Mainstream news sources have made themselves irrelevant.
During the long 2016 primary campaigns, the NYT had articles writing approvingly about Hillary Clinton and JEB Bush, as having won "the invisible primary", by having accumulated the most campaign cash - as if this were a normal and inevitable means to decide primary elections, and not a corrupt and despicable situation, deserving of scorn. Many voters see this as beyond the pale. How much credibility should the public give to subsequent (selective) reporting on corruption?
And speaking fees? Most voters see candidates earning hundreds of thousands of dollars for a short speech in front of bankers, as obvious corruption. If our news media do not see it as such, should we trust them?
Meanwhile, Bernie Sanders filling stadium after stadium with tens of thousands of people, was met with: No mention whatsoever. Unbiased?
What about when Wikileaks revealed that Citigroup had chosen Obama's cabinet in 2008, months before the general election? Not a peep about this in mainstream media.
Well deserved public disregard for mainstream media - not by extremists, but by the middle of the road swing voters in key swing states (who decided overwhelmingly in 2008 and 2012 that Obama should be chosen, but preferred Trump over Hillary in 2016) - is why we now have Trump as president.
Mistrust of our news media? The mainstream press have earned it.
The U.S. mainstream press has made itself irrelevant.
9
I know I'm biased, and I try to account for that bias. My most important metrics when determining credibility are:
1. The proportions of evidence (mostly fact-based) verse opinion. I care more about verifiable facts than whether or not I agree with some one.
2. How the organization handles mistakes and factual errors.
3. Writing quality. I'm enough of a snob that I appreciate people who write at an adult level.
When Breitbart and their ilk fail to publish retractions or apologies for debunked stories they get put into the "time waster" category. Except for the WSJ, how often do Murdock-owned media outlets admit to errors and retract them? I refuse to waste time trying to filter out all the chaff to find a few grains of truth from organizations with no regard for the truth.
The PBS Newshour is quick to correct even the most insignificant detail they get wrong. Big plus. The NYT has demonstrated integrity when correcting false or misleading articles.
The big 3 cable "news" outlets have shifted from reporting the news to reporting _about_ the news. The most egregiously biased source, Fox, often reports more newsworthy events than its competitors.
When I notice a poorly written piece in my local paper, I check the byline. More often than not, it's the AP. A NYT (or WaPo) article stating the exact same facts has more credibility than a sloppy piece. I eventually become dismissive of articles passed through by lazy editors & writers.
14
as a conservative, I don't feel that I go to foxnews, limbaugh, or breitbart (and there are many others that are "right-wing"biased) because I am "biased" toward right-wing journalists/sites, I go there cuz everywhere else I am being blasted by left-leaning biased reporting--whether it's the TV or the radio, or CNN or MSNBC on the big screen at the gym, etc etc; and since I am exposed to both sources, I can tell that the left-leaning sources are unabashedly biased toward the democrats, etc.and that they leave out important facts and details to stories, which I am able to obtain from my own sources. Their constant attack of our president is blatant and obvious to me. Thus, in a way, I am getting both sides, but my observation is that the mainstream media personnel are arrogant, egotistical, judgmental, contemptuous of "the right" (at the same time self-righteous), and willing to lie and play dirty; there are plenty of examples of that. One good example of "fake news" is when dan rather fabricated a paper that supposedly would discredit president Bush, and his own editors were willing to not bother to check his work and thus discover that what he made that he claimed was a record from Bush's file at school from the 1960's turned out to be a Word document.
6
I wonder about “trustworthiness” as a metric. I have not yet dived into the details of how the questions were posed and the study implemented, but I don’t know if a standard definition exists for that concept. It seems like trustworthiness is unavoidably tied up with “what I like” and “what I think is true” (from a statistical point of view, your priors) and so is far from an objective measure. In other words, if people judge an article based on what they like, and call that trustworthiness, then the method of comparing one’s views to the overall mean of the “blind” group is not valid. Then it just measures how extreme your opinion is.
4
Interesting that it's worse to be an extreme conservative, but also better to be a moderate conservative. Thoughts?
1
People of all political leanings used to get exposure to news and other information from more politically neutral sources. Today, all kinds of information sources are available that range from the radical left to the radical right.
As a result, people today are able to find information sources that reinforce their beliefs, while avoiding other sources that would challenge their beliefs, or at least give them more exposure to opposing views. Is there any surprise that the end result is a public that is becoming more polarized than ever?
In fact, organizations like Google have customized "news feeds" that deliver to you summarized stories based upon its analysis of what would interest you. So righties get righty news feeds, and lefties get lefty news feeds.
I have consciously tried to avoid these information sources. For world and non local news, my first source is the BBC World Service.
4
Surely this varies by content (e.g. police brutality), average content exposed to (e.g. corrupt judges don't exist), a particular article's deviation from the average content (e.g. all judges are corrupt), the reader's preexisting views on the content (e.g. I know a corrupt judge, but some of them are okay), and preexisting views on the relationship between contents (e.g. police brutality is probably related to corrupt judges). The study should have made some attempt to measure these.
I also wouldn't be surprised if reading level of both the content and the reader matters. I wouldn't expect people with higher reading levels to be less biased, except in response to poorly written information; I would expect those with lower reading levels to be more biased in response to more advanced writing.
It also would've been useful to clarify the influence of branding, by cross-balancing it. Are people more likely to endorse an MSNBC article that is made to look like it's from Fox? Does it depend on their preexisting political views?
1
Fiscal interest and personal prejudice distort the truth. I've been very disappointed by the comment for money of the previously highly regarded sports scientist and nutritionist Steven N Blair, and the endocrinologist and Vitamin D advocate Michael F Holick. Even George Orwell had it in for the Armenians, at least when writing in 'Down and out in Paris'.
In medicine, the most reliable sources of information are Cochrane reviews, which are regularly updated or withdrawn.
In physics and chemistry, one may analyse the published data. In mathematics, one may analyse the arguments.
I don't trust journalists, reporters or their editors because they never publish the raw, unannotated data, eg their interview notes, all their unedited video and audio, which they use to construct their narratives.
I rank journalists at the same level as lawyers, politicians, government functionaries, pro sportsmen and women, and business owners.
2
@Colenso
Life has way, way too much raw data to process without filters. You exclusively trust the scientific method to filter hard data to yield verifiable conclusion, but not all truths are measurable.
Cochrane gives a model to develop trust in news sources where interpretation is required to filter valuable information from reams of raw data. How do they handle their mistakes or conclusions not supported by further data/study?
In its heyday during the 1980s, the Christian Science Monitor used to publish side-by-side opposing opinion pieces. The NYT searches out thinking conservatives like David Brookes specifically to keep their opinions honest.
By contrast, Breitbart (and Drudge) never apologize; they either double-down or change the subject to a new outrage. They then republished the same debuked falsehoods when they need to change the subject the next time.
While nothing in journalism can replicate the measurable evidence of science, organizational integrity provides an excellent indicator of journalistic rigor when applied to the messy "data" of human interactions.
5
How do you code misleading "centrist" bias?
The bias factor combines both media and reader, not just one or the other. Examples exist in this article. "The two news sources associated with the least biased consumers were The Wall Street Journal (26 percent) and PBS (14 percent)." A consumer of statistics can see the PBS result is remarkable, while the Journal rating is insignificantly different from its cohort. But in a desire to sound "centrist" the writer tries to pretend otherwise.
In fact, the takeaway isn't the 2 or 3 percent point difference between most media outlets. It's the edge cases. Social science results never replicate to the precision of the original. Humans see through researcher intent to an uncertain degree, and respond in undetected ways. What you look for are the extreme cases, which show basic trends.
That shows it's right-wing outlets that correlate with the most bias. Although the writer does the "centrist" dance and paints MSNBC viewers with the same brush, that's deceptive. There's a definite trend to partisanship, and it's heavily weighted towards the right wing. That's the accurate message.
5
@Brian
I don't think it's a "centrist bias" as much as a flawed effort to be "balanced". The problem with balance as apposed to "objective" is that not all facts (or opinions) carry equal weight.
