The Myth of the Mainstream Media Bias

One of the prevailing myths on the political right these days is the liberal Mainstream Media (MSM).  That is the notion that most mass media disproportionately represent a liberal viewpoint.  The further one goes right from the centre, the more fervently this belief is held.

This idea is not peculiar to the right-wing.  There's examples of similar accusations of systemic media bias from the left too; the idea that the media represent corporate or political interests.  But most of the noise, at least right now, is coming from the political right.

As President of the (then infamous) University of British Columbia Engineers student body back in the mid-fourteenth century, I had some regrettable dealings with UBC's student newspaper, the Ubyssey.  I don't think I've ever run into a pack of misanthropic leftists since.  The student Engineers--brash, male-dominated, headed for prosperous careers building weapons and destroying the environment-- represented everything to be loathed by those folks, I suppose.  Not that the Engineers of UBC were angels; I and we did plenty to deserve some (but not all) of the bad press we got.  The gentle reporters at the Ubyssey may have espoused grand egalitarian ideas, but on a personal level they were just mean.  They would spend their evenings redacting the "Engineers" jacket logo from old university file photos.  Their explanation was they wanted everyone to look "representative"; the same.   Meanwhile they've got rings through their noses and their hair dyed pink.  I think the irony was lost on them.

Here's an old newspaper picture of me, as President of the UBC Enigneers,
returning the Rose Bowl we allegedly borrowed from the '92-93 Washington Hsukies.

Anyways, all that to say, if anyone should be predisposed to the idea of a liberal media, it would be me after that experience.  But I'm not convinced.

If the MSM are liberal, then why is FOX news the top-rated cable news network in the US?   Why do right-wing pundits like Rush Limbaugh and Charles Adler rule the radio ratings?   Why did virtually every major newspaper in Canada endorse the Conservatives in the last election?  It's not obvious to me that the MSM are liberal, though I'm a liberal myself, so I may not be seeing things with an unjaundiced eye.

So, I do what all good science-types do.  I went out to examine any academic studies on the subject.  Turns out there's loads. 

The one most often cited by proponents of the "liberal MSM" is a 1986 book called The Media Elite in which the authors--political science academics-- surveyed journalists and found that they tended to be more liberal, on average, than the general population.  I'm not surprised by that, actually.  I imagine a similar study conducted for, say, bank managers would find that they tend to be more fiscally conservative than the general population.  Engineers, also, are apparently given to have more conservative viewpoints.  Or so I've been told.

Let's assume that the study in The Media Elite was conducted impartially. So, even accepting that journalists tend to be liberal, does it necessarily follow that the MSM will necessarily be biased left?  I think that's speculation.  After all,   journalists don't decide what goes in a newspaper or on the air.  The owner ultimately gets to  decide that.  And media magnates like Rupert Murdoch and Conrad Black don't strike me as the most liberal guys. 

It's also worth noting that the book was written before the advent of the internet, the blogosphere and cable news outlets such as CNN and FOX.  Viewers now have coverage of news 24/7 and access to thousands upon thousands of news sources from which to choose, each applying its own angle.  Consequently, I would argue, the line between news and opinion has become more blurred than ever.  And scandals by various "respectable" news outlet mean that not even the staid old giants such as the national newspapers have the appeal to authority that they used to.

The right-wing is not alone in their accusations of bias.  Noam Chomsky, in his highly cited work, Manufacturing Consent, established and tested his theory of a the Propaganda Model and concluded that the media were essentially acting as an arm of established political and economic (e.g. advertising) interests.   He measures "column inches" of coverage of various issues and finds that "deserving victims" (those portrayed as victims by the US government, such as people in Communist regimes) got more press than "undeserving victims" (such as victims of US-supported right-wing dictators in South America).  I read that book but I never found his argument that convincing.  While reading his book, I could think of several counter-examples to his model.

Chomsky's book had the same fatal flaw I find with just about every study I've seen on media impartiality.  When these studies are conducted by those with a conservative ethos, they see the media as having a liberal slant, and vice versa.  It's just another form of advocacy science that is slowly subsuming science and the quaint idea of intellectual honesty and objectivity these days.

One problem I noted is that the studies almost always concern contemporary US politics . There is no historical or geopolitical context.  Is the media biased in other countries?  Has the US media always been biased liberal?  What about government-owned news outlets such as the CBC in Canada?  Or the Xinhua news agency in China?  Is the Chinese media liberal?  Does the term "liberal" even make any sense in that context?  To me this lack of any context is an indication that most of these so-called scholarly inquiries are political in nature

Another problem with almost all most of the studies is that --surprise, surprise--that so-called scholarly inquiries into media bias tended to confirm preconceived biases of those undertaking the study.  Studies by conservative think tanks concluded that the MSM were liberal, and studies by liberal think tanks found the news slanted to the right.   

Yes, we're introducing an old nemesis of this blog: advocacy science.  And the fundamental theorem of advocacy science:  Torture the data long enough and it will confess to anything.   (No that's not my line, but I wish it were!) 

I also checked Wikipedia, more for a laugh than anything.  Sure enough, their article on media bias is quite a hodgepodge, and a visit over the "talk" page for the article shows why.  It's full of people decrying the article in particular and Wikipedia in general as having a liberal or conservative bias.

And let's say that a Perfectly Objective Observer managed to conduct a Perfectly Objective study that determined irrefutably that, yes indeed, the MSM were liberal, or that the MSM were conservative.  What then?  Pass a law?  You do not want to go there.  Shame them?  If the media had a conscience there wouldn't be paparazzi.  Or start your own media enterprise--which is exactly what has happened with the blogosphere.

The fact is that if you are right-wing you will see a Perfectly Objective news item (if there were such a thing) as slanted left.  The further right you are, the more slanted it will seem.  If you fail to account for the fact that you are a biased viewer, if you assume that you are a Perfectly Objective Observer, then you will likely draw a false conclusion.  It's the Theory of Relativity applied to politics.

There's a political motivation as well.  Complain about a liberal bias, or a conservative bias, loud and long enough and maybe people will start to believe you, and maybe you can create the perception of bias even where none exists.   Maybe, if you can get enough followers or if you can get folks like Sarah Palin to run with the baton, you can even get media outlets to consciously swing their news to your political viewpoint, to counter the perception of bias.  So part of the "liberal MSM" movement is probably aimed at trying to move the "centre" towards the right.

Newspapers and networks are highly competitive enterprises.  Taking political viewpoints as a typical bell curve, the most profit is to be made by appealing to the centre. You can create niche markets to the left and right of centre, but that gets more difficult as you approach the fringes.  People who own media companies are interested in making lots of money--no surprise there.  You don't make lots of money by appealing to the fringes of the bell curve. You make lots of money by printing a paper that appeals to preconceived beliefs.  A buxom beauty on Page 3 doesn't hurt either.