Media bias on both sides of the political spectrum was highlighted most recently during the 2008 election, with accusations of favoritism and leniency toward both parties. With the inception of the Obama health care plan, it has reached a fever pitch. Left and right, the news media are failing to fulfill their duties as neutral informational resources to Americans as our so-called “fourth branch” of government.
The sensationalism news media use to gain viewers has left many Americans motivated more by pathos than by the reasoning that is necessary to make any sort of informed decision. Audiences must modify their approach to accessing news to gain a wider array of information on a topic. With an inability to modify the current news environment, we must modify past habits to guarantee that our democracy is truly controlled by a responsible citizenry.
Looking through the Web sites of MSNBC and Fox News last week, I couldn’t help but notice the discrepancies between their respective articles on the issue of the Obama health care plan. Fox News’ coverage read “The “˜Public Option’ Dance: President insists the government-run option is still part of his health care reform plan ““ but, he tells radio show listeners he’d consider alternatives.” MSNBC’s headline read, “On radio, Obama stands by health care plan: “˜Our position hasn’t changed,’ the president says of public option possibility.”
Regardless of your views on the health care debate, the necessity for balanced information on both sides is crucial, yet many times, difficult to attain. A 2005 UCLA-led study, the lead author of which was UCLA Professor Timothy Groseclose, is believed to be the first successful objective study of media bias, according to UCLA Newsroom. The study, which received no funding from outside groups, found that such bias is a measurable phenomenon that covers most media outlets, including radio, print and television.
Among the findings were that though the editorial pages of the Wall Street Journal lean to the right, its news pages are even more liberal than that of The New York Times. In addition, public radio and television lean right in comparison with the rest of the mainstream media, with nearly all major media outlets more liberal.
Viewership is a driving factor in media bias. With the renewed O’Reilly-Olbermann debate over health care increasing the numbers for their respective networks, polarization has become a successful means to draw the public to their camps. What results for many is the assumption that their host or network of choice is an infallible source of information, with “opposition” networks merely feeding off of public dislike for the other. It is not difficult to see how such an environment would be more conducive to discrediting competitors by focusing on a single viewpoint than to accurate information.
Though some sources are undeniably on more extreme ends of the spectrum than others, immersion in a wider array of news sources, including those typically deemed as “liberal” or “conservative,” is a must. Too many people, myself included, tend to find a single television network or newspaper and stick to it. What can result is exposure to merely one side of the debate with no knowledge of the other.
Bias in the media is likely here to stay, necessitating a new viewer approach when it comes to educating ourselves on current events. This means more than merely skimming the Los Angeles Times or spending a few minutes watching Fox News. Open-mindedness is key if we are to accurately gauge all angles on a debate as complicated as the one surrounding the recent health care proposals.
Key information and world events are oftentimes given a backseat to the news that can get a network ratings. The death of Michael Jackson in June was perhaps the best example of this, dominating all media coverage, which, only days before, had been closely following the postelection protests in Iran.
Researching Obama’s health care plan in its entirety is simply not practical. However, making an effort to look at different media, newspapers and public radio included, increases the likelihood of well-rounded knowledge on the issue.
A recent Gallup poll that measured the amount of trust and confidence in the mass media ““ newspapers, radio and television included ““ found that 56 percent of Americans had “Not very much/None at all” compared with 43 percent who had a “Great deal/Fair amount” of confidence. With public confidence at such a low, news media need to re-evaluate whether increased ratings are an agreeable alternative to public trust.
Walter Cronkite, hailed as “the most honest man in news,” once said, “In seeking truth you have to get both sides of a story.” If the media are to truly retain their role as a public asset, it is the public that must demand neutrality if any sort of authentic change is to come.
E-mail Gharibian at cgharibian@media.ucla.edu. Send general comments to viewpoint@media.ucla.edu.