The false balance standard lead to years of misleading reporting about climate change.
5
I do not get it? Is it not the originating author that has His of Her own personal biased shinning through in a news article? The news agency that the author works for has the final say? No? I am no journalist, but are they not suppose to just give the news as is? I am going to make some stuff up here, but you see stuff in news articles all the time reflecting biased points of vew.. " Oprah's Perfect response to Heraldo" ... No! It's just "Oprahs response to Heraldo" it is up to us (the reader) to form our own opinion. Is this not Journalism 101? I could go on and on! Especially when it comes to politics. OMG!! See above Just change some names and keep Perfect or replace it with Idiotic! Depending on which way the author is leaning? Anyway!! just some pondering
3
Recipe for news:
Facts, fallacious arguments, pandering and politics, with a dash of agenda.
I stop listening when the story stops being a factual account.
My concern with bias is the likelihood people may confuse propaganda with actual news.
6
Fake news is an utterly useless term because it is so mis-used by Trump, himself the king of falsification. Concern about bias in the media has been around a long-time. African Americans and Latinos have been and still are to some extent depicted as criminals by mainstream outlets. Bias still exists in the corporate media and is exhibited as a pro-corporate slant on almost everything. Rarely do we get much of an idea about leaders in the developing world, except whether they are corporate friendly or not. Only the most brutal despotism combined with lack of market penetration by the US is harshly criticized. The idea of blinding readers to the source of the news and then determining their bias quotient, based on how far they deviate from so-called moderates, using all corporate media sources doesn't seem particularly meaningful.
If we examine the mainstream treatment of Donald Trump in the 2016 election, it basically was with kid gloves. Corporate bias was in effect, it was less that it was pro-Trump and more that the extreme gyrations of the Trump campaign fueled huge ratings. It wasn't until the end of the campaign after he had been selected as the candidate of the GOP did coverage improve a little.
The mainstream corporate media has viewed left publications with nauseating prejudice. Generally there has been a blackout of social movement campaigns, unless it is so large it can't be ignored.
When it's time for war, the mainstream media quickly jumps on the bandwagon.
1
While this is valuable research, of more concern to me than "bias", which is a vague notion to begin with, is reliability - that is, will the source make stuff up and lie. Thus, the National Enquirer is garbage, while the NYT is not. And whether one likes the bias of the NYT or not, it can be easily established that they are far less likely to deliberately spread lies and rumors than, say, Fox News or Breitbart.
5
@tony zito, you miss the entire point of the survey, which is that people are compared against a control group of people who don't know the source.
A few times I have gone to the Fox website to see how they handle a story unfavorable to the president, and didn't find the story. By using the search function, I could sometimes find it buried, but i believe Fox consumers just aren't aware of much of the bad news, thus leading them to believe that other sources are spreading lies.
7
@Jennifer and MSNBC consumers are equally unaware of positive stories. Point proven.
1
There is no such thing as unbiased news. The first manifestation of media bias is when an outlet decides which stories to cover, which stories to ignore, and which stories to highlight.
I saw this in action when I volunteered at a non-commercial (and non-NPR) radio station. The station had no news department of its own and simply made the AP wire stories available to the announcers to choose from at the top of the hour.
Depending on which announcer was on duty, the news could be either highly critical of the current administration, highly supportive of the current administration, or full of fluff stories. All from the same source.
11
Most interesting to me is that the people with "no trust at all" and those with a "great deal of trust" in the news are both very biased compared to those with "a fair amount of" or "not much" trust. However, I wonder if this holds up when you control for the political leanings ("very liberal", "very conservative", etc).
2
Am I missing something, or shouldn't these figures add to 100%?
Percentage of large rating bias for each group
Trust of media:
None at all 46.9%
A great deal of trust 39.8%
Not very much trust 31.5%
A fair amount of trust 30.0%
Source Knight/Gallup
@Key Lime Pie
No, the percentages are the percent of people in each group who trusted articles more when there was no brand attached to the article.
So this shows that people who have extreme trust or distrust of the news are both more trusting of news when the brand is taken away from it.
2
@Key Lime Pie,
No, they shouldn't. Here's why: each of these groups is rated on its own bias. This isn't a survey of "which category do you fall in?", which would add to 100%. Hope that helps
Why do people not want to tell the truth?
2
This reminds me of an on-line discussion I had with a cousin's husband in 2012. I quoted a blurb from the Washington TIMES about a general's view concerning an issue between Romney and Obama. It was somewhat favorable to Obama's view.
My cousin's husband commented on what would I expect from the Washington POST. I pointed out it was the TIMES, and it had endorsed Romney.
We can have bias about how we read as well as where we read it.
2
@right-leaning liberal democrat
Read enough Washington Times and New York Post, and you'll understand why they're a dubious source.
Using the conservative "markets" mantra, the Washington Times readership puts them dead-center... on the fringe.
The big question is whether bias is passive or engineered. In our democracy, we get to vote and answer polls. Do we vote (eg for president) because we understand the myriad of issues and their consequences? or do we vote because the ads on TV or social media or demagogue commentaters push us toward bias via tribalism. The media have a conflict of interest, they need to get eyeballs and to get them they must have controversy. Controversy can be produced or amplified by the media. (Kavanaugh's alleged sexual assault fills the media and this begets more accusations, which gets more eyeballs, which gets more money for ads). Pictures of auto crashes are innocent enough, but inflaming tribal emotions is not. Our political parties get votes on non-essential issues, while we don't vote because we understand the implications of say TPP, or tax breaks for millionaires. We vote because we are conservative or liberal, often without knowing as much what that means, as we do about our Football teams. Money brings attention to the tribal colors and salutes, fostering bias. In the end are our votes are controlled by the money, through engineered bias? Are those guys trying to fool all the people all the time?
5
So, is it possible to link this so that it doesn't show that it is posted on the NYTimes? :)
17
@Acastos
Right click and hit save webpage. Go into the download folder and delete the NYT logo.
This will work if your trying to show your friend the article on your computer. To email it to them you have to include both the .html and the related folder that you deleted the logo from
How can anybody "trust" a piece of data when its providence is unknown? Well, a person could compare the data to other like dta of known worth. Or a person review the data for internal consistency.
But this article seems to be talking about "trust" of data in an information void and that just doesn't make any sense.
4
@Greg L
I'm taking a risk by responding based on the NYT article rather than the Knight Foundation survey and analysis, but:
A news article presents data and some sort of narrative to hold that data. So the consumer of the article can "fact-check" both:
1. The data for
a. internal and
b. external
consistency. (Does it "hang together" not only within itself but with what I know of the rest of the world?)
2. The narrative for the same two consistencies. (For example, does the author try to explain Christian Yelich's numbers by the fact that he's a Sagittarius? If so, then I will find all their evidence untrustworthy because I just don't believe that narrative.) Note that sometimes inconsistency can be good (see "contrarian investing").
Pieces that are all data with no narrative are hard to read but also hard to find. Mortality tables come to mind, as well as historical price data. (And those are sometimes fudged.)
1
I read a lot of news.. In the US ninety six percent of public media is controlled by a cartel of six media corporations. Those corporations are heavily invested in war weapons production, oil exploration & development, banking and healthcare .
Simply put, we don't have good sources of news in the United States. Other countries media, when published in English, is not all that much better. I read Indian papers, Russian, Chinese, Iranian, English, Reuters, aggregated news sources and whatever I can find that doesn't seem to be to heavily weighted with propaganda.
I actually subscribe to the New York Times although it's about as good as a Murdoch paper nowadays. But what can one do?
9
@Analyst we can talk to one another, which is sort of what we're doing here.
1
This is odd. I listen to NPR and watch MSNBC, and read the Wall Street Journal and New York Times. What does that make me, pray tell?
9
@Jagdar It makes you a truth seeker.
5
@Jagdar Well, based on the reported political bias of those agencies you prefer liberal to central bias. Most news agencies are slightly left leaning, in any case.
@The Jackal
"Most news agencies are slightly left leaning, in any case."
