Media Bias: A Response to Stephen Colbert
“Reality has a well-known liberal bias,” so claims comedian Stephen Colbert.
A number of people have offered this quote as response to my book, Left Turn. I’m certain that the people who do this, however, have not actually read the book.
Here’s why: I devote an entire section of the book (Section 2: A Distortion Theory of Bias) toward addressing comments such as Colbert’s. As I explain, very little of the bias—either from conservative or liberal outlets—comes from false statements. Instead, almost all of the bias comes from the statements that journalists do not report. Stated differently, both liberal and conservative journalists are describing reality. The problem is that mainstream journalists are failing to describe certain aspects of reality—the aspects that conservatives want you to learn about.
The section begins with chapter 6, which is a case study of a Los Angeles Times article, “A Startling Statistic at UCLA.” The article noted the low number of African Americans who would enroll at UCLA in the autumn of 2006, and it implied that the applications process at UCLA was stacked against them. At the time, I was a member of the faculty oversight committee for admissions at UCLA. When I read the article, I became outraged, and I remember thinking, “This completely misrepresents the way things are at UCLA.”
However, when I re-read the article, searching for false statements, I couldn’t find one. The problem, as I eventually realized, was that the author omitted some crucial facts.
For instance, the article noted that only 96 African American freshmen were expected to enroll that autumn—20 fewer than the year before. But here’s what the article didn’t mention: At UCLA a significant fraction of incoming undergrads are transfers from junior colleges, not freshmen. That year, 108 black transfer students were expected to enroll—22 more than the year before. Thus, if you count freshmen and transfer students, the total black undergraduate enrollment was expected to increase by two students.
Note that a proponent of affirmative action would want you to learn the first fact but not the second. An opponent of affirmative action would want you to learn the second fact but not the first.
In the chapter I list eight more similar facts that the Los Angeles Times journalist neglected to mention, including: (i) Many minority students mention their race on their application essays; if UCLA were really discriminating against them, why would they do that? (ii) Only 31 percent of the freshmen expected to enroll that year at UCLA were white; that percentage was just short of a record low.
Next , in chapter 7 I discuss four important news stories that the mainstream media largely ignored. Each story—e.g. one was the saga about President Obama’s green jobs czar Van Jones—is one that conservatives would like you to learn about, but liberals would not.
Chapter 8 is a case study of another story that conservatives would want you to learn about. This was the “flying imams” story and the fact that the imams were suing innocent people who alerted authorities about them. (To learn about the story, you can read the entire chapter at Powerlineblog.) The chapter focuses on the author of the story, Katherine Kersten, and how her conservative political views led her to pursue the story. Although the story was important enough to cause Congress to pass a new law, if Kersten or a similar, like-minded conservative reporter hadn’t learned about the story, it would have never been reported, I argue.
In addition to Section 2, I examine another both-sides-are-describing-reality case. This one involves facts about the Bush tax cuts.
(In my recent interview for Uncommon Knowledge, Peter Robinson and I discuss this case. Click here to see the interview segment.)
At the time that Congress considered the Bush tax cuts, liberals emphasized an important and true fact—that the cuts would go disproportionately to the rich.
Meanwhile, conservatives emphasized an equally important and equally true fact—that the cuts would actually make the tax system more progressive. That is, after the cuts, the rich would pay a greater share of the taxes than before.
While moderates in Congress mentioned the two facts with approximately equal frequency, journalists did not do that. They mentioned the first fact about five times as often as the second fact. Even the Washington Times and Fox News’ Special Report mentioned the first fact slightly more often than the second.
A few outlets, including Time and Newsweek, never mentioned the second fact.
As a final thought, suppose that, at the time of the Bush tax cuts, your only sources of news were outlets such as Time or Newsweek—outlets that frequently mentioned the fact that liberals wanted you to know but never mentioned the fact that conservatives wanted you to know.
If you were such a news consumer, you’d probably object when my method declares your favorite news outlets to have a liberal bias. You might respond, “The rich really do receive a disproportionate amount of the tax cut. When Time and Newsweek report that, that’s not bias; that’s just plain reality.”
The problem is that if you were such a news consumer, you’d miss key facts from the other side—facts which also are “just plain reality.”
To illustrate the point further, I’ve posted the following paragraphs in Left Turn. They describe what I mean by a “distortion theory of bias.” These paragraphs happen to contain the phrase that inspired the title of the book.
A key point of this book is that dozens, and maybe hundreds, of facts and statistics are relevant to a given issue. Some of these facts and statistics are ones that a conservative will think are important. Others are ones that a liberal will think are important. It is impossible for a reporter to report all the facts—there are simply not enough pages in a newspaper or minutes in a newscast. He or she can only report a sample.
In general, journalists are not giving us a representative sample. Instead—partly because of their own ideological views and partly because of institutional factors within the news industry—they are giving us a biased sample. Namely, they are more likely to report the facts and statistics that liberals want you to learn and less likely to report the facts and statistics that conservatives want you to learn.
