Media bias is about selective coverage, not just rates of honesty

Madmick

Madmick

Zugzwang
Staff member
Senior Moderator
Joined
Jun 13, 2005
Messages
63,746
Reaction score
31,284
I hate how "fake news" is wielded to dismiss valid investigative journalism. I can't stand swamp monsters like Devin Nunes using that term to deafen too many gullible Americans into disregarding the findings of our own intelligence communities. That's not fake news. That's American intelligence. Please understand the difference.

The reason "fake news" became a brand that rang true with this audience, though, lies in a bias that doesn't show up as well in watchdog studies or reports on press integrity such as Harvard's Shorenstein Center offers, but is very real. It's about what they choose to cover.

Here's an example. This 40-year-old meta-study by researchers at USC was published last month:
http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1948550618768241
You can't even access the full abstract without full access, so the best coverage of this study in the press was by a niche outlet covering psychological news:
https://www.psypost.org/2018/07/con...aning-purpose-life-liberals-study-finds-51688
Psypost said:
Findings from five separate studies link a person’s political ideology and their sense of meaning in life, with conservatives reporting greater meaning than liberals. The findings appear in the scientific journal Social Psychological and Personality Science.

“The finding that conservatives report greater life satisfaction was an older finding that I found interesting and it has continued to gain attention,” said study author David Newman of the University of Southern California.

“Much of the research has focused solely on just one indicator of well-being, namely evaluations of life satisfaction. I was a bit surprised no one had expanded the research to include other measures of well-being, and I am interested in learning more about differences between hedonic forms of well-being (e.g., life satisfaction, positive emotions) and eudaimonic forms of well-being (e.g., meaning in life).”

For the research, Newman and his colleagues analyzed data from 19,051 individuals who participated in the European Values Survey, 1,595 Americans who participated in a Baylor Institute of Religion survey, and 1,252 people who participated in a study on purpose in life, happiness, and stress. The researchers also conducted an online survey of 3,322 participants and a separate daily diary study with 141 undergraduate students.

The researchers found that conservatives tended to report greater meaning and purpose in life than liberals across all five studies.

“This is a small but robust relationship that was found in 5 data sets that include representative samples from 16 countries; some of the data were collected as early as the early 1980s, some were collected as recently as 2017,” Newman told PsyPost. “We used a variety of techniques, including experience sampling.”

The relationship between conservative political beliefs and meaning in life remained significant even after controlling for the effect of religiosity.

In addition, “the effect on meaning in life was slightly stronger than the effect on life satisfaction, a measure of well-being that has dominated previous research,” Newman explained.

The study — like all research — includes some caveats.

“One important caveat worth mentioning is that the effect size is somewhat small,” Newman explained. “This means that not every conservative you meet will find more meaning in life than every liberal you meet. But the effect size is a bit bigger than the effect size reported in previous research that measured life satisfaction.”

“A question that still needs to be addressed is why conservatives find more meaning in life than liberals. Our results showed that it can’t be completely explained by the fact that conservatives are more religious than liberals and religious people find more meaning in life than non-religious people. But the results suggest it is more likely related to social conservative issues (e.g., views on abortion and gay rights) than economic conservative issues.”

The study, “Conservatives Report Greater Meaning in Life Than Liberals“, was authored by David B. Newman, Norbert Schwarz, Jesse Graham, and Arthur A. Stone.
Click to expand...
Maybe it isn't The Origin of Species, but it's from the USC, and it's a topic that is worthy of reporting. Who reported it? The Independent and The Daily Mail in the UK covered it, but otherwise, I tried many keywords including the study title, author names, and other phrases, and couldn't find a single major American press body with widespread national coverage apart from a FOX editorial:

Meanwhile, back in 2015, the University of Irvine did their own study that was very similar to this one. The author was aware of the consensus developing across studies over this period, and so he sought to buck the trend by approaching it with a different methodology. Instead of asking people if they were happy they analyzed their smiles and language on social media for greater happiness. They got a different result, and for some reason, the MSM really wanted me to know about it:

To liberals: if you want conservatives to believe the news, not Trump, then you need to root this fester out. They know these journalists are not on their side.