No, neither the evidence (through objective studies) nor common sense support your claim. Why would news or media be the only part of the economy divorced from market forces?
The news bias is CORPORATE. Generally, that translates into whatever maximizes profit through ad sales. News organizations have target audiences, and they appeal to their target markets to maintain loyalty. Shareholders ultimately care more about ROI than some liberal or conservative agenda.
1
From the article, I gather that bias was determined by how differently a respondant rated an article (knowing the source) compared to the blind readers' mean. However, what isn't fully clear from this article is whether the mean is the overall mean of all blind readers, or just those with a similar political persuasion.
This is significant, as a person with very conservative or liberal views will naturally trend away from the mean in their evaluation of news articles for reasons that have nothing to do with bias.
1
@Michael Exactly. Notice the unarticulated baseline assumption is that the named sources are objectively at least as trustworthy as an unknown source.
The term "brand prejudice" just jumps off the page. What a loaded term. It's claim is that a bad reputation has nothing to do with the brand but stems entirely from an irrational bias of the consumer. I think we have found where the bias lies.
2
I find the entire issue of bias fascinating. Most especially, I am surprised by the idea that bias is somehow "wrong".
None of us can avoid accessing our accumulated knowledge, experience and training when we interact with people or communications of any form. To assume that we can, is illogical.
Where does 'mistrust' differ from 'cynicism' and from helpful 'caution'? To some extent, open bias is of more benefit to potential consumers of media, as that clear-and-obvious bias is more readily identified, and the resultant analysis or self-analysis more readily exposed to query and counter-argument.
I would see the greater potential for evil being through silo-exposure of one kind or another. In other words, not so much in bias itself but through one's limited exposure to a single slice of (any) form of bias.
I do however, like that researchers continue to attempt measurements and benchmarks that might help us all better understand where our inherent bias might impact our assessments. And it's reassuring that such research receives high-profile exposure.
As pointed out in other comments, the potential for bias in the survey demographics and process is also highly important. To ignore potential skews makes the article appear to be directional, in a way that was most likely not intended.
Perhaps NYT can participate in a study of this nature, offering readers a chance to assess their own bias or inclinations in some way?
4
@Michael O
I think the study shows that reader bias leads them into their information silos.
1
"The lesson from this and other studies of discrimination is that withholding irrelevant information can enhance judgment."
Forgotten in that statement is that liberals believe that "irrelevant information" is very important as long as it concerns an "underrepresented minority". Blind admissions testing is good for musicians - but if you want to apply that meritocracy to universitie admissions, you are a racist nazi.
1
Physician heal thyself
I'm sorry to see my most trusted source of news and information, The Onion, omitted from this discussion
23
I note Al Jazeera is missing from the news sources researched...as are other non-Western sources. Are these not on the radar of most USA news seekers?
2
I grew up not thinking news was bias - news was 'facts'. Fox changed that - even their tag line seemed obsurdly ironic to me. Were they kidding themselves ? Or, were they trying to deceive us. My guess was a little bit of both, with some dollar $$$ to cloud their vision. Fox changed 'news' for ever, Spin became an art, and Fox blurred the lines between propaganda and news. Fox gives much more coverage to conspiracy theories than it does well researched journalism. It is incredible what has happened to journalism, but we can't blame anyone but ourselves - Fox is one of the most watched TV outlets in the US. Watching FOX for your main source of current events is as absurd as reading the "National Enquirer" for your main source of current events, but people still do it.
3
@S B
Fox may have taken a page from Pravada, but they actually report more news events than MSNBC & CNN. While the later make attempts at being more even handed, they report on outrage of the day to the exclusion of other newsworthy events.
No show on Fox or any other cable news outlet has viewership even close to the worst rated major network nightly news. Not even close.
1
Very interesting article. The problem I see in the media’s depiction of biased media is the question “do you trust the media?” I trust my media (NYT, WSJ, Economist, with late night comedy for social commentary), but I don’t trust a lot of the other media. So saying 75% of Americans distrust the news may mean 100% of Americans trust their news, and 25% also trust other news outlets.
Fascinating article. It would be cool to have a site where you can guess the sources of articles.
4
Very interesting article and study. I do, however, wonder how much meaningful can be learned from the following finding:
"If the article mentioned President Trump or Hillary Clinton, the bias was even more pronounced.”
Uhm, of course. These are two highly flawed, polarizing individuals with a boxcar load of political luggage and hypocrisy. Just their names gets people’s blood boiling. My own bias is such that both their names trigger negative thoughts. But this is surely true of all strong-willed, controversial politicians. And it’s worse in this age of take no prisoners politics
2
Confirmation bias is inherent in all of us, the natural tendency to respond favorably to that agreeing with what we believe or at least tend to favor. But it's more than obvious when bias is the very reason for the existence of far left and right sources for "news." Factual accuracy is quite evident in contrast to what is clearly more propaganda than information and facts/data.
I don't know if the supporters of Trump attend his rallies (as if the election is never over) simply to hear a dumb rich guy say what they think — if that's even thinking, or if they know they are a minority that is truly on its own with a limited lifespan — until the next election. Many may like his xenophobic lying and simply overlook his horrid persona — the orange clown.
In the end, bias regarding news is not going to be in Trump's favor, because even with biases a majority know where reality actually is or should be. Intellectual dishonesty is the stock-in-trade of those outside the political center, and that bias only appeals to the already intellectually marginal.
Eclectic Pragmatism — http://eclectic-pragmatist.tumblr.com/
Eclectic Pragmatist — https://medium.com/eclectic-pragmatism
3
Very interesting piece -- especially the bit near the beginning about women auditioning for a symphony orchestra. But it would be interesting to go beyond the "trust" rating to whether the "blind testers" sensed bias in the reporting. Were there particular words used that might trigger a response? Was there an "everybody knows" mindset that crept into the story? As an example, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation ran reports during the 2016 US Presidential election campaign that were palpably biased against Donald Trump. Yet it was that very type of reporting that would help fuel the perception of a "media elite" that was biased against him.
In short (too late, I know!), any time a reporter writes or reports a story that assumes basic facts about her or his audience's mindset and what is considered a Good Thing or a Bad Thing, that's bias. I believe the media should take a hard look at its own assumptions, tone and language choice before using a lab experiment to say that it's the audience's problem.
3
'NY Times readers are a 201% more likely than the average person to visit a website in the Gay & Lesbian category. This is perhaps unsurprising considering the progressive bent of NY Times readers, however it is notable because Gay & Lesbian is the most over-indexed website category across all major Lifestyle website categories (including Politics, Fashion, Beauty, Home & Garden and more).
Based on these findings, the New York Times may want to hire more LGBTQ journalists, pursue a partnership with an advocacy publication or build this topic out into a separate section within their navigation.
Political Minds
NY Times readers are quite politically engaged, and care deeply about domestic and international issues. They are 40% more likely to be interested in international events and 24% more likely to be interested in other cultures. Over a third of them would participate in a civil protest for issues they feel strongly about. The Politics section is massively popular, and the only section that appears in the Google listing for the New York Times.
Donald Trump remains the key area of focus for NY Times readers, who are 226% more likely than the average person to search for “trump” and 116% more likely to search for “trump news.” The Times’ investment in covering Trump appears to be paying off: in spite of the president’s vocal disdain for the publication, their paid subscriptions have actually risen since the election. "
https://www.hitwise.com/articles/ny-times/
After reading the article then reading the comments I am appalled at the lack of critical thinking of both the writers of the story and the comment writers. The persons who respond to the poll (3,000 plus) had all respond to past Gallup polls and had given their opinions on other polls, 3,000 people represents .0000001 % of the US population, which, if you had taken a statistic's class would know that 4 people can shift the percent of any poll. Gallup contacts only people with "land lines" which is an indication of an older class of people, a built in bias. People within the last 5-10 years have moderated their political views when questioned by poll takers or out right lied to them.
In my old neighborhood in Omaha which was very upper class less then 20% had "land lines" and persons with cell phones and caller ID tend not to respond to "poll takers" limiting the reliability of modern polling (the last election was a perfect example). Gallup has a tendency to report to the client what the client expects to hear.
