Enabling Media Bias

Walter Shorenstein is decrying media bias in favor of Barack Obama. The only surprising thing here, in my view, is that someone felt they needed to write a memo–and I favor Obama myself. The question is just how media bias works, and what the bias is.

First, while I think there is a natural tendency to bias a story in favor of one’s own political views, and journalists tend to be more liberal than the overall population (I believe), I think the strongest bias in the media is towards the unusual and the exciting. What do the most people want to watch and hear about. For example, I suspect that many people who may well not vote for Barack Obama have been more interested in how he will perform. Here’s where Hillary Clinton’s experience and time in the public view works against her. We know more about her than about Obama. If she wins, though it’s historic, it’s what was expected originally. Obama, on the other hand, is unexpected.

But second, I think there is a simple fact about media coverage that enables media bias. There are very few actual facts reported in the media. What actually happens is that we get claims, followed by hour after hour of analysis by different experts. Sometimes the position of these “experts” is entirely predictable; they are the spin doctors for the campaigns or parties. At other times they are more unpredictable, because they are from political science professors or unaligned political consultants.

There is time to actually examine and analyze facts, but that time is instead taken up by getting more and more opinions. Why is this? Well, this comes down to my big objection to what I would call “practical postmodernism.” This is the view that all ideas are more or less equal, they are just part of someone’s story, and the way to be properly unbiased is to make sure that every opinion gets expressed.

This results in a rudderless program, free of actual analysis, while filled with reams of apparent analysis. Now there are many things I can say about this, but my key point today is that this approach to journalism allows media bias to occur and to be concealed under the veneer of the balanced approach. Consider the headlines about various polls, for example. Is 46-44 a slight lead for candidate A, or is it a statistical tie. If the next day it’s 45-45 is candidate B moving up on candidate A, or is it statistically insignificant. (Statistically both are within the margin of error and one would best regard them both as a tie. There isn’t necessarily any trend here.) But what viewers want, and the media wants to supply is news, and that means they have to spin it in the direction of change.

I would prefer more reporting of facts, and there are plenty of those missing. I’ve been researching health care plans, for example, and while there is a great deal to read, very little of it is in the mainstream media. Media outlets could do the voters a great favor by researching the numbers in those health care plans and seeing whether there’s any likelihood that the projected savings can occur and asking what will happen to things like experimental treatments, for example. I admit that in my part-time look at this I’ve failed to make heads or tails of it all. I just continue to have this feeling that the claimed savings are, to put it mildly, optimistic.

I’d prefer to see media representatives admit their bias and report what they believe to be true. Then it’s out on the table, and I have a better basis for analyzing their statements. I’d prefer more experts producing information and analysis, and less expressing generalized opinions. In other words, I think we’d be better off with journalists researching what they believe to be facts, reporting those facts, and get our balance either by reading or watching other journalists, or by analyzing those facts for ourselves.

The implied standard of media fairness seems to be whether each candidate or “side” gets a similar amount of time and attention. I think that if a candidate commits a whopper, that candidate ought to get disproportionately negative coverage, and vice-versa. I think most of us are aware that the idea of an unbiased media is an illusion. It’s an impossible dream. Let the fact wars begin instead.

I can’t end a post like this without reference to two sites that are perhaps the strongest contrary evidence, Politifact.com and Factcheck.org, who seem to be managing to be the most unbiased folks I’ve encountered, and are doing fact checks. I do think that we need something like what they do, only that goes a little deeper, but they are providing a valuable service to the public, and I present them as evidence that maybe I’m wrong, and maybe it can be done. Note, however, that in doing their job, they definitely run contrary to the “all ideas are equal” camp.