ASNE - Perceived Bias

Finding No. 3

The public suspects that the points of view and biases of journalists influence what stories are covered and how they are covered.

While some journalists agree that particular people or groups sometimesget overly favorable (or unfavorable) coverage, they are less likely to perceive a problem of bias in newspapers.

Measuring perceived bias is a complex problem, because bias, itself, is a multi-dimensional and complex issue. Because perceived bias is central to any investigation of journalistic credibility, this research avoided relying on a singular "poll-like" question. Instead, the questionnaire asked, "Do you think the media are biased?" in a number of different ways, thereby reducing the chances that any one word or expression could influence the answers (Tables 14, Table 15 and Table 16). No matter how the question was asked, the headlines were disturbingly consistent:

78 percent of U.S. adults agree with the assessment that there is bias in the news media.
58 percent believe that the public's dissatisfaction with the media is justified - as opposed to 29 percent who say the press is "an easy target for deeper problems in our society."
78 percent believe that powerful people can get stories into the paper - or keep them out.
50 percent believe there are particular people or groups that get a "special break" in news coverage, and 45 percent believe that others "don't get a fair shake."
77 percent believe newspapers pay lots more attention to stories that support their own point of view.

Among the majority of the public that believes the news media are biased, 42 percent see TV as the worst offender; 23 percent say that newspapers are the most biased news medium.

More than two-thirds of adults say their perception of bias in newspapers does not represent a "major obstacle" to being able to trust newspapers as a source of news - perhaps because they believe they've built sufficient filtering mechanisms to identify and neutralize it when they think they see it.

More than two-thirds of adults say their perception of bias in newspapers does not represent a "major obstacle" to being able to trust newpapers as a source of news

The public has constructed a rationale for these behaviors. Most believe the motive is commercial - to sell more newspapers or, in the case of television, to get higher ratings.

There are some notable differences between the public and journalists in these basic attitudes about bias in the news media, including the facts that:

While 93 percent of average Americans express a desire to get their news "straight up," believing that "the major job of newspapers is to get the facts right, not to tell me how to interpret those news events," only 68 percent of journalists believe in this mission.
Seventy-nine percent of the American public believes that "it's pretty easy for special interest groups to manipulate the press," vs. 55 percent of journalists.

The public believes that in addition to outside pressures to "spin or spike" a story, there are internal axes that get ground, and attitudinal mindsets in newsrooms that could inject bias into the news report.

Journalists were asked what they, personally, believed to be the major reason behind the public's "loss of faith" in the press, and slightly over three-quarters provided some response to this open-ended question (Table 18). The highest percentage (48 percent) suggested that blame lies at the journalists' doors - citing "sensationalism," "inaccuracies," "over-reporting on public figures' private lives" and "pack reporting" as explanations.

Journalists see many more shades of gray than do average Americans when it comes to press credibility. Only 17 percent of journalists (20 percent of managing editors and assistant managing editors) believe that public dissatisfaction with the press is justified. And 33 percent (about the same proportion as in the public) believe the press is "an easy target." The highest percentage of journalists - 49 percent - say "it depends." (Table 15).

Further, although the public is willing to stipulate that commercial motives (selling more papers, getting higher ratings) can explain a lot of the sins and excesses they see in both newspapers and television news, most journalists look elsewhere for reasons for public dissatisfaction

Bias defined

The Public Perspective: Although there's consistency and near unanimity in the public's view that there's a problem with bias in the news media, there are (at least) three operational interpretations of what bias actually is (Table 17):

30 percent of adults see bias as "not being open-minded and neutral about the facts."
29 percent say that it's "having an agenda, and shaping the news report to fit it."
29 percent believe that it's "favoritism to a particular social or political group."
8 percent say bias in the news media is "all of these."

The Newsroom Perspective: One business writer at a large daily noted, "We are schizophrenic, swinging between poorly conceived attempts to 'please' readers and self-importance that leads to a failure to connect with them."

Thirty-two percent of journalists pointed to other media - specifically TV and tabloids - as the culprits in the public's loss of confidence in press credibility. Many added illustrative comments:

"... the antics of TV reporters reflect poorly on all reporters and attacking the media has proven to be politically popular."
"The TV image of journalists - either pretty boy airheads or vicious bottom feeders - paints all of us with a black brush."
"The image of newspapers is affected by something out of our control - television news, television magazines and television tabloid programs. The public considers the 'media' one big beast with universally low ethics and values."
"The problem with the public's perception of the press is that many people lump tabloids and sleaze TV in with legitimate news gathering organizations and call everything 'the media.' "
"I'm deeply concerned by the growing portion of the population that is apathetic and/or willing to allow TV to inform and instruct regarding politics and other matters of concern."