5
Four people can shift the percent of a poll? I believe one person will change a percent. Nonetheless, the number of people polled and the variability in the responses will dictate if four people changing their answers would significantly influence the findings of the poll.
Also- if you follow the link to get to the published report, you can read that Gallup now finds panel members via cellphones. But, I agree with you that polling is fraught with bias. I have never agreed to take one.
3
@scott allen - The methodological problems go deeper than that. You will notice that the whole study starts with the assumption that mainstream sources are credible. There are two explanations for why someone might give more credence to a story from an unknown source:
1) They distrust the named source ("brand prejudice") based zero reason or evidence.
2) They have experience of that source releasing plausible sounding stories which turned out to be biased or false.
The study assumes it's only and always #1.
It goes even farther by assuming certain other outlets are not credible: Fox, Breitbart, etc in order to correlate those affinities with the previously fabricated bias.
This is not science, just a self-substantiating narrative.
1
@scott allen The population of the US is 3 Trillion Now? Poll of 3000 = 0.001% if the population.
News flash, people, are biased and like to feed their preference with the news that confirms their values and feelings. This study would have us believe that consumers are static in their views and understanding of events around them and of course, let's break them down by political leanings just for fun. I have to remind my kids that words matter. The journalists' profession is choosing words, reviewed by editors and isn't some unintended byproduct of the story. Like the NYT's describing the story of an illegal border crosser waiting until the "prowling" border patrol passes. An excellent choice of word to stir up a negative connotation about Americans doing a very tough job. I believe that reporters and editors are people too, so that would suggest they also have biases. It seems we are told there is bias in every workplace and institution so, we must assume it is in the media too.
I find very few credible news outlets anymore. I am far more interested in who the reporter is, his or her track record and the quality of his or her sourcing. The trend of mixing news and opinion, along with anonymous sources has caused an enormous loss of trust in my view. News organizations might want to think a little more about why people would believe unnamed sources…oh, that’s right, confirmation bias.
When all else fails, blame the reader.
5
How was “news” defined? This is the biggest issue I see when it comes to bias. An article in Reuters or the AP isn’t generally a non-biased article. Fox and CNN do produce real news at times but the vast majority of their content is opinion. This is not my definition of “news” but it seems we consider “news” and “media” the same thing when they are not. This, to me, is what the biggest issue is right now regarding partisanship and the fight over the news. Focus on properly labeling opinion or “analysis” articles from the news and I think you’ll find less bias overall.
14
Harper Lee said, and I believe there is a great amount of truth in her comment, that we hear what we want to hear and see what we want to see. Expand that. We KNOW what we want to KNOW and discredit all else.
If you read any number of other authors, scholars, philosophers , you realize that as humans we contradict ourselves left and right. We are not consistent.
Also, we are way over our heads in terms of dealing with the world we live in. We may be able to create all kinds of technological trappings; however, we're a far cry from knowing how to manage them--internally/externally. If we'd been smart enough to hang with the chimpanzees just a little bit longer...
8
I have read and currently read for over 30 years the following: The NY Times, The LA Times, the SF Chronicle and the Mpls StarTribune. On any given day the stories presented are shadows of the other publications, up to a week time lagged in some cases, but the thrust is the same. How is that possible? There are rarely, these days, dissenting views from what I recognize as a Liberal to center Left argument. It has been decided, apparently, that any other viewpoint is inherently wrong headed or non factual on its face. I also watch Sky News and the BBC, having stopped watching MSNBC a few years ago when it went so far Left as to be a cartoon. None of the Right wing news outlets I have seen seem to care about anything but their idea of "resistance" to the MSM. Having a personal experience of the last 50 years of news exposure, I am disappointed in the whole lot. The Internet, you must be joking! Even my beloved NPR went off a cliff some time ago in a bid to stay relevant and started advocating, as did all the MSM, instead of simple reporting. I directly attribute this trend to the colleges and universities lack of breath in outlook and see little hope of change. Even the basic question in this article assumes that bias is a "bad" thing, not life experience.
20
@mikemn
Wrong leverage point. The problem came when journalist were trained to value "balance" over "objective".
We can also thank Milton Friedman for the decline in journalistic standards. He held that the _only_ ethical imperative of a corporate manager was to "maximize shareholder value," however the shareholders defined "value". Journalistic integrity is only justifiable to the extent it supports the shareholder's value(s).
2
So if I assign different Truth Probabilities to Fox than to the NY Times - I’m “biased.”
Some of the left echo chamber words and conclusions in the Times annoy me, but they are honest mistakes. Fox, however, ofttimes just plain lies. Thanks researchers, but I’m not about to leave my informed judgement at the door.
15
Interesting , but hardly definitive conclusions. I would've self-selected the "very liberal" category but would not have been happy with that. Why?
The premise of the study seems to be that some news is virtually unbiased and that is the standard that should act as a reference mark in assessing the bias in other articles, presumably of lesser quality than those that "lacked" bias.
I read the NY Times as a primary source and check in with PBS from time to time. PBS seems to put somewhat more effort into touching all the bases, I suspect in attempting to mollify critics that hound it. These people are unlikely to be happy with anything that PBS does until it's defunded.
The same folks hate on the Times, which being better funded concedes less in its editorial line.
To me, the difference between the Times and PBS is inconsequential. Both largely hew to the line that capitalism is a good thing just needs a little more regulation. I consume them nonetheless, because I can read between the lines on both. I could do the same with Fox News, but with far more limited effect, mostly because there is so little verifiable factual content in the reporting of most conservative news sites.
Having a sustained and radical news context isn't something I expect from either the Times or PBS, but there is factual fiber in both that I can still filter through my own biases to arrive at my own conclusions. There is little to no fiber to chew on with conservative news. Plenty to laugh at, tho.
5
Like this.
People can go browse the same internet, and read the following:
White is gray
White is black
White is white
And they will only look at the one sentence that matches their beliefs.
Facts, figures, logic and more do not count when emotion gets on the way.
The NYT can publish 20 pro Trump articles right now and not many will read them. But post one making fun of him, watch the comments top 1000+.
You cannot get rid of this. People will only look for what they like.
What you can do is try to be unbiased yourself, and less of a cheerleader for the DEMS, example, just today on the mini crossword, you put the name ‘Beto O’Rourke’ as an answer. No sir, do no do that. It clearly shows whose side you’re on.
Keep it middle of the road please, the cheerleading sport were taken by MSNBC, CNN and Fox already. You’re better than that.
5
Two important extensions of this study not mentioned is that conservative news consumers:
1) tend to rely on far fewer sources of information. Where those who read the Washington Post or PBS Newshour read, watch, and listen to a wide variety of sources, conservatives rely on one, sometimes two biased sources, and more often television news.
2) are the least-informed. Repeated studies since 2007 have revealed that Fox News viewers are less well-informed than those who read/watch no news at all. Now, MSNBC is not far behind but those who listen to NPR and watch Last Week Tonight (yes, really) are the best informed by a good margin.
When the above is combined with this study, the implications are profound; Conservatives (and thus GOP voters) are genuinely living in an alternate news universe, are poorly informed, and are no longer capable of using information to make sound decisions. Their echo chamber is highly-concentrated and quality is of less import than a conservative brand (as seen in this study). The net result is that if democracy is to remain functional, a major initiative to combat this poor judgement and poor reasoning skills will be necessary.
7
I wonder if anyone commenting here is actually surprised by the results of this "study." It's amazing to me how much time is spent explicating the obvious. Bias is inevitable, even among those who militate for critical thinking. Bias arises from our values, which are formed in a variety of ways. What is important is that we are aware of our biases, and not allow them to cloud our judgement. I was amused when, in the wake of the Times article on Rosenstein earlier this week, how many loyal readers threatened to cancel their subscriptions because they didn't approve of the article. I don't know how many subscriptions were actually cancelled, but if those folks only choose to read what they agree with they may soon run out of sources. Next study: correlation of political bias with beer consumption.
