Bias+in+the+Media

=**Bias in the News: A Comprehensive Study **=

QUESTION: Is it possible to regulate or control media to completely eliminate bias from the media?

Info to get: - Examples of bias - Examples of regulation - Examples of //ideas// for regulation Analysing bias.

When we look at the news industry today, we think back to the propaganda-filled newspapers and broadcasts of WWII and think that we've come so far--there's no way that sort of news would be accepted now, when there are so many independent journalists investigating every side. Right? Wrong. News today is just as biased as it has always been, they've just gotten better at hiding it.


 * ++ In order to find out where, why, and who "created" the bias in the everyday media, it is critical to examine a few key questions.**
 * **Who are the sources?**
 * Many times, media (in every shape and form) rely too much on "official", government and corporate sources. On TV talk shows, frequently the guest's political point of view correlates with their fame and the political leaning of the talk show itself. Other sources are enormously underrepresented. Likewise, many government and corporate websites "whitewash" their own side of the story, vilifying their competitors and opponents.
 * In order for a news source to truly be impartisan, there must be input from all different sources--not pseudo-diverse interviewees who have been trained by the reporters in what to say. A survey by PBS found that PBS NewsHour's guestlist was 90 percent white and 87 percent male. No matter how varied the backgrounds of these white men, they cannot fully represent the general American populace, of which there is a multitude of races and colors, and at least 50.7% of which, according to the last Census, is female.
 * **From whose point of view is the news reported?**
 * In many cases, the political coverage of an issue will discuss the effects on a politician or a company's reputation, instead of those directly affected by said issue. For example, many stories on abortion focus on the "tough choice" confronting male politicians without quoting any women under 18--those with the most at stake in the debate.
 * Most economic studies focus on the effects on primary shareholders and corporations.
 * **Are there double standards?**
 * Minority youth who commit crimes are sometimes referred to as "superpredators" or as young delinquents fated to walk a life of crime. On the otherhand, adults who commit white-collar crimes like fraud and bribery are portrayed as people who are "good at heart", and simply made a mistake. Think tanks associated wiht unions are often identified as "labor-backed" while think tanks heavily funded by business interests are usually not identified as "corporate-backed.

Annotated Links Bias in the News--- Is there such a thing as "objective" reporting? Bias within media conglomerates --- "Ownership" heading MLA citation: Pawlick, Peter, and Ed Konczal. //Counterpoint: The Media Has a Conservative Bias//. //Points of View Reference Center//. Web. 15 Mar. 2010. .
 * [|www.fair.org/index.php?page=121]
 * []

Media conglomerates, mergers, concentration of ownsership --- first three paragraphs on page MLA citation: Shah, Anup. “Media Conglomerates, Mergers, Concentration of Ownership.” Global Issues, Updated: 02 Jan. 2009. Accessed: 18 Mar. 2010. <[]>
 * []

Look for cartoon about the New York Times MLA Citation: Cartoon. //Unambiguously Ambidextrous//. Web. 21 Mar. 2010. . People's opinions on conservatism in the media. Chart (visual!) "Policy Recommendations" for how to regulate media for bias. also talks about different mechanisms for influence in media, such as corporately funded research studies, etc. :) example of insane and paranoid media watchdogs; extreme distrust in the mainstream media.
 * []
 * []
 * []
 * []

"Media Bias." //Issues & Controversies On File:// n. pag. //Issues & Controversies//. Facts On File News Services, 28 Dec. 2009. Web. 15 Mar. 2010. .
 * General Media Bias: Bias In Journalism**

[found in Stoga Research Data Base "Issues and Controversies" from searh "media bias"]

The public's opinion of the American press is not flattering. Surveys indicate that the public increasingly distrusts journalists and considers members of the media, especially the national press corps, to be arrogant, dishonest and cynical. A chief criticism is that the press is not objective; an overwhelming majority of the public believes that the press presents news from a bias ed viewpoint and in an unbalanced manner. Criticism of the media is nothing new. While the First Amendment's guarantee of a free press has long been defended as an essential element of democracy, few political leaders in U.S. history have shied from claiming that the press presents partisan and distorted news coverage. But in recent years, criticism of the press has become increasingly harsh and far more prevalent among the public. In February 1997, 67% of Americans said that the press tended to favor one side over another when covering political and social issues, compared with 53% who said the same in 1985, according to polls by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press. Besides the common complaint that the media holds an ideological bias, there is also a rising cry over the apparent cynicism and inaccuracy of the press. Some observers blame increasing competitive pressure among news organizations to acheive high audience ratings for what they regard as the erosion of media integrity. They criticize what they say is a growing tendency among media professionals to exaggerate negative news such as violent crime, to intrude upon people's privacy and to dwell in sensationalism. While journalists generally acknowledge such problems, there is wide disagreement over what, if anything, can be done to solve them. Some favor new regulations or laws that would force the media to become more accountable to the public. Others insist that such proposals are a threat to free speech and would likely be unconstitutional. Still others contend that the responsibility for making changes in the media falls on the shoulders of the public, who as the consumers of media must begin to demand better news coverage.

