers and tomatoes and of tall buildings that reach for the clouds. But they know little about racism, poverty, the bone-chilling cold or the cities that will be chosen for them by refugee resettlement agencies.

They know little about racism or poverty. Right. This is obviously false. Why was it added? I guess others might call this 'balance' - treatment in Africa may be awful, but here in the US, they better be careful, all is not perfect. It might seem more 'balanced' to me if the bold part wasn't such a bald-faced lie.

I may not know how to search systematically for bias, but I know it when I see it.

MattJ

[Ladewig]

1. Pick one or more "news item" and sort through how it's handled.
2. Pick a fixed period of time, and sort through the news covered (and not covered).
3. Look at the composition of the staff, reporters, producers, editors, owners.
4. Look at the influences affecting the organization.

#1 and 2. The problem with these approaches is that you really don't know all aspects of the story to start with, so it is hard to determine which aspects are being excluded. One can overcome the problem to some extent by getting one's news from a wide variety of sources, each biased in a different way. I maintain that unbiased news is too time-consuming to be profitable. Frontline comes close to being unbiased, but at 60 minutes per story (and weeks of research), it cannot be used as a daily news source.

Also, note that some biases might be too subtle or too pervasive to notice (e.g. in contract negotiations, unions make demands and management offers consessions)

#3 Advertisers need to head the list, unless you were counting them in the fourth category. A quick search on Monsanto, Fox, and rGBH will serve as an illustration.

[specious_reasons]

Originally posted by Baker


These are links that I have posted in other forums showing the liberal bias in the media.
http://www.ratherbiased.com/
http://www.mediaresearch.org/cyberalerts/2003/cyb20030410.asp#2

I haven't read ratherbiased, but I've seen mediaresearch.org. My BS detectors start ringing as I was reading it, but again, this is because of my own biases. I recently had a real problem with that site, because they polled the editors and owners with different questions than they polled the reporters.

Since I started this thread, I'll post a summary of techniques used by all of the "sides" of the debates. From FAIR as well as these sites you listed. I don't necessarily disagree with (most of) the facts presented in all of these sites.

I think that most people agree about the bias towards profit, but I think a lot of us disagree as to it's effects.