3
I choose news outlets based on my expectation that they have well-trained reporters and editors who know what news is, versus those who throw gasoline on a fire to increase ratings. However, I see much more editorializing of news than when I started out as a reporter 40 years ago, and I don't like to see that. Word choices matter - I don't see the carefully neutral framing that I was trained to do. Report what people do and say. Provide context. But be careful about characterizing it - let their words and actions speak for themselves.
10
@Kilroy71, I agree strongly. Looking through the NYTimes and the Washington Post today (and even AP news), there are a lot of opinion pieces and the majority of the news appears to be about politics.
1
How do you measure bias with a government- both houses and president-don’t want to be bothered with facts, but assign blame based on prejudice? No problem solving here.
7
Something seems strange when the New York Times and the Drudge Report are running neck-and-neck in anything, let alone ratings about bias.
1
Interesting that the NYT would publish this article about an apparently seriously flawed study just days after running "Why Polling can be so Hard."
I cannot find any evidence within this article that the study actually addressed what it purports to address. The only concrete conclusion I can draw is that some people are biased for or against various news sources by name, but there is no clear explanation of how a "large rating bias" was measured or even what it means, given that the accuracy of the articles themselves was apparently "irrelevant" to the study. Consequently, there is no evidence of the news sources themselves being biased, just that some participants judged them to be so.
2
Problem is that people are just not taught how to think critically or how to do unbiased research and that is true of both the highly educated and those with a basic education. Neither are people taught to be self-reflective or aware of their own personal characteristics, preferences and biases, all of which contribute to tribalism, tunnel vision. Add over-indulgence in good old instant-gratification and the self-reflecting bubble, and it's a perfect storm.
As for source being important (not so much), no news outlet is 100% trustworthy and no news outlet is 100% untrustworthy. Propaganda on the other hand is easy to spot on news channels - it dictates a mandatory response from its audience using drama, loud, censuring, shocked voices replete with clownish facial clues to double-down on the message. The archetypal snake-oil salesmen and carnival barker's selling their wares.
These days, the only sources I want to know for sure are, is this the Onion, Borowitz Report or some other satirical column - I often do a double-take, the two are sometimes indistinguishable in this current climate.
btw: I highly recommend PBS News it allows all sides the opportunity to say their piece without fear or favor and it offers in-depth follow up information from all sides plus news from the world, a place you wouldn't know existed (except as a volatile state) if you only watch other channels.
6
Just yesterday I was wondering what was going on with Michael Avenatti with regards to Kavanaugh, so I googled "twitter Avenatti" my first result was from Breitbart, assuring its readers that Avenatti did not have a third victim as his client, but had been himself the victim of a prank by 4-Chan participants who had called pretending to be victims. Am I biased because I don't trust anything they say, or just a decent human being applying common sense?
7
@MR the latter.
2
Could Upshot create an interactive version of this study so that your readers could test our own bias?
6
So... am I biased if I reject news from a biased source?
6
Talk about bias. Back in the 80s I remember we used to discuss whether a women could be elected president. When Hillary was running I was surprised there was no mention of it. Even when she lost it seemed no one was willing to talk about the concept. Is it bias when you can’t even discuss certain things?
4
The source is NOT irrelevant info. "Consider the source" has always been important for credibility rating. Part of getting to know a person/organization is establishing their cred-quotient (CQ). Not mere % of truths; also due care, peer review and correction policy/practice (Trump doubles down).
True--reputable sources can be wrong/false; disreputable sources right/true. No source is infallible--necessarily right/true.
Ad hominem arguments--Abusive (Trump's fav), Tu quoque (But you do it/believe it), Bad association--are fallacious because they do not prove 100% the falsehood of what was said.
But proof does not make a proposition true; it makes it rational/logical to believe it. Typically based on other beliefs--on and on. Persistent liars can sneak in a truth, but the record demeans credibility.
University professors typically take 8+ years of university--being graded to get a PhD; another 5--more peer review--to earn a non-probationary contract (shifting the burden of proof in dismissal cases from prof to university).
So too professionals. 8 years from Bachelor's to MD + 2 or more of Residency--years of peer review--to get licensed. But always subject to the licensing--overseeing body--College of Physicians.
So too tradespeople--from apprentices to journeymen/women.
News media often lack educational/licensing requirements. Social media/internet are worse.
But sources differ re CQ. Deferring to good ones is NOT a bias. Experience and track record also matter.
4
Bias sells. The huge amount of money made by Fox News proves it. As media of all kinds atomizes its markets, holding on to a smaller, but dedicated market, is the one guarantee of high profits. The WSJ does not play that game, but then it is the rare survivor in the middle lanes. Others following its path have died or are dying. The NYT tries to be both, many standard news stories that are similar to WSJ, but an increasing number of op eds and near op eds that espouse its editorial view. Other smaller newspapers, facing dropping readers, have to pick a side and flog it over and over. Why would not readers see increasing bias? Capitalism relentlessly drives outlets to be more biased.
34
I respect the WSJ, but if it is not the epitome of a journal serving a small, dedicated market, I don’t know what is. And it’s bias in how it selects, edits, headlines, and places articles is inescapable, and no more neutral than the NYT.
4
This study design (removing media labels and presumably bylines) seems inadequate for measuring reader bias. If news media source preference is the key outcome for measuring reader bias, then a study where the same articles are consumed, but where the media labels are randomized, would better control for potential overt or covert bias in the source material.
3
I’ve listened to NPR’s Morning Edition since the inaugural episode in 1979. I think the bias by presenters/reporters started showing up as they began commenting, rather than just reporting on the stories in the mid 2000s and increased more recently with the presenters/reporters who can’t form a sentence without the words “so”, “you know” and “I mean”.
But the greatest change was the ending of fairness doctrine during the Reagan administration.
10
Interesting that the study apparently did not consider some of the conventional techniques taught in journalism schools that are designed to increase the credibility of news writing for readers. These would include seeking comments from as many sides of the story as possible, being sure to seek comment from those accused or criticized, seeking comments from relevant and authoritative sources, avoiding the use of anonymous sources or at least explaining why it it was necessary and giving as much circumstantial information about such sources as possible to help the reader to judge credibility, avoiding the use of loaded adjectives and descriptive phrases, attributing key information to identified and reputable sources and giving the reader help in assessing their credibility where useful.
As a former newspaper reporter who tried to use those techniques and others to make my stories as credible as I could, I'd find research telling me if I was wasting my time or not. Editors as news organizations like the New York Times and the Associated Press who spend a lot of time enforcing these techniques as a way to build and protect their organizations' reputation for fairness and credibility would also be interested, I'm sure, along with legions of journalism teachers.
8
Reminds me of the Woody Allen quote, "when everyone is out to get you, paranoia is just good thinking."
Here, an increasing number of news organizations ARE biased, so people express their observation of bias. The problem with how this article is presented is its unintended inference that news itself has not changed.
What would have been more useful to this article to is track how news reporting itself has changed, and then presented both graphs with comparisons.
It would have shown that not all news organizations are biased equally or in the same way. By measuring the rate of "factual accuracy" in news reports, which many journalism researchers continually do, it would reveal two things: 1) That the "perception of bias" parallels the actual "truthfulness" of news organizations over time (confirming people's gestalt perceptions), but 2) those news organizations that are genuinely truthful AND infuse a minimal level of opinion within their reports have seen their bias ratings drift leftward.
In short, the most credible news organizations are perceived to have a liberal bias, even though they aren't. But it's not as though such a problem is easily solved. Today's politics require those neutral organizations to "appear non-biased" by including increasingly conservative points of view. This gives them the appearance of being balanced, which has the unintended consequence of giving the observer a perception that fringe points of view have more merit than they actually do.
17
@argv01 Your last sentence is as valuable as the last paragraph Jonathan Rothwell's article, on whicih we are both commenting. As a retired librarian, I am sure that teaching critical thinking and how to separate fact from fiction are the only way for Americans to gain the respect of the rest of our world family.