So why would you expect conservatives to trust them? The objectivity of reporting needs to be restored. Until it does, until you hold your own to account, then don't expect things to change.

There's a popular adage where I live, and I quite like it. "Do what you've always done, get what you've always gotten."
 
This is a good post. Bias, in general, is mostly about selective application of things that, on their own, are reasonable. It's no skin off my sack if either of these studies are reported or not reported: I am not likely to be convinced by either of them, and I generally dislike this kind of study. The first thing I'd do if I were to read them is to scroll to the bottom to take a look at the covariates to see if they were leaving something major out (like that celibacy and happiness study did, for example). However, it's complete bullshit to report one heavily, and the other one not at all.

Think about it: by selectively applying reasonable things you can be incredibly biased while still having the defence ''hey, I'm just being rational here.'' Take for example the principle of charity, and skepticism. Both things are good and have their place in rational debate. It is good to be charitable to one's interlocutor; to argue against the strongest form of their argument. It's also good to be skeptical; to question sources, methods, data, and conclusions. However, if on a particular issue you find yourself being charitable to no end to one side of the debate, while skeptical to the point of intransigence to the other side, there's no two ways about it: you're biased as shit.
 
Any news outlet will choose to cover what their research has shown them the readership wants to read.

It's the basic reason there are no "only good news" sources.
"This morning on I-96, two vehicles didn't collide but went merrily on their ways. That's two vehicles, no collisions.
In other news, lemonade sold very well at Missy's lemonade stand in front of her house, it's not too sweet or tart, it's just right. Ahhhhh! Refreshing. Later tonight we'll be bringing you the Lollipop Report with Kermit T Frog..."
 
OeuvrePressure said:
Any news outlet will choose to cover what their research has shown them the readership wants to read.

It's the basic reason there are no "only good news" sources.
"This morning on I-96, two vehicles didn't collide but went merrily on their ways. That's two vehicles, no collisions.
In other news, lemonade sold very well at Missy's lemonade stand in front of her house, it's not too sweet or tart, it's just right. Ahhhhh! Refreshing. Later tonight we'll be bringing you the Lollipop Report with Kermit T Frog..."
Click to expand...
No, it isn't just about profits and clickbait. It's about ownership-driven, board-driven, and management-driven agendas.

Otherwise, one would expect there to be an equal spread. After all, liberals don't outnumber conservatives 11 to 1.
 
Madmick said:
I hate how "fake news" is wielded to dismiss valid investigative journalism. I can't stand swamp monsters like Devin Nunes using that term to deafen too many gullible Americans into disregarding the findings of our own intelligence communities. That's not fake news. That's American intelligence. Please understand the difference.

The reason "fake news" became a brand that rang true with this audience, though, lies in a bias that doesn't show up as well in watchdog studies or reports on press integrity such as Harvard's Shorenstein Center offers, but is very real. It's about what they choose to cover.

Here's an example. This 40-year-old meta-study by researchers at USC was published last month:
http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1948550618768241
You can't even access the full abstract without full access, so the best coverage of this study in the press was by a niche outlet covering psychological news:
https://www.psypost.org/2018/07/con...aning-purpose-life-liberals-study-finds-51688

Maybe it isn't The Origin of Species, but it's from the USC, and it's a topic that is worthy of reporting. Who reported it? The Independent and The Daily Mail in the UK covered it, but otherwise, I tried many keywords including the study title, author names, and other phrases, and couldn't find a single major American press body with widespread national coverage apart from a FOX editorial:

Meanwhile, back in 2015, the University of Irvine did their own study that was very similar to this one. The author was aware of the consensus developing across studies over this period, and so he sought to buck the trend by approaching it with a different methodology. Instead of asking people if they were happy they analyzed their smiles and language on social media for greater happiness. They got a different result, and for some reason, the MSM really wanted me to know about it:

To liberals: if you want conservatives to believe the news, not Trump, then you need to root this fester out. They know these journalists are not on their side.