Stated differently, while the job of a journalist is to shine light on facts, in the current state of the U.S. media, journalists do not shine their light straight. Instead it is as if they use a prism, causing the light to make a left turn. The result is that we, the readers and viewers of the news, are more likely to see facts from the left side of the spectrum. In turn, this causes our political views also to make a left turn—that is, to become more liberal. This is what I mean by a distortion theory of media bias.
From Left Turn by Tim Groseclose, PhD. Copyright © 2011 by the author and reprinted by kind permission of St. Martin’s Press, LLC. All rights reserved.
- Comment (8)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (3)
Comments :
Jun '10
Re: Media Bias: A Response to Stephen Colbert
Glenn Beck had a good example today:
New York Times headline: "Glenn Beck Attracts Hundreds to Temple Mount"
Actually, the number was 3000 right on (near) the Temple Mount, with a 5000 person overflow location that proved inadequate. Even with 5000 overflow seats, they still had hundreds of people standing.
Edited on Aug 25, 2011 at 9:44amSep '10
Re: Media Bias: A Response to Stephen Colbert
This "reality bias" explains the perplexing phenomenon that all of us experience: seemingly intelligent friends, claiming to be well-informed, spouting foolish liberal ideology. It also emphasizes something that conservatives should remember: liberals do, in fact, have some of the facts on their side. Denying that in the course of pursuing an argument just makes us look like morons.
Dec '10
Re: Media Bias: A Response to Stephen Colbert
In a interview with Chris Wallace, John Stewart made what I thought was a novel defense of media bias...journalists aren't motivated by ideological bias, their bias is toward laziness and sensationalism. I have since thought this was a very clever response.
But, while there is certainly a measure of truth to it, I have always found it hard to understand why journalists are so often inclined to sensationalize the same aspects of nearly every story or why their laziness causes them to consistently leave out conservative arguments.
Perhaps, I am simply missing Stewart's deeper point? In all seriousness, maybe liberal arguments, which routinely appeal to the humanity as opposed to cold reasoning are by their very nature those most susceptible to sensationalism since they appeal to our emotions rather than our logic. On the same line, the emotional information or the amount of information needed to rouse the emotions is far less than what is needed to satisfy the intellect. Its far easier to get a printable quote from a member of a mob than a stuffy economist.
In the end I think you and Stewart are both correct. Maybe Stewart just didn't realize it was the intellectual laziness of many journalists he so accurately pointed out
Edited on Aug 25, 2011 at 11:00amJul '11
Re: Media Bias: A Response to Stephen Colbert
I have to deal with intelligent liberals all the time and while they are armed with facts(often selective), the basis for all their reasoning boils down to emotion rather than logic. One can look at our leader's daily blathering and see how he appeals to emotion first and foremost.
Edited on Aug 25, 2011 at 12:00pmMay '10
Re: Media Bias: A Response to Stephen Colbert
the basis for all their reasoning boils down to emotion rather than logic.
Have you noticed that the word "feel" has replaced "think" in our daily conversation. Start listening especially to politicians and news anchors--even conservative ones.
Apr '11
Re: Media Bias: A Response to Stephen Colbert
Dr. Groseclose, a more important question, what ends are the sides attempting to achieve by leaving out certain facts? Your Bush tax cuts are a great example.
By Bush's own words the cuts were implemented to stimulate the economy at a time when it was slowing down. No one can argue that this wasn't successful - the economy grew through most of Bush's 2 terms and tax revenues increased dramatically during this time. So to leave out a "fact" like "tax cuts will go disproportianately to the rich" really is meaningless in light of what Bush was trying to achieve. Only discussing this "fact" brings to light the left's policy which is to create a fairer system without caring about the actual results for the broader economy. Obama said as much during a debate with Hillary in '08 when asked about capital gains taxes. When the moderator pointed out that lowering the rates actually greatly increased treasury revenue, Obama said that he cared more about fairness.
What is never reported on is the endgame for the two sides. Americans need to know where their leaders are trying to take them. The facts will then sort themselves out.
Edited on Aug 25, 2011 at 1:08pmMay '10
Re: Media Bias: A Response to Stephen Colbert
Beasley: In a interview with Chris Wallace, John Stewart made what I thought was a novel defense of media bias...journalists aren't motivated by ideological bias, their bias is toward laziness and sensationalism. I have since thought this was a very clever response.
But, while there is certainly a measure of truth to it, I have always found it hard to understand why journalists are so often inclined to sensationalize the same aspects of nearly every story or why their laziness causes them to consistently leave out conservative arguments.
It's easy. To write an article that gives fair and unbiased coverage to an issue requires intelligence and deliberate effort to critically evaluate multiple pieces of information. Laziness will produce an article permeated by the author's own assumptions while omitting information relevant other points of view.
So when journalists are about 90% left-liberal, what would you expect laziness to cause but a left-wing bias in their output?
Jul '10
Re: Media Bias: A Response to Stephen Colbert
I remember Hugh Hewitt having quite a contentious interview with Jake Tapper a few years ago, asking him a line of questions intended to elucidate Tapper's own political views (Tapper refused to answer many of them) I've since wondered if that actually helped Tapper to become more aware of his own biases and helped to produce one of the more even handed members of the WH press corps.