3
The relevant question, which doesn’t come up here, is whether readers, watchers, or “consumers “ of various news sources informed or misinformed (an objective question assuming we agree on what is truth). That study was reported years ago. Fox News viewers are consistently more misinformed.
5
Anyone can prove anything is they begin with their conclusion, then look for facts to support them. Sigh...
4
I have always adhered to the mandate from The Founders, ostensibly repeated to a person standing outside of Constitution Hall by Benjamin Franklin: “We have given you a republic, if you can keep it”.
I trust no one source, nor a grouping of ideologically affiliated sources, for information concerning “My” government.
I strongly believe that this article is spot on.
Unfortunately for me as a Citizen, and for “our” republic writ large, the so called Information Age has failed to deliver on its basic premise, only intensifying the enmity amongst Americans from differing walks of life.
Either we find a way to mitigate that serious problem, or we will suffer the same fate as previous attempts at democracy.
20
For a while, I regularly read articles about the same topic on multiple news sites, from Breitbart and Fox to NYTimes, NPR and CNN. In general, I found very similar coverage in the body of the article, often adopted from the AP or Reuters. What varied most were choice of stories, headlines and story placement. My experience has led me to skip the front page and (try to) ignore headlines and even titles. The reporters themselves seem to do a solid job reporting. I would lay blame for any bias on the editors who select and title the pieces.
95
Agreed and also repetition in story updates day after day.
10
It is reasonable to take into account the source of your information when evaluating its accuracy. When someone you believe to be honest and reliable tells you something, you're liable to believe it. When someone with a history of lying tells you something, you're liable to discount it. Making these decisions based on the information source is not bias.
10
Laughably flawed. The analogy of the female musicians is completely irrelevant. The music can be judged on its own for actual quality and value, while the source of information, and therefore its trustworthiness, is an essential element in assessing it. Even with gossip...'consider the source'.
Without knowing the source of a story, most people will adopt a 'sure, I guess, sounds right' attitude about any information, so your groups would cluster towards the middle.
Readers of the Times, even Republicans, know that truth is deep in its DNA. It is run by humans so is flawed, and sometimes badly. Because Trump has proven to be a liar with no interest in democracy, the Times appears anti-Trump. BTW, they were pretty anti Hillary and anti Sanders, too.
Fox is proven to be a mouthpiece for Trump and the GOP, so it is right to distrust it unless you like Trump and the GOP. That is not 'bias'. It is 'critical thinking'.
21
I recommend subscribing to The Flipside. It’s a daily summary of views from the left and the right on a single issue. Quick read but helps me see another perspective on topical issues. https://theflipside.io
The biggest piece of the puzzle missing concerning bias is “ people believe what they want to believe”: If you’re among the one percent you want to believe those tax cuts will trickle down to the rank and file, if you’re a Democrat you want to think The A.C.A. is a terrific health care solution, if you’re an unemployed garment maker or former wholesale seller you want to believe those New York Designers who sent the jobs to China to add to their collection of art, cars or homes regardless of American jobs lost are jerks: and everyone except the one percent have a valid point, so of course you’re going to read the source that best supports your beliefs. On the other hand with the amount of money floating around “ K” St. whether in support of Israel, Ukraine or Russian Oligarchs, for those of us who care to dig deeper, it’s hard to believe much of anything. BTW I would like to add to your list the F.T. which presents a pretty balanced narrative on most subjects and has some of the finest journalistic talent of any publication, I’m sometimes surprised when reading an article by Rana Foorhar that Im reading what one not knowing would expect to be a narrative heavily leaning to the pro business set and she accurately presents the failing of the international business community, a breath of fresh air. Lastly, There were too many great journalists cut at The Times, bring back Bill Keller.
5
We all have opinions, and varying incomplete information about topics and issues; readers and reporters alike. We have different realities based on our opinions and incomplete information, whether from predispositions or fact-finding.
We are all biased, whether profoundly because we are content with our relative ignorance, or less substantially because we try hard to remediate our lack of information.
The best sources of ignorance remediation, not given the emphasis it deserves here, lies right across the divide, the isle, the differences we represent: each other. We can read, but we often won’t read what doesn’t fit well with our predispositions, or we can talk with others, but don’t if they aren’t like us!
This is the tragedy of our times. We are aggressively ignorant!
2
To educate the public in a bias free atmosphere I suggest that newspapers are published WITHOUT a name.
Does freedom of the press mean free from government censorship, or freedom to lie without restraint? Does the word bias conflate the issue between fact and opinion? Help.
4
Instead of ranking both reader bias and media bias, why not do a retrospective 20/20 hindsight analysis? As in, take a complete range of media sources from a specific incident in, say, 2003, and -- viewed from now, 15 years on -- see what media came closest to being correct on issues from who would play the best baseball to the existence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
What stories best reflected what was happening at the time?
If it turns out that those who said nothing -- or as close to nothing as possible -- were most accurate, the analysis would need some tweaking.
But to try to judge whether or not readers project more bias outward than they receive from more-to-less biased media is a deeply flawed project to begin with.
It's a chump's game, and whoever paid for it was the dupe.
9
Critical reasoning skills help you navigate a lot of things in life including which news media are biased although it takes a little more introspection to know when you are contributing to that bias. I wonder how the bar graphs would stack up if you grouped the perception of media bias based on amount of education. My guess is that there would be an inverse correlation between trust in Rush, Breitbart and Fox and education level.
4
Is anybody surprised by this? Nobody likes to learn that their world view is at odds with reality. And the more it is at odds with reality, the less they like to learn it.
4
Your article reflects my own position on bias. I personally do not have any far right sites (including Fox) on my Facebook news feed, although I frequently visit them. I also usually brush off the far left as well. I understand the difference between actual news and opinion and how various sites create opinion by how they present stories. Having said that, I would call myself very biased, although in real life I tend to consider my politics as only somewhat liberal.
5
Thanks very much for this information. It seems to be the most believable, well designed survey I've seen lately.
The results clearly show how brainwashed the radical right has become with Rush Limbaugh and fox so-called news consumption.
I am an independent voter with a background in newspaper advertising management and have great faith in newspapers collectively. However, I scan 10 to 15 online newspapers each day I can to get a more clear picture of what is going on.
Do you remember when Barbara Walters said, when she was a television anchor, "We watch the news so you don't have to"? That is a VERY dangerous thing to buy into. Every media source delivers the "news" they want us to see. We must be diligent in getting to the truth.
I must admit I watch Rachel Maddow every night on MSNBC at 9 pm ET because she asks the tough questions of the day and gets to the bottom of things. I trust her. Thanks, Rachel!
16
@njglea I agree Rachael is tops as is Fareed Zakarahia.
5
Ah, to Paraphrase principal skinner...Am I the biased one? No, its the readers who are!
But, jokes aside, all information is going to be somewhat biased, I just wished the NYT owned up to its own biases.
The Economist has been explicitly the newspaper of Classical Liberalism since 1843, it has recently done a fantastic piece restating its mission and views in its 150th edition.
It has never claimed to be anything other than what it is, and makes no claim to be perfectly objective.
It may seem odd that I trust a source that is clear about its biases, but that is because I know exactly how this paper is approaching every issue it reports on. Similar things can be said for National Review, which is an explicitly conservative paper.
Neither tries to actively misrepresent the other sides point, but you know which side they back.
11
It's all about money. The media is selling to an audience and they cater to their wants. No wonder there is so varied programming - as there are so many different cars - simply selling to an audience.
2
Bias is not necessarily wrong here. If a weather reporter tells me that a storm is coming tomorrow, I will believe them. If an astrologer tells me the same thing, I won't.
Similarly, I trust the NYT to fact-check its articles, and I have no such trust in Breitbart. This isn't liberal bias - it's an accurate assessment of the two news outlets.
If I participated in this study, and if I read one of the blinded articles, I would look for keywords and other such flags to try to figure out what the nature of the source was. I would then rate the trustworthiness of the article according to my guess as to the source. If this approach showed me to be less biased than when I knew the source, it would only because I would sometimes guess wrong as to the source, so there would be some regression to the mean.