Less than 20 percent of journalists turned the tables and blamed the public for getting the wrong impression:

"Telling the truth and doing the right thing often angers people."
"I think the press is sometimes used as a scapegoat - the kill the messenger thing."
"We spend too much time worrying about our credibility."
"The public is obliged to do some editing of its own to find the best sources of information."
"People want their own prejudices confirmed and are annoyed when we tell them the facts."

The second open-ended question asked journalists to cite recent stories they thought had contributed to negative perceptions of newspaper credibility (Table 19). More than 70 percent of the newsroom sample mentioned that the Clinton sex scandal had done the most harm, with coverage of the O.J. Simpson trial (39 percent) and Princess Diana (21 percent) receiving a high percentage of votes as well. A top editor at a large newspaper said he believes that harm to credibility is done by "any story in which the media basically tell the reader that the media is smart and the public is dumb."

It's encouraging to see that some journalists are as concerned as the public is. Some might argue that the 1997-1998 "season" was unique in that it was particularly rich with stories that were inherently sensational. Others might find in recent years of newspaper coverage examples of how the "serious" press has begun to reflect the entertainment industry's treatment of "news." For either argument, the Clinton scandal excels as an example of why the public thinks the press overplays sensational stories, of why they presume a commercial motive for news decisions, and why they feel the press is increasingly "out of touch" with readers. While average Americans were screaming "enough already" about the sheer volume of these stories, they saw newspapers publishing them on A-1 with jumps. While journalists argued about whether the Starr report was appropriate for a family newspaper, many readers saw it the next morning anyway.

Journalists were concerned about this dilemma, of course. As details of the Clinton scandal were released, the daily decisions of what (and how) to publish were hotly debated in newsrooms across the country, and as the nation moved toward and into the hearings to impeach the president, many editors held their noses but decided to run stories they judged to be of historic significance and import. Readers were not party to this reasoning, however, and made judgments based only on what they saw in the paper. Given that evidence, it's not surprising to see that 78 percent of the public believes that journalists actually enjoy reporting the personal failings of public figures.

Who believes the media are biased?

The Public Perspective: Because more than three-quarters of the public perceives bias in the news media, the demographic profile of Americans who believe this mirror the nation overall (Table 20). The more interesting group, then, is the 17 percent of adults who disagree with the widely held belief that the media are biased. This group tends to be:

Older.
Less well-educated.
Less likely to be working.
Living in households with lower incomes.
More likely to be Democrats.

With the exception of political affiliation, the demography of the 17 percent who don't see bias in the news media is distinctly downscale.

The behavior and perceptions of the 58 percent of adults who believe that charges of media bias are "justified" are directionally different from the 29 percent who think the media are simply an "easy target for deeper problems in our society" (Table 21 and Table 22). Those who accept the "easy target" explanation are much less likely to:

n Find misleading headlines, mistakes in spelling and grammar, and factual errors in their paper more than once a week.

Believe that there are powerful external and internal influences that shape the news report.
See purposeful sensationalization in the news report.
Discuss media credibility with others (the most significant of these four findings).

Admittedly, some of these relationships might be self-validating. All, however, are substantial enough to suggest that once an individual begins to question newspaper credibility, he or she is far more likely to behave in a way that reinforces that belief rather than dispels it.

External manipulation

The Public Perspective: Seventy-eight percent of adults believe that powerful people or organizations can influence a newspaper to "spike or spin" a story (Table 23 andTable 24). Asked what specific groups they thought could influence news decisions and set the news agenda, 63 percent of the public were able to volunteer an open-ended, "top-of-mind" answer. The majority cited politicians or government officials, big business and wealthy individuals. This is not an unreasonable layman's construction given the frequency with which people from these groups are quoted in the press. One focus group participant phrased it succinctly: "There was no explanation of why the story was important, and so I just assumed somebody wanted it there."

Public perceptions of bias in newspapers must also be understood in the context of how people evaluate the news media overall (Table 25). While the majority of U.S. adults (61 percent) see tremendous strengths in a newspaper's ability to "really understand the issues that are important to a local community," significant proportions of the public are not very complimentary:

59 percent say newspapers are concerned mainly with making profits rather than serving the public interest.
56 percent feel that newspapers make biased (rather than objective) decisions about what news to publish.
50 percent believe newspapers allow advertisers' interests to influence news decisions.
41 percent believe newspaper coverage of groups that they might disagree with is unfair and unbalanced.

On these latter two points, some focus group participants were knowledgeable enough about newspapers to draw a line between the newsroom and the business office, best summed up by the comment that, "The people who are journalists are involved with the public interest, but the people who own newspapers want to make a profit. Journalists don't run the newspaper."

Given the high percentage of the public who believe that commercial interests - whether advertisers, the profit motive, or selling newspapers -can influence news judgment, this belief emerges as a major factor to the decline in public perceptions of newspaper credibility.