At the turn of the 20th century, two journalistic trends began to develop that would each have a lasting impact on the media. In large cities such as New York and Chicago, fierce competition for readers led to the creation of a new kind of reporting known as "yellow journalism." The forerunner of today's sensationalistic tabloid press, yellow journalism focused on gossip and exaggerated and shocking news accounts of crime and political scandal to attract readers. "Advertisements," an embittered Jefferson commented after his presidency, "contain the only truths to be relied on in a newspaper." A second trend was the emergence of a class of journalists known as the muckrakers. Muckrakers such as Ida Tarbell, Lincoln Steffens and Upton Sinclair wrote often scathing articles on social and political evils of the time. Their exposés on topics such as child labor, racism and conditions in meat-packing plants galvanized public support for new consumer protections, labor laws and safety regulations. They helped to establish the media's role as a watchdog institution--one that works on the public's behalf to scrutinize business, government and other bodies that hold power.
 * Sensational Journalism:**

Another criticism of the media involves its apparent negativity and sensationalism. The press's need to attract viewers and readers, and thereby increase its advertising revenues and profits, some observers say, is creating a pressure for the media to dwell more heavily on shocking and sensationalized stories. They feel that the media, and especially television news programs, are now overly focused on negative news. The media have become increasingly willing to exaggerate news stories or highlight violent crime in order to draw viewers, they contend.

The idea that the press has a public responsibility to report the news fairly and objectively is often taken for granted today. Yet the notion of an objective press emerged only in the beginning of the 20th century. Until then, most of the nation's major newspapers were owned by political parties, businessmen or even politicians who used them to spout partisan rhetoric and attack political adversaries. //which sparks the question: is it really the job of the media to ensure neutrality?//

Sources for AP Prompt: Source A: In the 19th century, American journalists were openly biased, with papers actively promoting the fortunes of one political party over another. In contemporary practice, however, journalists are taught to strive for fairness. But some critics complain that the press lost that appearance of fairness when it adopted a propensity to offer analysis. “If you don't have any analysis in a story, you haven't done your job,” says Martin Johnson, a political scientist at the University of California, Riverside, who has studied the ** media **. “But then you're open to the criticism of injecting ** bias **. We want reporters to be thoughtful and analytical, but at the same time we want them to be objective and not tell us what they really think about things, and those are two entirely contradictory propositions.” As a result, many Americans today — convinced that news outlets are biased — are seeking out networks and publications that gibe with their own political views. The recent explosion in the availability of news outlets — with the advent of round-the-clock cable television news and the Internet — enables them to do that easily. Americans who once had to get their news from one or two local newspapers or a 30-minute broadcast by one of three networks can pick their own “politically appropriate” ** media ** — from right-leaning talk radio, Internet sites and Fox News to left-leaning independent ** media ** sources or newspapers from around the world via the Internet.

