The Limits of Media Bias

 

hillary_clinton_donald_trumpThis election has me thinking about Media Bias and the limits and strength of that bias. I can’t imagine the media being more in the bag for Hillary Clinton and more hostile to Donald Trump than they are now. Well, I take that back; I could imagine it. I have to watch the BBC and the only thing they report is perceived verbal gaffes by Trump or his surrogates and never mention Hillary’s email or health problems. From watching the BBC alone you would think that Hillary was in a coma somewhere and Trump went around only saying dumb things when he is not admitting that Obama was born in the US.

Which brings me to the limits of media bias. It seems the media operate with certain constraints that limit the effectiveness of their bias and these constraints are found in their the nature of their business and the nature of their audience. I also think this election campaign has revealed to us some of the strengths of media bias, basically when the bias is the most powerful, and also revealed a real weakness that we might exploit in the future.

Wherever we stand on Trump, we are still all Conservatives and we will be dealing with media bias far into the future. The better we understand the phenomena, the easier it will be to overcome. Let’s get to looking to the limits. When a person becomes defined in the public mind, media bias has limited effect on changing that perception.

Take a look at Trump and Clinton: both have been media figures for well over 20 years and the public perception of both has solidified over time. As the media has tried to change that perception they have failed. Reagan also demonstrated this for us. Reagan had a long media presence and was greatly defined in the public mind before he ran against Carter. The Liberal Media, with an almost complete lock on mass communication then, unleashed their dogs of war and weakened his image and stature in the minds of the public. However in one debate performance Reagan was able to give lie to the media narrative and reassure the public that what they thought of him all along was true and on election day he won.

When dealing with a known entity a lot of the media tricks don’t work anymore. Let’s contrast Romney and Trump for a minute. Romney, while not unknown, had a pretty low public profile when he ran for President against Obama. The media and the Obama campaign, I know I am repeating myself, were able to re-define Romney in a way he was never able to recover from. In Romney’s case this was not just a case of media bias but also the fact that his gaffes played into the narrative of the unfeeling evil business man too easily. When a candidate feeds a narrative about them it always gives that narrative powerful legs. When one of the aspects of genius in Reagan was his ability to starve the media narrative of its power.

Back to Trump. Trump has been a public figure longer than Hillary Clinton and his persona is stuck in the public mind. One of the reasons that the media has had a harder time pigeon-holing Trump as a wild eyed racist is that the public has long seen Trump’s extreme statements as part his persona. They don’t follow the media in thinking that Trump is loony today for behaving in ways they have watched for nearly 30 years. The only thing that is hurting Trump, and I think driving his high negatives, is that they are buying into the idea that he is not ready or really should be President. Maybe it is good for him to be an entertainer but not in the White House. This uncertainty about Trump is something that the public already shared and that is why the media narrative has some bite. But I think worries about whether Trump is serious enough to be President would exist in a world without massive liberal media bias.

Moving on to Hillary. The Clintons may have slithered out from under every rock the Republicans have tried to smash them with, but they have been marked by scandal for decades. The Republicans may have wounded themselves badly with impeachment at the time but they managed to spit on the Clintons from the grave and marked their whole brand with scandal and backroom dealing. The public distrusts Hillary in their bones and when Hillary feeds the narrative of corruption, as she does, the narrative takes on a life of its own despite media’s effort to squash it.

Which leads me to the limits of media bias. Their business must be tethered to facts to have credibility to push a bias. The more they ignore facts, the weaker effect their bias has. That means their ability to stop a narrative like the Clinton email scandal is limited. They can affect it on the margins, like they did with Obama’s Fast and Furious scandal and the IRS scandal, but they can’t ignore it completely. This allows it to get out there and be exploited by Republicans. In Clinton’s case, corruption has followed her for so long and is so associated with her that when she feeds that narrative, the story has far more powerful legs than the media desires.

Trump has exposed a wonderful weakness in the media as well; no matter how biased they are, this weakness seems to “trump” it. Conservatives have long heard the defense from liberals that the media is not biased because the media is not relentlessly progressive on all issues all the time. Instead our liberal friends tell us that the media works at the pleasure of their corporate masters and aren’t liberal at all.

Well, we know this hand-waving is laughable as an excuse for bias but Trump has shown there to be a kernel of truth to this defense. By making controversy and driving ratings, Trump makes the media cover him in ways that other candidates can only envy. He has had less success at this since winning the nomination but still has some success, which is amazing. When Trump told the media he was going to address the birther issue they covered the speeches of all the veterans Trump had assembled to sing his praises. So Trump addressed a controversy but made the media air a pro-Trump infomerical for free as the price the media had to pay for it. You have to acknowledge his brilliance in pulling this off. I can’t wait to see a more clever politician exploit this weakness in the future and I hope that Republicans at least learn this lesson in media manipulation from Trump.

Finally we also see the media finally paying a price for bias. In this election the media went against the hard left and the right in service of Hillary and in doing so they have distanced themselves from the source of credibility, reporting facts. Distrust of media has never been higher and therefore the effect of media bias is lessened and the damage it can do limited.

To sum up, the media has a very hard time changing the narrative on a known person. The more the public knows about a person, the harder time the media has telling the public what they should think. Candidates that feed a narrative about themselves can’t rely on media bias alone to save them from their folly. Hillary has found the corruption charge impossible to shake despite a lap-dog media, because the public perception of her corruption is too powerful. Media bias is undermined by a need for ratings and so media will not miss an “event” like Trump’s speech on birtherism, even if that means giving their enemy a half an hour of free, positive coverage.