16
Hypothetical; as a blind subject, I read an article stating “ There is no collusion”. One is from the NYTimes, one is from...a conservative newspaper. Do I trust it, not knowing the source?
Or I read, in all forms of media, “Global warming is a myth”. But none will name a source for the view. If I later learn that the quote came from the president, does it make a difference? If it came from a scientific panel after years of research?
Source matters. Trusting, not trusting a source, often comes from years of listening, reading, finding trends.
Last week, a NYTimes article blamed increased childhood ear infections, respiratory problems, SIDS on second, third-hand cigarette smoke. Yesterday an article on breast feeding blamed those same three problems on....not having been breast fed. I trust the NYTimes. The authors of either of those articles? Ha! And where is the very old Canadian study outlining some of the problems ( neurological, as I recall) smokers don’t get? Not anywhere to be found in our .....biased....media.
I like CNBC, CNN. But increasingly, they have some conservatives on. I mute them, as I mute the president. Call it the...trust button.
5
I find this study to be a bit bizarre. We read, listen to, or watch news media to learn about the world we live in. If we already have broad knowledge of a topic, we can reasonably judge the accuracy of a news report. Lacking such a background, we have to judge the claims based on the reliability of the source. In my experience, the NY Times, NPR and the Washington Post are reliable--they actually go to considerable length to verify their claims. I don't read Drudge or Breitbart, nor do I watch Fox "News", because of their history of extreme bias, and cavalier approach to the truth.
Knowing the source of an article, e.g., the NY Times or Fox "News", is part of the background information we need to judge whether to accept the claims presented in the article, or to remain skeptical of those claims. I do not consider that source of information to be "bias". If you take that information away, as in the blind reviewer group, there is less basis for judging whether or not the article is trustworthy.
40
False equivalency is the most serious bias and single greatest source of the growth and spread of false news. Interviewing pathological liars like Kellyanne Conway is not portraying the other side of the story. It is giving it a platform on par with the truth.
This study presumes that media sources are equally accurate and that is factually false. Fox, Brietbart and other such sources knowingly lie and distort. NYY, NPR and MSNBC do have their biases, generally unconscious, but they ALWAYS apologize and correct their stories when they make an error of fact. Fox rarely does so.
110
I wouldn’t put MSNBC in the same league as NPR or NYT. Their business model is based on outrage, not analysis or presentation of facts. They may be more honest than Breitbart or Fox commentary, but that’s a low bar.
Look at it like this: Facebook and Twitter are broken because their business model requires emotional content to keep eyeballs on the ads, and outrage is the easiest to falsely provoke. CNN, FOX, and MSNBC are broken in the same way.
3
"Consider that a reader’s trustworthy rating of a news article is the sum of the article’s inherent qualities, the reader’s personal views and brand prejudice. "
The assumption that an article has "inherent qualities" is misleading, unless it is mathematics, requiring no evidence beyond the article itself.
Otherwise, readers have a problem determining the reliability of evidence used in an article. Since in most cases only the most expert and vigilant readers have any idea how to solve that problem, skepticism is understandable, even where it is misplaced. Also, judgments of *authority* by various means, such as brands (such as the NYTimes) are an understandable short-cut in the absence of expertise, even when these lead to poor judgments.
From the abstract: "The first cycle of experiments conducted on the platform show a statistically significant decline in overall trustworthiness in conditions that reveal the news source. "
"Trustworthiness" in this sense is something that varies by perception, rather than an objective quality (or as objective as possible), depending on evidence and inference. So the study measures reader responses to brands or their absence, not whether readers have a good basis for judgment.
Journalists can do better, and often they do. Upshot is a good step toward reporting with clear ties to evidence. But journalism based on social science is very easy to get wrong.
14
The media bias that concerns us isn't the left/right bias of the partisan media, it is the 10% over the 90% bias of the purported mainstream media. The news hole is filled of by and for the corporate hierarchy and the sufficiently embourgeoised managerial class (including those news hole content generators) that tends to their every need. For they are the advertisers and the moneyed demographic the advertisers want to reach. The rest of us are too lacking in capital to rate anything beyond the occasional passing nod to our existence.
1
I have a lot of brand-bias. If news is from somebody like NYT that has a high credibility, I trust it. If it comes from Trump (or Fox, perhaps synonymous), I generally do not believe it.
Brand-bias is necessary. One never should believe somebody who habitually lies. As a matter of fact, the most important aspect of assessing news is to consider the source.
73
News and analyses are written by humans. Everyone has a bias, whether they're conscious of it or not.
The media, for the most part is corporate owned. Parts of our media are partisan, by those organizations' own admission.
The 2016 news cycle was full of slanted reporting, some of it deceiving particularly on polling.
Readers noticed. They're distrustful and weary now.
Natural reaction in a highly polarized environment.
---
Notes on .@Axios’ “1 big thing: Epic political malpractice — at scale
https://www.rimaregas.com/2018/09/16/blog42s-notes-on-axios-1-big-thing-...
7
"What many pundits characterized as voter apathy was actually a voter revolt. The New York Times’ Nate Cohn published a pair of articles in which he deconstructs some of the refrains in the narrative the media followed all year, and another in which he admits that signs of trouble for Democrats were evident throughout the past election year. Why, then, did Cohn report as he did all year? He didn’t explain. But in these two pieces, Cohn only dissects some data even though the picture is even clearer than he exposes."
https://www.rimaregas.com/2016/12/26/progressives-liberals-arent-into-yo...
5
The study seems to made the assumption that the sources are not bias. As I recall prior to the 1968 election the Washington Post every morning had one headline favorable to Johnson and one unfavorable to Nixon above the fold, The predictability was reassuring and amusing.
The readers recognize there are at least preferences if not intentional bias. That is why readers look for material in articles they can verify and judge the general accuracy. And is why some readers downgrade articles that begin with opinion.
7
We need to stop talking about bias and start talking about propaganda. Rush Limbaugh, Fox News, and Breitbart are propaganda. They start with the conclusion they'd like the consumer to draw and alter facts and skew stories in order to convince the consumer of that conclusion. They also inoculate the consumer against other sources by repeatedly telling them they can't trust anyone else. This is not simple bias.
Bias is simply having an opinion, which everyone has, and it will color coverage. There is no avoiding it. But trustworthy sources work with the facts they have and draw conclusions from it. Of course those conclusions take previous experience into account (bias?).
Putting trustworthy sources and propaganda on the same scale only serves to further confuse people into thinking these are just different shades of the same thing. They are not, and until we start drawing those lines, people will not be able to see the propaganda for what it is.
130
@Peter Stern. I believe you are blind to your own bias. MSNBC, CNN and other liberal outlets also offer propaganda. As does consistently the NYT.
Another way to say it is that they long ago abandoned objective journalism for aggressive political advocacy. They're just better-mannered and more palatable than Mr. Limbaugh.
I surf through all these sources to cobble together an approximation of the truth. It's exhausting. But, per the chart, the WSJ is the most sober and reliable source. Though not without bias.
6
@Peter Stern So I guess we should ban them like Alex and we can all watch CNN??
2
No science to my choice of media , at least none I did myself.
A while back , I read , from a source I trust , a study of truth in the reporting of various news sources. The study was done by a University I also trust (but verify, thanks ,Ron) . They simply fact-checked it all over a period of time .
Not very scholarly , on my part , anyway.
This study noted a difference in the news as reported by Fox vs. that of CNN . The difference was that , at the time they checked , CNN was around 80% accurate , which I consider dismal.
Fox factuality was 20% (approx) .
I don't watch either one , but I sure am biased toward CNN , by comparison.
8
Bias is so slippery
EG, according to polling data, most American would favor a tax increase to support soc security
Americans are overwhelmingly in favor of medicare/medicaid, as they understand this is the only way to prevent bankruptcy if a family member needs long term care
An overwhelming majority are in favor of the main focus of Obamacare (you can't be charged extra for pre existing conditions) and agree wit most of the other parts (esp children on parents plan)
yet these facts are not well known and not discussed except in "left" media
Therefore, only left media discusses things that the majority of Americans agree with
5
Most Americans favor a tax increase for social security that is paid for by people other than themselves. Also, for what it’s worth, Medicare has nothing to do with long term care.