[] From: CQ researcher on ‘Stoga Database (search: Media Bias) MLA: Greenblatt, A. (2004, October 15). Media bias. //CQ Researcher//, //14//, 853-876. Retrieved March 21, 2010, from CQ Researcher Online, []. Source B:  Some aspects of new ** media ** may make ** bias ** more likely. For example, most blogs have very small staffs that may reinforce each other's points of view and stifle other ideas, says Pryor. "As a reader, you may have a hard time figuring this out," he says. In addition, wikis, such as //Wikipedia//, are vulnerable to malicious manipulation or errors that may be picked up and repeated by unwitting readers because they are checked by staff and other users only after being published online. In one celebrated example, John Seigenthaler, Sr., former editorial director of //USA Today// and a former aide to Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy, was the victim of false information posted by an apparent //Wikipedia// prankster. For 132 days, Seigenthaler's entry included the false statement that "for a brief time," he "was thought to have been directly involved in the Kennedy assassinations of both John, and his brother, Bobby. Nothing was ever proven." After discovering the misinformation, Seigenthaler — whose son John is a journalist with NBC News — said, "It was mind-boggling when my son . . . phoned later to say he found the same scurrilous text on Reference.com and Answers.com. At my request, executives of the three Web sites now have removed the false content about me. But they don't know, and can't find out, who wrote the toxic sentences. . . . I am interested in letting many people know that //Wikipedia// is a flawed and irresponsible research tool." While Google "is generally accepted as being 'clean' in terms of separating paid advertisements from sponsored ones," a hidden factor that may ** bias ** results anyway is "search engine optimization," which enables corporate sites to get to the top of search results by paying fees that total in the billions of dollars annually, said British technology columnist Victor Keegan." For example, he said, typing in something like "quiet family hotel in Venice" will take the user to hotel groups or online travel sites rather than to a hotel. Clemmitt, M. (2008, August 1). Internet accuracy. //CQ Researcher//, //18//, 625-648. Retrieved March 21, 2010, from CQ Researcher Online, [] .  http://library.cqpress.com/cqresearcher/document.php?id=cqresrre2008080100&type=hitlist&num=5  Source C:  One of the key battles over media regulation during the 1980s involved the so-called fairness doctrine. The doctrine was a Federal Communications Commission (FCC) rule that required radio and television stations to give balanced viewpoints on all controversial political issues. The FCC, which regulates television and radio broadcasting, first adopted the rule in 1949, but Congress passed it into law in 1959. The goal of the fairness doctrine was to ensure that the public had the opportunity to hear a balanced presentation of both sides of an issue during disputes of public importance. Anyone whose views or records were attacked on the air had a right to use the same airwaves to respond. Furthermore, newscasters who made editorial commentary on the air were required to give people with opposing viewpoints the opportunity to reply. Broadcasters had long opposed the fairness doctrine, contending that it violated their First Amendment right to determine the content of their own broadcasts without government intervention. Yet the Supreme Court upheld the doctrine's constitutionality in a 1969 case, //Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. Federal Communications Commission.// The court ruled that in giving broadcasters licenses to use the public airwaves, the federal government could impose the obligation that they present a variety of perspectives on public issues. President Ronald Reagan (R) opposed the fairness doctrine, however, and during his administration (1981-1989), he appointed like-minded commissioners to the FCC. In a 1985 report, the FCC assailed the doctrine as an infringement of the First Amendment that created an "unnecessary cost burden" for both broadcasters and regulators (print media were exempted from the rule). The FCC argued that because of the law, broadcasters might avoid politically controversial topics for fear that the treatment of such issues might prompt some viewers to sue them. The FCC also said the law was no longer necessary since the proliferation of new broadcasting outlets ensured that a variety of political viewpoints would be aired. In June 1987, the Supreme Court declined to review a lower court decision that ruled that the FCC could repeal the fairness doctrine without congressional approval. In August of that same year, the FCC voted to abolish the doctrine. Although many broadcasters applauded the FCC's decision, various civil rights and advocacy groups called the action a significant setback that could be used to muffle minority viewpoints. Some groups continue to press for a revival of the fairness doctrine, contending that it would help eliminate press bias and restore public faith in the media. "Media Bias." //Issues & Controversies On File:// n. pag. //Issues & Controversies//. Facts On File News Services, 28 Dec. 2009. Web. 21 Mar. 2010. . [] Source D: It is important to be clear about why the coverage has been so deplorable. It is not directly due to concentrated ** media ** ownership, or meddling CEOs, although the very firms that are now saluting "America's New War" are also going before the Bush Administration asking for ownership deregulation that will make all of them much larger and more profitable. The main reason for this distorted coverage is due to the way in which so-called "professional" journalism is practiced in the United States. To avoid the taint of partisanship, and to keep costs low, professionalism makes official or credentialed sources the basis for news stories. Reporters report what people in power say, and what they debate. This gives the news an establishment ** bias **. Even when there is disagreement, the range of debate extends only as far as does the disagreement of those with a vested interest in limiting the scope of the discourse. When a journalist reports what official sources are saying, or debating, she is considered "professional." When she steps outside this range of official debate to provide alternative perspectives or to raise issues those in power prefer not to discuss, she is no longer considered "professional." In matters of international politics, "official sources" are almost interchangeable with the term "elites," as foreign policy is mostly a preserve of a wealthy and powerful few.... At its worst, in a case like the current war on terrorism, where the elites and official sources are unified on the core issues, the nature of our press coverage is uncomfortably close to that found in authoritarian societies with limited formal press freedom. McChesney, Robert W, and John Nichols. "The Corporate Media Threaten Democracy." //At Issue: Media Bias//. Ed. Stuart A. Kallen. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 2005. //Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center//. Gale. CONESTOGA HIGH SCHOOL. 21 Mar. 2010 . []