| 
  • If you are citizen of an European Union member nation, you may not use this service unless you are at least 16 years old.

  • You already know Dokkio is an AI-powered assistant to organize & manage your digital files & messages. Very soon, Dokkio will support Outlook as well as One Drive. Check it out today!

View
 

Response 13 - YR

Page history last edited by Yashvir Riar 12 years, 4 months ago

Everyday people turn to their televisions to stay informed of global and national issues. We turn on our televisions to news channels and get updates on events occurring around the world. Over the past few decades a growing concern has surfaced regarding our media sources: bias. Dictionary.com defines bias as “a particular tendency or inclination, especially one that prevents unprejudiced consideration of a question.” Applying this to media, it is interpreted as skewing or modifying information portrayed to reflect either positively or negatively on a subject without remaining objective. Media bias is an unfortunate byproduct of public media as it does not allow the full details of any event to be known, it frames events and influences opinions of the viewers, however it ultimately falls on the viewers to not only use one news source and find other mediums of information to gain a full and impartial reporting on any event.


        When the term media bias is used, it must be understood to not refer to an individual reporter’s bias, but more on a larger scale to an entire source. We all see individual news reporters like Glenn Beck, an infamous conservative reporter who we know to have some level of bias. However on the larger scale it is a widely known fact in the United States of America that Fox News is more conservative in their reporting whereas another station like CNN may be more liberal or representative of Democratic ideologies. Media bias is most often seen in times of political change or in regards to politics in general, but is also known to come in four different forms; advertising bias, corporate bias, mainstream bias and sensationalism.

 

The most common form of bias that we are exposed to, and one that seems to have one of the more lasting impacts, is sensationalism. Almost every day we are exposed to news stories revolving around a horrific novel accident like a plane crash or some radical terrorist activity somewhere in the world. Although these news stories usually hold a high level of truth to them, they are misleading in that they give the impression that these events happen on a regular basis. With the world population almost at 7 billion people, events like these should be expected to occur at some point, somewhere in the world. However, that isn’t to say that affect the majority of the population in any way whatsoever. And to bring these sensational news stories to light to the masses, the media creates a sense of foreboding that such an event could occur at any time to just about anyone. Which, to say the least, is highly unlikely but even still, extremely misdirecting. Sensationalist news tends to draw attention from news of more local or personal issues by virtually overshadowing any slightly significant local matter regarding anything of a lesser ‘magnitude’.

 

This moves us into another popular form of media bias called mainstream bias. When one news source finds a piece of news deemed “important”, it is almost immediately picked up by another source to try and gain attention to their reporting of it. This is tied heavily to sensationalism as when a sensational news story is displayed; it tends to draw more attention from the people. In turn, if more people start to report it, they try and get more viewers to tune in to their source and add their own individual “flavor” to it. An example of this can be noted in the past years media coverage of the midterm elections of the Senate and the House. It was reported as a Republican win due to the fact that they won control of the House of Representatives in a November 2 article titled Republicans Win House Majority, Make Senate Gains in Wave Election (Fox News, 2010). Conversely, although the Democrats won control of the Senate, hardly any coverage was provided for this detail by Fox News. This reflects mainstream bias as it demonstrates an instance in which the mainstream conservative media tends to report more so for matters concerning the success of the Republican Party.

Focusing on this idea of mainstream bias today in the United States, Fox News seems to draw the most criticism for their lack of objective reporting, the Obama administration went so far as to call it "the communications arm of the Republican Party." (Feldmann, 2009). Over the past decade, especially in times of political change or duress, Fox News has openly rebuked Democratic politicans. Recently, there has been much coverage on the failure of the bi-partisan Super Committee which was reported to have been unsuccessful due to the discourse between the Democrats and Republicans. In a conjoined statement, the Super Committee was terminated with the declaration that “after months of hard work and intense deliberations, we have come to the conclusion today that it will not be possible to make any bipartisan agreement available to the public before the committee's deadline” (Ordoñez, 2011). Fox News states that Obama blames the Republicans because they “had scuttled the talks by refusing to consider tax hikes on the wealthy” (Reuters, 2011).

            The lack of objectivity goes mostly unnoticed by the frequent purveyors of each individual news corporation, be it Fox or CNN. This is mainly due to the fact that these networks usually portray a bias in their reporting which coincides with the beliefs or ideologies of those who frequently watch these networks, therefore reinforcing them. To declare that a news source has bias is not to say they never report the truth, rather, it’s that they don’t report the full truth often enough. As previously mentioned, especially during times of political or economic change, many large news corporations align or revert back to their political ideologies of either liberal or conservative reporting. Where Fox News is a clear advocator of the Republicans, CNN is, conversely, a strong advocator for the Democrats. In a report compiled by the Project for Excellence in Journalism in Harvard in regards to news coverage of the 2008 primary candidates, it was noted that CNN “cast a negative light on Republican candidates – by a margin of three-to-one. Four-in-ten stories (41%) were clearly negative while just for 14% were positive and 46% were neutral” (2007). Fox News, on the other hand, showed the exact opposite with more positive coverage for Republicans and more negative for Democratic Candidates. When observing the primary elections coverage for 2008, MSNBC was shown to hold the most objective reporting with a fair-share of positive reporting on all political candidates.

