A recent Pew Research Center survey found that 29% of Americans believe that news organizations get their facts straight while 63% claim that news stories often are lacking in accuracy. This is a change from the results of a similar survey in 1985. In that survey, 55% regarded news stories as accurate while 34% took them to be inaccurate. The change from 1985 to 2009 has been a gradual one with people increasingly regarding the news media as lacking in accuracy.
Another interesting finding is that 26% claim that news organizations are careful to avoid politically biased reporting. 60% of those surveyed claimed that the news organizations are politically biased.
Obviously, the fact that people believe that the news organizations have problems with accuracy and bias does not prove that these problems exist. After all, what most people believe and what is actually true are two distinct things. However, it is interesting to consider why there is such distrust of the media.
One obvious possibility is that the media is prone to error and is also biased. Obviously, folks in the media make mistakes and there have been some rather famous (or infamous) cases of the media fouling up. Perhaps the best known example of this was the incident involving Dan Rather and the infamous memo.
Of course, whether or not the media has significant problems with accuracy is something that can be tested. The method is, in theory, quite simple: take the claims made by the news folks and test them objectively to see if they are accurate or not. Naturally, the implementation of this testing would require an objective testing agency.
In regards to media bias, the natural thing to do is to turn to the experts. Unfortunately, the experts disagree. For example, Eric Alterman argues that the liberal bias is a myth (What Liberal Bias?) while Bernard Goldberg contends that the bias is a fact (Bias). Fortunately, bias can also be investigated. One way to do this is to consider news reports and assess them in an objective manner for favorable and unfavorable slanting. What the news organizations report also can indicate possible bias. For example, if a new organization regularly covers misdeeds by Republicans in depth while providing little coverage of comparable misdeeds by Democrats, then there are grounds for suspecting bias.
It is, unfortunately, well established that the news media is influenced by the government and this results in biased reporting. During its first four years the Bush administration spent a quarter of a billion dollars on fake “news” about Medicare, Iraq, Social Security, and No Child Left Behind. It should be noted that the Clinton Administration was also active in manipulating the media.
In some cases biased reporting is purchased. For example, between 2004 and 2005 three editorialists were exposed for taking money directly or indirectly from the Bush Administration to promote its policies and programs. Armstrong Williams received $200,000.
Another infamous example of government manipulating the news is how in 2007 FEMA held a “press conference” in which FEMA staff members asked the questions. The White House spokesperson replied by saying that the practice was not employed by the White House and was not something that was condoned. This reply was reported uncritically by the White House Reporters, despite the fact that the White House has done the same in the past. This might indicate incompetence on the part of reporters rather than bias, though.
Thus, the media does make errors and does suffer from bias. Of course, the question remains as to the amount of errors and the degree of bias that each specific news organization suffers from.
Related articles by Zemanta
- Americans’ Opinion Of The Media Hits New Low (mediabistro.com)
- The whole truth (guardian.co.uk)
- Study: More Americans Think Media Is Biased, Inaccurate (huffingtonpost.com)
- Trust in News Media Falls to New Low in Pew Survey (nytimes.com)
- Study: More think news stories are biased (msnbc.msn.com)
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](https://i0.wp.com/img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png)
“For example, if a new organization regularly covers misdeeds by Republicans in depth while providing little coverage of comparable misdeeds by Democrats, then there are grounds for suspecting bias.”
There are two key words here: “regularly” and “comparable” I’d like to deal with the latter. Who would be the judge of what’s comparable ? A group of philosophers? A jury of the accused politician’s peers? A group of “non-partisan” bureaucrats? And what standards would employ to distinguish between events such as Nixon/Watergate, Clinton/Lewinsky,the Keating Five, Reagan/Contra, Bush/Cheney/Rove/Libby, Abscam, The Pentagon Papers, Lawyergate, Travelgate. . .? Or between John&Kathleen Edwards, Newt Gingrich and wife,Kennedy/Kopechne,
A whole new newsroom bureaucracy will have to be established just to handle any instance-and it will come, mark my word– where one or two of the above scandals appears during the same 24 hour news cycle as Frank, Craig,Foley,the Kennedy(s), or Limbaugh’s drugs.
4th line, 2nd paragraph:
“And what standards would employ. . .”
should read
“And what standards would they employ. . .”
We have beaten this dead horse before. I still say you are blind Mike.
“Who would be the judge of what’s comparable?”
The answer was simple and quick in coming: Judge Kernunos heading a death panel of kernunos clones! 🙂
It is practically impossible to quantify bias. It is easy to spot, however, when you read about the same story from different sources. A good recent example is Van Jones. If you are a New York Times reader, you would have no clue about why he resigned until he did. Then–after the fact–the Times told you he was a Truther.
