I chose to examine the Sources & Subject article “Taboo Topics in Journalism Today” by the Accuracy in Media site, the Story Ideas resource of the National Priorities Project site, and the State of the Press article “Liberal Media?” by the Media Matters site. These three resources have an important focus in common: the consideration of a potential bias in major news sources.
“Taboo Topics in Journalism Today” and the National Priorities Project site stood out to me because they take opposite stances on the consideration for bias. “Taboo Topics in Journalism Today” is actually about biases in the media, which proves to be ironic because the article is, itself, biased. It is published on the Accuracy in Media site, which is known for having a conservative stance, and predictably, the article is all about how liberal most media organizations are. The author Cliff Kincaid’s main argument is that most journalists are liberal, and their opinions come out in their reporting. As a result, most news organizations are seen as “liberal,” but they’re thought of as the norm that can either be continued — or rallied against (“Fox News is a response to the overwhelming liberal media bias,” Kincaid claims).
He also goes on to list a detailed number of topics that, in his opinion, are impossible to report on objectively. I think Kincaid is either very stupid or very smart, because he proves his own point by not even being able to list the topics without making his personal bias obvious. An example:
· DDT has saved lives and can save millions more. DDT has been demonized by the environmentalists and the media for decades, leading to its banning. This is changing somewhat, as even the New York Times has now editorialized that some use of DDT may be justified to save lives. But the Times’ recognition of the truth has come millions of lives too late.
Kincaid ends his article with the prediction that liberal coverage may “get even worse,” citing a Los Angeles Times’ journalist’s decree that he thinks objective journalism is the way of the future. Kincaid acts as though this would be the end of what journalism is supposed to be, but in fact, it is the way of the future, as evidenced by the proliferation and success of news blogs.
The National Priorities Project site, while not explicitly about media bias, still exemplifies bias, I think. It is a research organization’s site that clarifies federal data so that an everyday person can understand how their tax dollars are being spent. A banner on proclaims that the site does not endorse or oppose candidates or organizations it mentions, and the articles and information themselves don’t seem to, from what I’ve read, but its objectivity is betrayed by the side bars on the home page. (I know they’re probably not called “side bars,” but I’m Internet-illiterate, so please try to use your imagination.) They have one side bar, created by and credited to the NPP, with a running count of how much money has been spent on the war in Iraq. The counter says nothing else, but watching the numbers rapidly flip by (about $10,000 every 3 to 4 seconds) is surely meant to put thoughts in the viewer’s head. On the other side of the page, under the headline “NPP in Action,” there’s a bar with a quote from a national organizer who said he used the NPP’s fact sheets to demonstrate to people what the war in Iraq means for them at home. All this is under a subhead in red that says, “U.S. Labor Against the War.” So even though their articles and information may just support the facts, I think the reason underlying why they are making this information understandable definitely has some bias to it.
Now we come to my favorite article I’ve read in this course so far this year, “Liberal Bias?” by the Media Matters site. I chose this article as my third because its topic is a great accompaniment to the previous two resources: The study many news outlets cite as being demonstrative of a significant liberal bias in the media is so biased itself that it’s practically useless.
This article examines the study, “A Measure of Media Bias,” which was written by two former fellows of conservative think tanks. The study draws from many right-wing sources, but not from previously conducted scholarly work.
The method itself of conducting the study is flawed, too, I think. It’s based on how many times and how favorably a news source cites an organization discussed by a member of Congress, and whether that member of Congress is thought to be conservative or liberal. If a member of Congress cites a think tank approvingly, and if that think tank is also cited by a news organization, then the news organization has a “bias” on par with the member of Congress who cited the think tank. This, as the men in charge of the study define it, is what constitutes “media bias.”
This raises important, and largely left out, question as to how “bias” can be defined. Is it how much coverage an entity gets? Which quotes are selected for print? Or is it not the words from the entity, but instead the reporter’s words used to judge bias?
The study analyzed in this Media Matters article was led by UCLA, which gives it a certain degree of credit. Many people already feel news outlets are biased in some way or another, generally more toward liberalism. So I can see how if one comes across a UCLA study proclaiming that news sources are biased, they would take it at face value, which is what many news outlets (even not-so-conservative ones) did when they gave it publication or air time. However, people did not stop and consider how this conclusion was reached, such as what factors were used to constitute bias, and even what the researchers used as a definition of “bias.”
I think this article by the Media Matters site demonstrates that while no article can be truly free of bias. People should take what they read with a grain of salt, get their information from several different news sources, and try to form their own opinions.