            While much of this paper has focused on the conservatively biased media, it is highly noted that Fox News is one of the only major news corporations to hold such a strong preference. Much of the media is accused for holding a much higher liberal bias. MSNBC provided data in 2007 illustrating the extent of liberal bias in today’s media. One of the FEC (Federal Election Commission) findings shows that “125 of those went to Democrats or liberal groups, 16 to Republicans or conservative groups, and two who gave to both. That’s a major advantage for the Democrats in the major media” (Aronoff, 2007). Although this source is quite dated, numerous blogs or public articles have been made public to demonstrate the true extent of liberal or Democratic favoring over the conservative Republicans.

            Honing in on the idea of a high liberal bias in comparison with a conservative bias in today’s media. In an article by Simon Maloy, he states that “One of the animating principles of the right-wing blogosphere is that the mainstream media are composed almost entirely of snooty liberals who work in concert to promote progressive interests, elect Democratic officials, and suppress conservative thought” (2011). Although this is just an opinion piece, many others such as are found online and in papers today that reflect the views on many people in society today which demonstrates how strongly people feel about bias in media today. Although it is apparent that most people do not like being left in the dark or not completely filled in, the large media corporations have yet to act on this. This is partially due to the majority of viewers being virtually overwhelmingly larger than the group which realizes and argues against media bias. Another notable factor here is that many people feel that although media bias exists in society today, it is ultimately upto the viewers to remain impartial by comparing and contrasting from a variety of sources when considering an issue.

            This does not always play out as it should. A notable cause for this is that for the most part, the working individual simple does not have time to properly delve into each issue to get a full and proper understanding. However, more than that, many people feel that it should (or is) a responsibility of corporate news to deliver news which is objective and free of bias to allow a free thinking society to weigh and judge for themselves. In a paper by Richard Alan Nelson from Louisiana State University, he states that “Bias is often said to be in ‘the eye of the beholder’” (2003) which basically means that although there is bias in media, that bias goes mostly ignored or accepted because of “cognitive dissonance” where we as people have a tendency to agree more with views that agree with what we already believe. Agenda setting in media is a term often used to describe an effort by media corporations to frame a certain issue while provided little to no information on matters of “more” concern.

            Agenda setting is evident almost everywhere, during the 9/11 bombings, the public was virtually bombarded with news regarding terrorism that before may not have been as prominent a threat. However, by focusing on one issue over others, media gatekeepers direct attention on that issue and raise more concern for these issues. The detrimental aspect of agenda setting is partially dependent on every individual’s disposition towards a subject, and the issue which is being framed. However, as Eugence F. Shaw states “Attitudes and behavior are usually governed by cognitions – what a person knows, thinks, believes. Hence, the agenda-setting function of the mass media implies a potentially massive influence whose full dimensions and consequences have yet to be investigated and appreciated” (1979, p. 101). This is quite a dated statement, however it still holds true today. Countless studies have been conducted by journalists and scientists to properly explain the true effects of agenda-setting, however for the most part, the true brunt of damage done by it is purely speculative.

 

Comments (3)

Yashvir Riar said

at 1:38 pm on Nov 29, 2011

P1: Says - introduces paper and thesis
Does - outlines a problem and how it can be fixed

P2: Says - Lists different types of bias in media
Does - Makes audience aware of different problems

P3: Says - Defines sensationalism
Does - illustrates examples and concerns related with one aspect of bias
Research: Wikipedia

P4: Says - Introduces another type of bias
Does - illustrates a known event's reporting and allows audience to be aware of the issue
Research - Fox News

P5: Says -

P5: Says - Another instance of bias in Fox News
Does - outlines the extent to which this problem occurs
Research: Christian Science Mentor, Charlotte Observer, Fox Business

P6: Says - describes the reason media bias goes mostly unnoticed
Does - Provides research data to outline exigency
Research - Project for Excellence in Journalism

P7: Says - Explains that there is more than just a conservative bias from Fox News
Does - shows the far reaches of the problem and how many people it truly affects
Research - Accuracy in Media

P8: Says - Provides testimony from a citizen regarding his opinion on liberal media bias
Does - Illustrates public opinion of issue
Research - Media Matters

Yashvir Riar said

at 1:43 pm on Nov 29, 2011

P9: Says - Introduces concept of agenda setting
Does - outlines another concern related to main issue
Research - Global Media Journal

P10: Says - Explains how agenda-setting is used and what it truly does
Does - allows reader to reflect on personal instances of exposure to this concern
Research - Gazette (1979)

marielle frattaroli said

at 5:02 pm on Nov 30, 2011

PEER REVIEW:

1) Comment on Exigence
Your exigence is developed fairly well. I have a sense of the exigence of the issue but it is never clearly stated in the paper. In your thesis you said that people never get the full side of the story. I think you need to evaluate on that a bit more. How does that effect them? What does not getting the full story do the audience?


2) Comment on the Evaluation and Proposal claims.
The claim is very clear, I can tell what your position is and what you are going to be evaluating but no proposal is stated yet.

3) Comment on Research
The issue seemed very well researched. It looks like you did extensive research on the different channels that provide different bias. I would suggest giving a few more example of how they are biased besides just elections. What other ways are these channels biased?

4) Comment on LOGOS or arrangment
Right now, the method seems unclear to me. It seemed like most of the paper was only comparing the differences between different news channels bias.

5) What is the strongest counterargument you can think of to refute the argument or a major claim in this paper?
The strongest counter argument I can think of is...let me think about this. I'll get back to you

6) Give the author the top two or three priorities in their next phase of writing/revision.
Evaluate more on the exigence of the problem and provide more
Develop a clear method. Maybe argue from consequence and give some more background information.

You don't have permission to comment on this page.