Good point. Bias often manifests in what is not said and also the time at which something is finally said. The Van Jones thing was not well covered and I admit that I was only sort of vaguely aware of what was happening. Fortunately, I can always count on Magnus and Kernunos to keep me up to date on the many misdeeds of the moonbats.
You were only vaguely aware because you only watch the ‘Sheople News Networks’. Remember they are biased.
What? Fareed Zacaria didn’t write an article on Van Jones in Newsweek?
He must have been busy instigating ACORN.
Charlie Rangel’s on p. 44 in Lexington’s column in this week’s The Economist. Enjoy.
http://www.economist.com/world/unitedstates/displaystory.cfm?story_id=14456931
I watch Fox from time to time, but mainly for the ladies. I assume that is why they call it “Fox” News.
As always, fair AND balanced.
“It is easy to spot, however, when you read about the same story from different sources.” No doubt about it: The New York Times definitely screwed the pooch. They could have at least hidden their bias better.
Why, if I were running a major newspaper, I’d have people covering every accusation that appears in gatewaypundit or escapes Glenn Beck’s frothy mouth.
———-
Allow me to modify your statement to make a related point.
“It[bias? or something else?] is easy to spot, however, when you [hear] . . . the same story from the same source [at different times].” Now view the following clip.
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-august-13-2009/glenn-beck-s-operation
Of course that doesn’t excuse the NYT, nor is it intended to do so. Then again, there’s no excuse for Glenn Beck. . .
While I’m not a psychiatrist, I suspect that Mr. Beck might need some medications to help him. I am actually serious about this-his behavior honestly worries me. But, he does put on quite a show.
Beck is a nut. He is losing sponsors because they see him as a time bomb.
He has not lost his sponsers. He still has them. The guy is putting his neck out being passionate about what he believes in. the least people could do was listen once in a while.
He is only using their own quotes to ruin them. I don’t think you actually watch the show Mike.
Perhaps you actually need to watch the video I provided above:
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-august-13-2009/glenn-beck-s-operation
Like the rest of them, Beck’ll go where the money is. Such “passion”! Billy Mays—may he rest in peace — would be proud of him.
Beck is entertaining, but he needs to be called out when he crosses the line. Saying things like “Obama is a racist” is going way over the top. He is also too fond of conspiracy theories.
He’s “passionate about what he believes in.” Kernunos might phrase it: “conspiracies are a passion of his.I wonder if Beck thinks there’s been a massive conspiracy afoot to improve the American health care system over the last 18 months (see vid above)?
Or are most if not all of his “passions” available to the highest bidder?
I would put me down.
No, I see just fine. Here, I’ll help you navigate the darkness. 🙂
Kind of like me trying to get Mike to write a blog on Van Jones, just as he did several on Joe Wilson. No left wing bias at all.
Van Jones is gone (for now). Good riddance, I say.
There are still more rats on the ship Mike.
Well, if there are rats on the ship, that means it is still afloat. 🙂
I’m sure no one is paying attention to this article now, but I want to type this up and save it here for the very next time Glenn Beck comes up in an article here or its comments.
I’ve always known Beck isa slimy sort. I just thought he was just a teensy bit more intelligent than he appears here (dispute his ham-handed flippety-flop on the quality of the American health care system). At least equal to Rush Limbaugh, perhaps? Turns out he doesn’t hold a candle to El Rushbo.
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/09/what-do-you-mean-by-white-culture-mr-beck.html
I think the most interesting part of this piece is that he repeatedly questions the source of the question “What do you mean by “white cultlure”, clearly implying the question must be a plant, because the media (of which he is amazingly a part) would do that. Is that called projection? But, more importantly, with his words and his expressions he implies that he doesn’t believe a real member of the American public could ask a question that would stump The Great Beckini.
A three minute pointless dance.
Crazy or not, Beck has exposed more corruption than all of the other talk show hosts combined. He was all over ACORN when the Dems were trying to say it was all yet another Vast Right Wing Conspiracy to bring down their guy. (Yawn–come up with something–anything–new) He did the same with Van Jones.
Mike, I’d be more worried about all of these nuts that keep popping up around Obama. If Obama knew about their beliefs he’s got problems, if he doesn’t know about them, that’s an issue, too; how many people do you put in your administration without knowing what they believe or stand for?
Sounds like Hezbollah’s vetting process may be better than the current US administration’s.
It does seem that Presidents need to do a little more background checking on their appointments. This has been a problem for many Presidents and part of it stems, perhaps, from the volume of appointments. This does not excuse appointing people like Van Jones, of course.