“Unless the brain finds a way to observe the universe, independent of the brain, every truth is subjective truth.” The pastor who never was. As we examine the validity of truth, one cannot help but turn his head toward those who set truth in the first place. Enter the media.
The media as we recognise it today influences a considerable portion of human life. With the vast level of information dissemination together with a heavy dependence for intelligence in developing world views, the media holds an unparalleled authority in dealing with matters of reporting the truth. Increasingly, social media algorithms unconsciously shape opinion through echo chambers and algorithm recommendations as consumers grow more and more attached to the strings held by the media.
In contemporary society, a growing diet for opinions in the forms of news op-eds or broadcasted talk shows suggests a growing indifference in the objectivity of truth.
What are some driving factors behind media bias?
Ownership
It is important to understand that no matter how much the principle of independence is upheld, journalists working for media outlets still function under corporate hierarchies. While against tenets of independence and incorruptibility of good journalism, it is understandable that media outlets tend to avoid publishing information that would in consequence be economically and politically damaging to groups within its executive organisations, parent companies or states, a decision which many unfortunately have chosen.
For instance, the South China Morning Post (SCMP) operates as a quasi-state-owned media outlet based in Beijing, the capital of China. A predominantly English media outlet with global reach, it is the source of countless pro-China resources, along with harsh criticisms of western ideals. As the largest English newspaper in Hong Kong, it comes at no surprise that its acquisition by Alibaba in 2015 sparked an uproar around the world with many concerned about its prized editorial independence.
An Atlantic article detailing the happenings within a Hong Kong-based SCMP newsroom presented how stories proposed stopped at the stage of editors. Notably in a story reporting on the Hong Kong riots, with an initial opening to a piece detailing “chaotic and shocking scenes” as officers went after “cowering commuters,” was denied and edited as a recount on how “elite Hong Kong police” had chased “radical protesters” wearing “masks” into the subway station – negatively painting those against the One-China integration policy.
It is important to note that in Hong Kong, numerous mainstream outlets have been bought by China-backed figures or pro-establishment businesses, shrinking the diversity of voices. This was a move not uncommon in China’s playbook, seen in Xinjiang and Tibet, where it sought to control the prevailing narrative within the media, and in turn, shift to a more pro-China slant.
How is media bias typically carried out?
Sensationalism
The idea of sensationalism takes a step away from objectivity and toward that of pathos (an appeal to emotion). Sensationalism goes into the manner in which a story is reported, typically pandering to public interests, outrage or sympathies at the expense of accuracy and objectivity. Sensationalism, while painfully present within the sphere of tabloids, are more often than not employed in traditional forms of media too.
Notably, among Conservative news outlets Fox News, Newsmax and OANN, where numerous allegations of voter fraud in the 2020 Presidential Elections were platformed and reported, much of the information claimed to back their arguments was later found to be anecdotal, unreliable or plainly false.
Sensationalism encourages cynical and disproportional responses towards issues and representations of the truth. This is especially damaging when dealing with delicate issues of public controversy, as such misrepresentations of the truth serve to only create pointless unrest with damaging consequences.
Image credit: Craig Stephens
Bias by omission
Typically in political stories, bias by omission occurs when authors leave out alternative perspectives, restricting the information received by consumers. It serves to paint one perspective instead of the full picture. This could be the result of a myriad of factors – political or economic affiliations, governmental ownership, or simply limiting perspectives within the media itself.
An apt example of such can be seen in China Central Television (CCTV)’s coverage of the Covid-19 outbreak, frequently showering its government with praises on policies in response to the outbreak while woefully ignorant of the worsening crisis within the country and exponentially increasing infections.
Such biases thrive as perspectives are delivered without any worthy adversarial perspectives, allowing the former to be presented as the one and only narrative. This stems any form of discussion for objective truth, creating surface-level worldviews laced with bias and cynicism.
False Balances
Impartiality lies at the very heart of good journalism – avoiding bias is something which respectable media outlets pride themselves in. This is laudable, as robust debate is vital for a healthy media and, by extension, an informed society. But when the weight of scientific evidence points incontrovertibly in one direction, doggedly reporting both “sides” equally can result in misleading coverage.
This can be referred to as a false balance, also known as bothsideism, where two opposing arguments are equitably presented in overzealous hopes of impartiality even when one overwhelmingly holds more merit than the other. The effects of such false balances downplay objectivity and logical arguments while propping up and legitimizing opposing standpoints with little to no merit.
Future of media
As we look at the current trajectory of media, we must first consider the trends in consumer habits. With the proliferation of short-form content and the undeniable trend of depleting attention spans amongst consumers, particularly among younger generations, the fight for consumer attention would inevitably grow in intensity. It would thus not be unreasonable to question how principles of accurate and comprehensive journalism and reporting would be impacted by a shrinking appetite for longer form, less gratifying forms of news media.
Demonstratively, many view media bias pejoratively, citing its consequences to accurate information flow. But beyond that, what exactly are the implications of media bias, and how can society coexist with it while keeping it in check?
From a chain-of-information standpoint, the media is a vehicle for information, and thus, the biased presentation of fact, regardless of motivations mapped out above, is a form of expression for such opinion. Authors of every media publication are motivated and shaped by their unique perspectives, whereby individual biases can be the most direct expression of opinion.
But when the vehicle, not the recipient, of information, engages in the self-expression of opinion, does the act remain a tenet of free speech, or does it then find itself at loggerheads with democracy?
On the optimistic side, the accepted presence of media biases is itself a testament to freedom of speech, as the publishers are entitled to portray their perspectives whichever way they wish. Their opinions are free to be received by their audience bases, who then have the liberty to, or as it may be posited, onus, to recognize the biased skews. The transparent subjecting of stakeholders to such diversity of opinions demonstrates the freedom of speech perceived necessary to the Western world.
