Common Flaws in Claims of Bias
Lesson 7:2
You've probably heard claims of media bias in one of these ways:
"The news media (or "mainstream media") is biased"
"The biased news media..."
First off, generalizations like that are usually unprovable.
A credible assessment of bias must apply to a single news outlet or news report, not the entire “news media”(which in itself is a fallacy -- there is no one "news media"). A generalization like that is untrue on its face.
Another common fallacy is what we call guilt by association. If your brother does something illegal, does that automatically make you a criminal?
People say, for instance, that once an editorial in a newspaper criticizes a politician, the whole newsroom staff adopts that view and acts on it. Again, this is an over-generalization that is easily knocked down.
One bias you can easily prove in any newsroom: There IS a bias for stories that will catch people's attention. And what do audiences love? Stories about conflicts, change, and unusualness, with a touch of scandal. We might think that we don't like seeing yet another story on a shooting in a certain part of town, or only want to see logical arguments made on tv broadcasts, but viewership numbers don't show that thought to be true.
It’s tempting to attribute errors or unfair journalism to bias. You may have heard or even thought after watching an unfair story -- "that outlet is biased", but it's important to keep in mind the following examples that AREN'T examples of bias.
Editorials are not bias - Yes, they may exhibit more examples of a particular viewpoint over others, but responsible newsrooms are careful to not mix the jobs of journalists with those of columnists. In addition, these newsrooms should be careful to clearly label if what the consumer is reading is an OPINION, not news.
Advertising is not bias - While its true that news outlets may, run ads for various products and political candidates and issues, those are placed by sales departments, not journalists. Just because the local car dealer is one of the largest advertisers for a publication or station, that shouldn't stop a journalist from investigating them if they are price fixing the vehicles they sell.
Endorsements of candidates are not bias - During election season, the editorial boards of publications do in fact endorse political candidates. However, these fall in the editorial department of news organizations, not those of the journalists.
Although we've tried to avoid making too much of an example out of the President, this is a good place to bring him up.
During this current presidential term, it's easy to point to a number of news outlets and say that they're biased against the current President.
Whenever this topic comes up, it can be helpful to draw upon the concepts that we've raised. Is the outlet that one is accusing of bias consistently unfair in its coverage of the candidate? Do they twist the person's words, or unfairly frame a conversation?
It's here that you can also draw upon previous lessons when dealing with claims of bias or unfairness. When determining if an outlet is biased or if they have been unfair in their depiction of a particular subject, ask some of these questions:
First, what am I looking at? Is this news -- complete with verification, from an independent source, that is accountable for the information? Or is this just a lot of assertions given from one person's viewpoint? If so, maybe its entertainment, and should be supplemented with other information.
Then ask: How much does the source verify this information? Lean hard on verification in order to find evidence for the claim being made (this is covered in the next lesson). How good is that evidence? Is there some proof provided to help in strengthening the claims?
Then, use fairness and balance -- in some cases, wherein there are still pieces of information that are disputed in the story being told, you may need to hear from both sides. However, in cases where evidence clearly favors one side, it may be unfair to include much from the other side.