With the rapid descent into the frenzied, increasingly-negative campaigning that accompanies every fourth fall comes the familiar refrain of “liberal bias!” The commonly-held belief that the mainstream news media is spinning things to the left has been as prevalent this campaign season as ever, with many claiming that Democratic candidate Senator Barack Obama has been relatively unscrutinized, while Republican candidate Senator John McCain has been treated unnecessarily harshly. As the media plays a crucial role in electoral politics—as gatekeepers of information, media outlets create a narrative which helps determine which politicians get a real shot at the White House—this claim is a serious one that deserves further examination.
Unfortunately, discussions of media bias are often limited to partisan bickering along pre-established talking points. The right commonly complains that the mainstream media is liberal, causing people to turn to conservative alternatives; while the left often opines that people are turning away from newspaper and network news to cable and the Internet, where sloppy reporting and sensationalism are more common. Little has been agreed upon, and nothing much has been accomplished, as is typical of political discussion.
A few studies seek to quantify media bias; the result can be used to apportion trust or skepticism to media outlets. University of California, Los Angeles Political Scientist Tim Groeling examined selection bias in determining which results of presidential approval polling should be published. According to his research, CBS showed a slight liberal bias; it was 35 percent less likely to report on a five-point drop in President Bill Clinton’s approval rating than a similar rise, but 33 percent more likely to report a five-point drop than rise for President George W. Bush. NBC and ABC had similar trends with different degrees of statistical significance. Conversely, FOX showed an egregious right-leaning bias by being 67 percent less likely to report a rise than a fall for Clinton; it was 36 percent more likely to report an increase for Bush. As far as more general trends, the Center for Media and Public Affairs at George Mason University found the oft-referenced complaint that the media was giving Obama an easy time to be false; their research concluded that, in the late spring and early summer, 72 percent of the statements about Obama in TV news reports were negative. In contrast, only 57 percent of the statements about McCain were negative.
Sadly, rigorous studies of media bias are rare and notoriously difficult to conduct.
Given the lack of substantial information and the sensationalist claims by the right, where is the citizen seeking trustworthy information upon which to base his vote in November to turn? I’d advise anyone that wants to be an informed voter to seek out numerous sources of information. Simply relying on one media outlet as a primary news source will color your perception. Instead of watching CNN each evening, alternate between that and FOX. Counter your New York Times with a little Wall Street Journal. In addition, independent websites like http://www.factcheck.org/ are invaluable resources. I encourage everyone to fact-check any information that arouses skepticism.
Sure, media bias exists, but as long as you don’t soak up your television’s emissions mindlessly, you’ll be able to determine what’s reliable and what’s not.