Alone, these kinds of bi-polar descriptors would be a blunt instrument with which to measure perceptions of newspapers. Their more potent use, however, is in being able to isolate meaningful differences between the views of various subgroups (Table 26). In this case, it's clear that age makes the biggest difference in these perceptions, especially in three dimensions:

"Being more concerned with the public interest" rather than profits - 51 percent of 18-24 year olds believe that about newspapers, vs. only 27 percent of older adults.
"Respecting readers' intelligence" - 70 percent of younger adults and only 49 percent of older adults believed that about newspapers.
"Being more liberal politically" - 46 percent of younger vs. 66 percent of older adults.

Despite the fact that younger, less-experienced adults are more willing to stipulate a positive motive and behavior for daily newspapers, their perceptions must be considered in light of the fact that daily readership within this group is relatively low.

The Newsroom Perspective: During an ASNE Journalism Credibility Project think tank session, one editor wondered aloud whether the public's belief that outside forces shape the news agenda is because "we're more responsive to wealthy people because they know us and we're one of them, or because that's where the news is?"

An equally good question is whether or not it matters. The finding that 78 percent of the American public believes that certain individuals or groups (predominantly the powerful) can influence the news that's published - can "spin or spike" a story, remains an important underpinning of the credibility gap. One copy editor saw it this way: "I am amazed and gravely concerned that a paper as large as ours and in one of the top 10 cities in the country is so complacent about news gathering and so concerned with offending the movers and shakers in the community."

Other journalists agreed, saying:

"Our political reporting is completely without depth and totally 'inside.' "
"Journalists [have a] willingness to print the 'official' version of events instead of going to the real authority - real people."
"The presentation of news is a reflection of the personality of the publisher or editor and their frailties and foibles."
"[Newspapers have] a tendency to give credibility to certain spokesmen, even if they're certifiably mad."

Internal agendas

The Public Perspective: Outside pressures to "spin or spike" a story notwithstanding, the research also suggests that much of the public believes there are internal axes that get ground (favorite causes, tenacious beliefs, unstaunchable convictions of what's right, etc.) and attitudinal mindsets (self-righteousness, socioeconomic bigotry, disdain for working-class values, skepticism gone-bad to cynicism, etc.) in newsrooms that could inject bias into the news report. Whether a newspaper's 'agenda' is consciously articulated, subliminally active or non-existent, a large proportion of the public believes there is one, and thinks it can influence the news it sees or doesn't see (Table 27 andTable 28).

Fifty percent of adults believe there are individuals or groups that "get a special break" and enjoy overly favorable coverage in the media, predominantly the powerful, who they reason can force their way if it's not given freely.

More telling, however, is the 45 percent of the public that believes some people or groups "don't get a fair shake," and get overly unfavorable coverage in the media. Here the presumption of a negative bias is primarily ethnic or racial, with significant proportions of the public volunteering (on an unaided "top-of-mind" basis) that the following groups "don't get a fair shake" in the media:

African-Americans.
Hispanics/Latinos.
Conservatives.
The poor/people on welfare.
Religious organizations (especially born-again Christians).

Members of specific ethnic or racial groups perceive bias against their groups more strongly (Table 29), a sentiment echoed in the focus groups, summed up by the comment, "White, middle class, story gets big play. Poor and black, one line. I think that's bias."

There were also odd, singular answers given to this open-ended survey question as well - such as the respondents who suggested that "egg-sucking-dog liberals" and "devotees of what's politically correct" are beneficiaries of overly favorable coverage, or those who believe that "people who don't make a lot of noise" and "folks who aren't squeaky wheels" get disadvantageous coverage.

There's a powerful colloquial voice in these kinds of phrases - one that's particularly important given the high percentage of respondents who could volunteer an answer to this kind of question.

The Newsroom Perspective: Mirroring the public's perceptions, journalists appear to feel that "fair shakes" are not distributed evenly (Table 30). Like the public, many see an economic bias - with 37 percent of them feeling that "wealthy/rich people" get overly favorable coverage, and 39 percent believing that "poor people/welfare recipients" get overly unfavorable coverage. Over 30 percent of the journalists surveyed also cited African-Americans, young people and gun owners as receiving unfavorable coverage in their newspaper. This section of the newsroom questionnaire also unleashed a torrent of write-in comments:

"We tend to see pictures of minority groups in events like Cinco de Mayo, but not in everyday news coverage."
"I think our coverage of all these groups has suffered due to our own blindness, our lack of sources among certain groups, or the fact that we don't consider some issues important or some groups large members of our readership."
[The credibility problem stems from] "the propagation of left-of-center agendas and giving vocal minority opinion far too much attention."
"Sometimes we have a tendency to present stories on so-called minorities with kid-glove treatment. At other times, we fall into stereotypes, both positive and negative."
"We are a paper afraid to offend anyone. If we do, we bend over like Gumby to be fair and avoid litigation, complaints or, God forbid, calls from readers, uh, customers."
"The coverage is neither favorable nor unfavorable. They're either covered or ignored."
"We have (a negative) attitude toward Catholics we'd never display toward Jews or racial minorities."
"Attacks on Christianity - it shows the depth of division between who's writing - and to whom they think they're writing. The press has no clue about the reality of their readership."
"It's not the quality of the coverage that varies as much as the quality of coverage that varies out of proportion to what's proper."
"We do not cover labor, as this is a right-to-work area."
"[The press] presents liberal causes and groups as good; conservatives as evil; distrusts, stereotypes and caricatures conservative Christians; and belittles legitimate differences of opinion."

Noted one news editor at a large daily paper: "I think people realize the press has its own agenda - a middle-class, white suburban or hip urban, college-educated, somewhat liberal vision of how the world should be."

Reporting fact vs. opinion

The Public Perspective: Through-out the survey, the public expresses constant and consistent appeals for fairness and even-handedness in news coverage. These sentiments were echoed in the focus group sessions:

"Push reporters to be aware of how easy it is to twist things up."
"Reputations for credibility are hard to win and easy to lose."

Most dangerous, of course, is the short distance between the public believing that there is an agenda within the newsroom, and to them seeing that agenda expressed as opinion within the news report. When the public senses this, it's a severe threat to credibility - irrespective of whether the intention of the agenda they see is noble, or whether the expression of its voice is skillful. It is the perceived lack of neutrality that does the damage to public perceptions of media credibility, not the benevolence (or lack thereof) of the ideas expressed.

This is precisely what focus group participants were addressing in their responses to a question about whether they felt newspapers should just report the facts or write stories to help improve society. One participant said, "Whose better society? I don't want the government interfering in my personal life. And I don't want the media interfering."

Others said:

"Keep your opinions on the editorial page."
"Are you in the business of changing society or reporting facts? Use your editorial page for opinions."
"Just report the news."
"Report the facts, then let me make up my own mind and make my own conclusions. Distinguish fact from opinion."
"They tell you who to vote for. It's insulting."

At the core, it seems that the public most commonly defines the foundation of bias as a lack of neutrality. They see the editorial page as the only home for opinion or suggestion. The public believes that the reporter's job is to report the facts - completely, insightfully, without spin, and clean of any intent to sway or convince.

The public appears to diagnose the root causes of media bias in two forms. First (and at best), bias is a lack of dispassion and impartiality that colors the decision of whether or not to publish a story, or the particular facts that are included in a news report and the tone of how those facts are expressed. Second (and at worst), they see bias as an intent to persuade. No matter how worthy an intended outcome appears to the reporter, any movement in journalistic goals from "just the facts" to "here's what's good for everyone else" is seen to be a risky one by the American public.

Journalists' self-appraisal

The Newsroom Perspective: When asked to grade their own newspapers on many of the different facets of bias, the majority of journalists tend to give themselves high marks, feeling their paper does an "excellent" or "good" job (Table 31).

81 percent say their paper doesn't "let its editorial page opinions affect coverage on the news pages of the paper."
65 percent say their paper doesn't "allow advertisers' interests to influence news decisions."
73 percent say their paper makes "a conscious effort to present opposing points of view on controversial issues."
65 percent say it provides "objective reporting of individuals and groups with whom it might not agree or be sympathetic."

As with other evaluations in this research, top editors seem more likely than reporters and photographers to give their newspapers high marks with regard to coverage and ethics. The higher up the food chain, the larger the proportion of "good" and "excellent" ratings are granted for:

Not letting TV set the news agenda (75 percent top editors vs. 60 percent staff).
Not allowing advertisers' interests to influence news decisions (75 percent top editors vs. 64 percent staff).
Really understanding the issues that are important to the local community (65 percent top editors vs. 58 percent staff).
Not letting editorial page opinions affect coverage on the news pages (85 percent top editors vs. 79 percent staff).
Providing objective reporting of individuals and groups with whom it might not agree (70 percent top editors vs. 65 percent staff).

Journalists working for smaller papers appear to feel closer to their readers than do those working for larger titles, especially in the areas of:

Really understanding the issues that are important to the local community.
Writing and editing with their readers as the top priority.
Providing objective reporting of individuals and groups with whom they might not agree.

Overall, readers are far less sanguine about the newspaper's ability to provide fair and balanced reporting than journalists think they are.

"At our paper, editors seem especially removed from readership ... Editors don't seem to listen to reporters as to what readers want even though we are the ones out there on the street."