So why would you expect conservatives to trust them? The objectivity of reporting needs to be restored. Until it does, until you hold your own to account, then don't expect things to change.

There's a popular adage where I live, and I quite like it. "Do what you've always done, get what you've always gotten."
Click to expand...
Nice observation Mick. Well done.
 
I'm certainly not a fan of journalists and our media. Don't trust a journalist is how I view things anymore.
 
Madmick said:
I hate how "fake news" is wielded to dismiss valid investigative journalism. I can't stand swamp monsters like Devin Nunes using that term to deafen too many gullible Americans into disregarding the findings of our own intelligence communities. That's not fake news. That's American intelligence. Please understand the difference.

The reason "fake news" became a brand that rang true with this audience, though, lies in a bias that doesn't show up as well in watchdog studies or reports on press integrity such as Harvard's Shorenstein Center offers, but is very real. It's about what they choose to cover.

Here's an example. This 40-year-old meta-study by researchers at USC was published last month:
http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1948550618768241
You can't even access the full abstract without full access, so the best coverage of this study in the press was by a niche outlet covering psychological news:
https://www.psypost.org/2018/07/con...aning-purpose-life-liberals-study-finds-51688

Maybe it isn't The Origin of Species, but it's from the USC, and it's a topic that is worthy of reporting. Who reported it? The Independent and The Daily Mail in the UK covered it, but otherwise, I tried many keywords including the study title, author names, and other phrases, and couldn't find a single major American press body with widespread national coverage apart from a FOX editorial:

Meanwhile, back in 2015, the University of Irvine did their own study that was very similar to this one. The author was aware of the consensus developing across studies over this period, and so he sought to buck the trend by approaching it with a different methodology. Instead of asking people if they were happy they analyzed their smiles and language on social media for greater happiness. They got a different result, and for some reason, the MSM really wanted me to know about it:

To liberals: if you want conservatives to believe the news, not Trump, then you need to root this fester out. They know these journalists are not on their side.

So why would you expect conservatives to trust them? The objectivity of reporting needs to be restored. Until it does, until you hold your own to account, then don't expect things to change.

There's a popular adage where I live, and I quite like it. "Do what you've always done, get what you've always gotten."
Click to expand...

Been saying this, not as articulated, for a good while. I call it narrative propaganda. Recently the news will have some average woman from nowhere give their opinion to the reader: "This mother worries how to explain Donald Trump to her children," and crap like that. Lots of Non-News about individuals involving gay stories: "Cher talks about the first time she was around gay men," or the random "These two women were going to propose to each other at the same time." ---- How does the news even get ahold of these stories about random individuals to make "world news" about? They aren't "fake," but as a whole they create a form of narrative propaganda.
 
Madmick said:
No, it isn't just about profits and clickbait. It's about ownership-driven, board-driven, and management-driven agendas.

Otherwise, one would expect there to be an equal spread. After all, liberals don't outnumber conservatives 11 to 1.
Click to expand...

I hope it's just about profits; but I think it's also about agendas resulting from the make up of editorial boards, and an overall wave of something that is hard to identify.
 
Madmick said:
No, it isn't just about profits and clickbait. It's about ownership-driven, board-driven, and management-driven agendas.

Otherwise, one would expect there to be an equal spread. After all, liberals don't outnumber conservatives 11 to 1.
Click to expand...
The 11-1 spread is the opposite on radio. There are numerous syndicated conservative shows on the radio and I cant think of one nationally syndicated Liberally leaning show on the radio.
 
Its hard get someone to see something when their salary depends on them not seeing it.
 