Non-state-owned publications with inherent biases also demonstrate the government’s acceptance of differing opinions, which may be seen as reassuring to many who fear government tyranny ultimately undermining democracy.
However, as with any ideal, there is a reality to accept. The free expression of biases may be all fun and games, until we realize that we are referring to the collective skewing of information presentation to form multiple blocs of echo chambers. Within these echo chambers, furthermore, the sources continue providing their audiences biased information for the stance consistent with the narrative to be cemented.
Image Credits: Christophe Vorlet
Inadvertently, with the aid of individual confirmation biases, consumers of such media sources will be essentially ignorant of perspectives beyond the one presented. Society may get increasingly polarized, possibly resulting in undesirable enmity – but more importantly, there is a counter-productive impact on democracy. With the end-point of essentially entrusting all decision-making powers to those on the consumers’ end of the information chain, the formation of these echo chambers and resultant partisan ignorance may take away the rationality of such entrustment.
Thankfully, there is a mode of media bias enforcement today that abides by the principles of free speech and the acceptance of opinionation. It is a form of participatory populism, where the consumers of information themselves discern the credibility and objectivity of such information, and in return, collectively review the quality of information from those sources. Through the use of awareness-spreading, sometimes even in the form of social boycotts, detriment from consuming biased media sources can be adequately avoided.
In furtherance of that procedure, it can also be recognized that news sources are forced to be more cautious with keeping the biases within their publications in check for fear of being, in certain senses of that word, “canceled”.
Media bias is also often discussed in tangent to the concepts of misinformation and disinformation. One possible interpretation is that they are both forms of media biases, separated by a difference in extent. As the name suggests, it is caused by inherent, perspective-led, biases. Perhaps with the vast digitalization of societies, the battleground for tensions, whether social or geopolitical, would shift to the digital battlefield. As tensions rise, the media would inevitably be increasingly weaponized for its vast influence over the life of a consumer.
In a sense, it can be deduced that media bias enforcement is predicated upon public recognition. With increasing awareness of such phenomena, the public is kept well wary of media biases and the consequences of susceptibility to such. Therefore, the ability to recognize biased sources is the imperative here.
Unfortunately, our jobs are not made much easier due to search engine biases that may also be seen to amplify echo chambers. Search engine algorithms are sometimes said to be geared towards showing results that it perceives to be more popular. This can probably be interpreted in two ways: more clicks having been made, and more predicted clicks deduced from source recognition. In the latter case, this means that search engines have a list of “preferred” sources, specially curated. One should ponder: does that give room for subjective evaluation and decision-making? Decisions that may impact information access to millions of users a day?
It, then, all boils down to the power of the media. Its increasingly unfettered ability to control narratives then begs this question: what is the role of media? Is it to influence the way we think, or to empower us to think?
You see, the original purpose of the media was to inform, not influence. One of the earliest forms of media – the newspaper – was invented expressly for the purpose of allowing increasingly urbanized Americans of the 19th century to efficiently receive more objective news information than the previously mainstream vehicle of merely gossip and word-of-mouth. News sites’ roles were to simply tell the news, and left the roles of evaluation, conclusion, and extrapolation to the consumers.
However, with the growing need to commercialize, the media formed an inextricable tie with sensationalism, bias and opinion. It was also then that the penny press was established, which served as a cheaper, more sensational daily news source that acted as the tabloids of our age. Of course, due to the associated attractiveness of such subjectivism, opinionation became increasingly normalized.
Today, the news is indelibly fraught with bias, and it is virtually impossible for one to gain a comprehensive understanding of any news story without having to cross-reference articles from other sources, across different partisan affiliations and backgrounds.
And after we’ve done that, opinions will probably either be an exact replica of, or bear significant semblance to, an “expert opinion” cited in one of these non-opinion articles. Left on its own, it’s a scary thought when considering the possibility of others thinking on behalf of you.
Such a possibility must be met with the proper care and consideration within news consumption, together with proper reform toward more objective and reliable journalism.
A mammoth of a task, but not impossible.
References
Anderton, K. (2020, December 13). Middle Schooler proves google search results influence political opinions . Forbes. Retrieved from https://www.forbes.com/sites/kevinanderton/2020/12/13/middle-schooler-proves-google-search-results-influence-political-opinions-infographic/?sh=688cf2dd4371
Frye, W. (2005). Graduate Theses, Dissertations, and Problem Reports 2005 A qualitative analysis of sensationalism in media. Retrieved from https://researchrepository.wvu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4222&context=etd
McLaughlin, S. by T. (2022, August 1). A Newsroom at the Edge of Autocracy. The Atlantic. Retrieved from https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2020/08/scmp-hong-kong-china-media/614719/
Qin, B., Strömberg, D., & Wu, Y. (2014). The Determinants of Media Bias in China. Retrieved from https://sites.bu.edu/neudc/files/2014/10/paper_264.pdf
Types of Media Bias (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.mcgill-toolen.org/ourpages/users/tenhunm/ap_us_gov/Chapter%2012%20The%20Media/Types%20of%20media%20bias.pdf
Vinokour, M. (2022, April 5). Russia’s Media Is Now Totally in Putin’s Hands. Foreign Policy. Retrieved from https://foreignpolicy.com/2022/04/05/russia-media-independence-putin/
University of Minnesota Libraries Publishing. (2016, March 22). Understanding Media and Culture: The evolution of Media. Retrieved from https://open.lib.umn.edu/mediaandculture/chapter/1-3-the-evolution-of-media/
Comments