2
People trust more when they don't know the source. Well, of course. Knowing the source is relevant information about trustworthiness. Goebels could sound very rational out of context. Anyone would rate his writings more trustworthy than those who knew the source. Those that know the source are better informed and making a better decision about trustworthiness.
The analogy to orchestra auditions is false. Words are not performance. The choice of subject and what to include and omit, as well as the spin are largely undetectable to a blinded reader. The blinded reader is less able to judge bias. Music is scored and the only variable is the performance. A totally different situation.
34
It's very simple: if you don't agree with Trump, you're clearly lying.
If you write something uncomplimentary to Trump, you're lying.
If you write something favorable to Hillary, you're lying.
If you question Trump's management ability, you're lying.
If you use science to prove a point, you're lying.
And so are the so-called scientists.
7
This would be a good article to include an interactive component, something we could do to test our own bias against people in the study
8
Here's an interesting fact.
I subscribe to both the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal so that I am exposed to reporting and ideas from across the political spectrum. I respect both, although each has their biases.
But the readers who habitually comment in either publication seem like creatures from different planets,
A comment section having 50% NYT and 50% WSJ readers would be interesting, but it would be a verbally brawl.
Or am I missing something here?
35
@Kenneth Johnson
Consider that graduate business schools expected their students to subscribe and read the WSJ daily as recent as 15 years ago. Fast forward to today and the total turnover of the editorial staff, and now our business schools no longer hold the WSJ in high regard and no longer expect it to be read by students. This change has been a tidal wave of a change....the WSJ was like a business bible but now its credible has soured.
7
Mr. Johnson, I have not trusted the Wall Street Journal since Rupert Murdoch bought it. He is intent on destroying democracy and governments with his inherited wealth.
4
citizenUS....notchina,
So what are students now reading in graduate business schools?
2
I think this is a dated study primarily because so many people now get news from curated articles in their news feeds. This propels people to a much deeper level of bias as they generally get news that reienforces their pre existing views. Granted those stories will mostly come from either right or left sources. But these digital echo chambers are doing more to blind people to broader points of view and increase their intolerance toward others who do not share their views than anything else. We are reverting to a tribal mentality where people who share a specific and narrow worldview gather in their digital villages and declare war on anyone from any tribe that dares question their beliefs and values.
13
If you don't trust what you read, look within? Sometimes, certainly. Now what we need is a study of mainstream corporate news articles or stories that examines the ratio of corporate-friendly spin in those articles or stories to the interests of the corporations which own the news outlets as well as the interests of the members of the Board of Directors of those outlets. This might begin to help us understand why Trump was given so much free coverage and dominated the 2016 campaign coverage.
9
The Text is more than the text. Every news consumer should read Roland Barthes' "Mythologies". The news is much more informative when you Read it as opposed to just reading it.
There is a serious problem in America today. The problem is that the vast majority of Americans no longer care about truth or facts, they only want outlets that will tell them what they want to hear. It doesn't matter whether they are on liberal, conservative, radical or reactionary.
This why we ended up with a "Liar in Chief" instead of a President.
10
@Elwood Nonnemacher
Exactly. People read news to be told what they already think they know, just like hard-core religionists who read scriptures to affirm their preexistent beliefs.
2
There are many kinds of bias and I am not sure that the media is as proactive as it should be to keep it to a minimum.
Journalists of generations past were from a more diverse background in schooling, social class and place of origin than what we see these days. They also were not often paid as well- especially the TV variety. If you are from the Upper Middle Class, went to Ivy League Schools and make an upper Middle Class or better income you may not be that well attuned to the realities of Main Street America or the working poor.
Our media is increasingly getting as bad as government with a strong bias in favor of a small handful of schools as sources for those reporting and offering opinion. There are plenty of great schools not called Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Columbia or Brown. Ed Murrow went to Washington State University, for example. There are plenty of others.
My biggest complaint regarding bias is the general bias in favor of right wing to center right guests and commentators on all platforms to include NPR and PBS- two Republicans and a center right Democrat is not a balanced panel. I would suggest the NY Times look at who gets paid to write opinion as there is no one person I would consider any farther left than centrist, but there are plenty of right wing and center-right voices. Apparently they can hire from the Wall Street Journal but not from The Nation.
And I am still more than mad over the Times treatment of the Sanders campaign and doubt I am alone.
26
It’s not us! It’s you!
22
The most important question is: What group of readers were correct in their assessment of the news? This would require that they consider articles in which the true facts could be determined without question. A “bias” can be toward what is correct or toward what is not correct. Bias itself is not the question.
52
The present media ecosystem is not serving conservatives adequately. Most of them flock to Fox, Talk Radio or Brietbart which are not really conservative, but more partisan Republican. This unlike what liberals have. Liberals have an array of media sources, and very few of these liberal sources can be described as partisan Democratic like MSNBC. I think the nature of our present media ecology is more to do with higher level of distrust among viewers of Fox, listeners of Rush, and readers of Brietbart.
4
@AK It is not a matter of 'Conservatives not being adequately served' is more a problem with the conservate's involved actual understanding of what The Truth is. Too many of them have gotten tied up in arguments with relatives and for That Reason alone, and to avoid looking like an absolute fool, keep up their extreme bias and fervently fight 'their version' of the truth, even when given absolute information that what they are backing is proven beyond doubt to be false.
Their Ego is on the line, and like Trump, it is their only real asset, and so they flaunt it.
It does not matter to them what the real truth is, they just Demand that they are Right, that their Singular Opinion outweighs the facts as found by Many.
They actually revel in the anger of their opponents, as has been described by right wing posters here and figures IN the News. If they are doing things just so that they can anger and inflame neighbors, family and other citizens, then they are not being Patriotic, they are not Supporting anything except the public destruction of what ever their ire is focused on at that moment.
The fact that they are actually driven to believe, and express these fallacious factoids has been driven by the loss of the Fairness Doctrine in broadcasting, and the subsequent rise of Limbaugh and Fox News.
Breitbart is a relative newcomer named after a disgraced hack journalist who used gotchya traps and heavily doctored films taken under falsified conditions. So why ANY credibility?
5
Good story, basically documenting what we have known for a long time.
Biased news media whether it be FOX or MSNBC do not tell the whole story, polarize views and it becomes they are the enemy instead of a objective showing of the news and letting the viewer decide.
Extremes are not good for a democracy. IMO nature allows them to keep us on our toes.
2
A key variable is not discussed - what is the content of the news stories? Presumably a politically neutral news story about an earthquake in Indonesia will elicit a very different, reaction than an article on the U.N. chamber laughing at Trump, even if both are reported objectively and the source is blind. Ensuring political relevance of the stories evaluated would add credence to this study.
8
One interesting point is the difference between various consumers. It is anecdotally odd simply because almost everyone I personally know that listens to NPR either over the air or on line also watches PBS. The same is true on the other end of the spectrum where Brietbart and Fox News viewers overlap. They watch Fox on television and go to Breitbart or the daily caller on line.
2
NPR and PBS are MIDDLE of the spectrum. You could consider MSNBC toward the other end of the spectrum
2
Reading and assessing a number of articles requires time. Since this is not available to the poor it implies that the readers in this study were better off than average and better educated.
Do they represent the people who are subject to the propaganda which seems to be a feature of right wing media which I gather is a fairly large proportion of what is available to the poor?
4
As I was reading (keyword = reading) I was wondering how they could control for broadcast media, and it’s obvious they can’t. However, a large portion of our society gets it “news” from that medium, and I have long advocated that if a person gets their information from television they are NOT getting the real picture. Possibly the only exception could be the PBS Newshour, though admittedly I haven’t watched in many year.
27
The PBS news hour is shown on YouTube. No crazy graphics, no manufactured stories, no pundit cage matches. It’s still the best TV news program out there imo.
1