Prokofievian said:
This is a good post. Bias, in general, is mostly about selective application of things that, on their own, are reasonable. It's no skin off my sack if either of these studies are reported or not reported: I am not likely to be convinced by either of them, and I generally dislike this kind of study. The first thing I'd do if I were to read them is to scroll to the bottom to take a look at the covariates to see if they were leaving something major out (like that celibacy and happiness study did, for example). However, it's complete bullshit to report one heavily, and the other one not at all.
Click to expand...

I can think of a few reasons other than "bias" that would lead one of these to get more coverage than the other. First, "study confirms findings of previous studies" is always going to get covered less than "study finds CW-challenging result." I agree that that can mislead, and that it reflects a kind of cognitive bias, but it's not a political one. Second, that kind of story is blown out of the water by other stuff these days. Could also be timing effects. The general claim about the media having a political bias toward the left is the opposite of reality.

Prokofievian said:
However, if on a particular issue you find yourself being charitable to no end to one side of the debate, while skeptical to the point of intransigence to the other side, there's no two ways about it: you're biased as shit.
Click to expand...

Yep. That's how it generally shows up.
 
The problem is that people are OK with "fake news." I mean, we say it with distaste but we only call out the other teams news outlets.
 
Madmick said:
I hate how "fake news" is wielded to dismiss valid investigative journalism. I can't stand swamp monsters like Devin Nunes using that term to deafen too many gullible Americans into disregarding the findings of our own intelligence communities. That's not fake news. That's American intelligence. Please understand the difference.

The reason "fake news" became a brand that rang true with this audience, though, lies in a bias that doesn't show up as well in watchdog studies or reports on press integrity such as Harvard's Shorenstein Center offers, but is very real. It's about what they choose to cover.

Here's an example. This 40-year-old meta-study by researchers at USC was published last month:
http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1948550618768241
You can't even access the full abstract without full access, so the best coverage of this study in the press was by a niche outlet covering psychological news:
https://www.psypost.org/2018/07/con...aning-purpose-life-liberals-study-finds-51688

Maybe it isn't The Origin of Species, but it's from the USC, and it's a topic that is worthy of reporting. Who reported it? The Independent and The Daily Mail in the UK covered it, but otherwise, I tried many keywords including the study title, author names, and other phrases, and couldn't find a single major American press body with widespread national coverage apart from a FOX editorial:

Meanwhile, back in 2015, the University of Irvine did their own study that was very similar to this one. The author was aware of the consensus developing across studies over this period, and so he sought to buck the trend by approaching it with a different methodology. Instead of asking people if they were happy they analyzed their smiles and language on social media for greater happiness. They got a different result, and for some reason, the MSM really wanted me to know about it:

To liberals: if you want conservatives to believe the news, not Trump, then you need to root this fester out. They know these journalists are not on their side.

So why would you expect conservatives to trust them? The objectivity of reporting needs to be restored. Until it does, until you hold your own to account, then don't expect things to change.

There's a popular adage where I live, and I quite like it. "Do what you've always done, get what you've always gotten."
Click to expand...

Now apply this logic to anything involving "national security", and we would be speaking the same language Mick.

Where the experts, sources, leaks, and journalists are all employed by alphabet agencies.
 
VivaRevolution said:
Now apply this logic to anything involving "national security", and we would be speaking the same language Mick.

Where the experts, sources, leaks, and journalists are all employed by alphabet agencies.
Click to expand...
frogware-light-bulb-by-frog-design3.jpg
 
I think if you really want to keep up to date on current events/news, you can do it without fear of "fake news". I think what a lot of people complain about is a specific reporter/ journalist focusing on a specific topic/ party. That isn't a bad thing necessarily though because each individual only has an allotted amount of time and is limited to their perspective in how they present it. It's not their obligation to change that. It's the consumers job to just take in more than one source to possibly find things another source omitted (mistakenly or intentionally) in order to get the complete picture. The longer you do it, the easier it becomes to find out when a source is complete trash and no worth going to. The real issue with news today is that many of it's consumers are too stupid to find ways to form an opinion AFTER researching instead of just complaining when something isn't presented the way they like it.
 
Madmick said:
frogware-light-bulb-by-frog-design3.jpg
Click to expand...



tumblr_nc2vzpVaq11t0frvho7_400.gif


To be clear, I very much agree with you Mick. The story not told, is far more effective disinformation then outright lies. One provides plausible deniability, while the other leaves your ass hanging in the wind if exposed.
 
There's a lot to absorb there.

When it comes to the news, there is an expression someone once told me called "The medium is the message." I'm not exactly sure what the person who coined it meant, but I think of it as basically saying how a message is received tells you about what the message will be. And even if I bastardized the meaning of the expression, I think it become apparent that the "news" thrives on advertising revenue and thus by design in the corporate offices is designed to attract viewership as its primary goal.

So we think of the viewership out there, and in the corporate offices the way the viewership pie gets cut is Fox takes a big chunk of viewers. CNN takes another chunk. And MSNBC. I'm not sure what fake news is exactly, but I know what I would believe to be real news, and that would be unslanted, and statistically driven, with legitimate experts. We know what we actually have is major stations being what would be if someone was on the payroll to defend something, and someone on a payroll to attack something. Hence, a lot of "news" I would just consider entertainment channels.

As for Conservatives being happier, I can see that for a couple of reasons. Most people on the right are the most delusional when it comes to religion and international relations. They genuinely interpret looting and pillaging and liberating, and often under God's will. That sort of brainwashing is a powerful tool. For instance, they're able to simply disregard the deaths of 100,000's of foreigners or whatever under any trumped up war as righteous at best, or honest mistake at worst, all the while going on and on and on about 9/11 like it's the grandest tragedy with respect to loss of human life of the past 50 years.

Religion is pretty self explanatory of how it psychologically benefits the rabble to be happy with their take, and willingly support upward redistribution of wealth. And the already wealthy conservatives are gonna be happy cuz they're wealthy lol.
 
Lead said:
I think if you really want to keep up to date on current events/news, you can do it without fear of "fake news". I think what a lot of people complain about is a specific reporter/ journalist focusing on a specific topic/ party. That isn't a bad thing necessarily though because each individual only has an allotted amount of time and is limited to their perspective in how they present it. It's not their obligation to change that. It's the consumers job to just take in more than one source to possibly find things another source omitted (mistakenly or intentionally) in order to get the complete picture. The longer you do it, you easier it becomes to find out when a source is complete trash and no worth going to. The real issue with news today is not that many of it's consumers are too stupid to find ways to form an opinion AFTER researching instead of just complaining when something isn't presented the way they like it.
Click to expand...

Yeah, would be allot less fake news out there if so called news started hanging editorial banners whenever someone wasn't reporting a fact.

It really comes down to long held journalistic practices being scrapped for bean counting.

People need to stop getting mad at Wolf Blitzer, and start getting mad at the board of CNN. That is who is driving the BS.
 
44nutman said:
The 11-1 spread is the opposite on radio. There are numerous syndicated conservative shows on the radio and I cant think of one nationally syndicated Liberally leaning show on the radio.
Click to expand...
YouTube and Podcasts have a national spread, now, too. Radio has also historically been a tiny market relative to television since the rise of TV, and now the internet. Radio also tends to have a different business structure where the shows are self-produced, and then sold to a larger distributor, like movies, rather than gathered under a single corporate umbrella. But you have the NPR among radio (in addition to Thomas Hartmann):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most-listened-to_radio_programs
Former NPR CEO opens up about liberal media bias
NPR Admits a Liberal Bias
Science Settles It: NPR's Liberal, But Not Very
(from 2011)
https%3A%2F%2Fblogs-images.forbes.com%2Fjeffbercovici%2Ffiles%2F2011%2F03%2Ftwitter-politics-full-chart.jpg


Further left than NBC, about on par with the LA Times, and further to the left than Toby Keith is to the right, but "not very left". Yeah. That conclusion sold in 2011.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,254,672
Messages
56,664,144
Members
175,336
Latest member
Swamps

Share this page

Back
Top