I also see us coming into an incredibly skeptical age where media bias is exposed and media coverage routinely dismissed and distrusted. This carries with it a whole lot of downsides but for Conservatives and Republicans, there are upsides to be had from a more skeptical public. If we learn the lessons from today in fighting media bias, we will have easier time of winning elections in the future.

Published in Culture, General
Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 15 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Umbra Fractus Inactive
    Umbra Fractus
    @UmbraFractus

    Funnily enough I was just reading a bunch of articles about how past media bias has come to bite them in the backside. After all the ridiculous things they said about Mitt Romney of all people their dire warnings about Trump ring hollow.

    • #1
  2. Hoyacon Member
    Hoyacon
    @Hoyacon

    Well said!  I’ve often wondered if those who are politically engaged are even capable of calculating the practical effect of media bias.  To many, it’s obvious (and it is), but is the proverbial “average voter” truly influenced?  The liberal choir to whom much of the media is preaching are not going to be influenced–they’re already there.  Those of us on the right are not going to be influenced because we recognize it for what it is.  So that leaves a middle group of indeterminate size who may or may not be paying much attention and may or may not be influenced.  Does media bias affect this group enough to decide elections?

    One of the hot mini-news stories of the day is Kathleen Kennedy Townsend’s claim that Bush I, in a personal conversation, told her that he was voting for Clinton.  Needless to say, it’s being reported as if it were true and not hearsay, with no comment about it representing the “betrayal” of a conversation with a 92 (?) year old man by a Democratic pol.  So–media bias.  But how many people are there walking around saying, I going to change my vote to Clinton because Bush I said he’s voting for her? Precious few, I’d guess.

    • #2
  3. drlorentz Member
    drlorentz
    @drlorentz

    Good insights and food for thought, Mr. Wolf.

    Hoyacon: I’ve often wondered if those who are politically engaged are even capable of calculating the practical effect of media bias.

    Our own Tim Groseclose has addressed this very point both in an academic paper in the Quarterly Journal of Economics and in his book Left Turn: How Liberal Media Bias Distorts the American Mind. The journal article is available for free at Scribd and as a PDF.

    The effect is considerable. It’s been a while since I read it but I recommend it if you’re interested in this well-reasoned and well-documented work.

    • #3
  4. Bill Nelson Inactive
    Bill Nelson
    @BillNelson

    Brian Wolf: It seems to me the media operate with certain constraints that limit the effectiveness of their bias and these constraints are found in their the nature of their business and the nature of their audience.

    No, there are no limits. None. After Clinton’s collapse last week, most news media reported her campaign talking points as simple fact: Clinton was “powering through” an illness, as women do.

    On Feb. 27, 1968, Walter Cronkite closed his report with an assessment of the Vietnam conflict as un-winnable.

    “But it is increasingly clear to this reporter that the only rational way out then will be to negotiate, not as victors, but as an honorable people who lived up to their pledge to defend democracy, and did the best they could. ”

    He was wrong, but it changed the nations concept of the war. And it changed Pres. Johnson’s also.

    • #4
  5. Don Tillman Member
    Don Tillman
    @DonTillman

    I think that calling it Media Bias is an understatement, and kind trivializes the issue.  Propaganda is more accurate.

    Glenn Reynolds famously boiled it down to, “think of them as Democratic operatives with bylines and you won’t go far wrong.”

    • #5
  6. WI Con Member
    WI Con
    @WICon

    @brianwolf – Terrific post, well presented and argued. The Media magic definitely seems to have failed this year, that ‘Birtherism’ episode being the most illustrative.

    I’d wonder what  my fellow Ricochetti would think of: 1) having the GOP spokespersons or people that are introducing our candidates make highlighting egregious examples of media bias against said candidate part of the introduction – ‘working the ref’s’ so to speak. 2) Design a podium that could actually project those highlights and/or produce our own ‘crawler’s’ with pertinent information relating to the topics being discussed. If the GOP candidate/office holder is speaking about some level of funding (which never goes down) have those fact projected on that podium screen – don’t give them opportunity to fudge. Project DOJ facts about officer shootings, crime rates etc. Project per pupil spending for different periods when addressing the inevitable – your cutting money for kids.

    We can and must do better. This post definitely highlighted some of the factors that could make us more successful.

    • #6
  7. Martel Inactive
    Martel
    @Martel

    Don Tillman:I think that calling it Media Bias is an understatement, and kind trivializes the issue. Propaganda is more accurate.

    Glenn Reynolds famously boiled it down to, “think of them as Democratic operatives with bylines and you won’t go far wrong.”

    The only way I’d change that is “incognito Democratic operatives with bylines”.  Openly Democratic operatives aren’t nearly as insidious.

    Reporters don’t want you to know what they’re doing so they can do their job even better.

    • #7
  8. Brian Wolf Inactive
    Brian Wolf
    @BrianWolf

    Bill Nelson:

    Brian Wolf: It seems to me the media operate with certain constraints that limit the effectiveness of their bias and these constraints are found in their the nature of their business and the nature of their audience.

    No, there are no limits. None. After Clinton’s collapse last week, most news media reported her campaign talking points as simple fact: Clinton was “powering through” an illness, as women do.’

    Yet her poll numbers went down and her negatives rose.  Even on mainstream outlets people complained about her secretive nature and how it hurts her.  Media bias helps her still but it it is not the magic bullet for all her problems as people feared it might be.

    On Feb. 27, 1968, Walter Cronkite closed his report with an assessment of the Vietnam conflict as un-winnable.

    “But it is increasingly clear to this reporter that the only rational way out then will be to negotiate, not as victors, but as an honorable people who lived up to their pledge to defend democracy, and did the best they could. ”

    He was wrong, but it changed the nations concept of the war. And it changed Pres. Johnson’s also.

    True to a point.  However if the war had been fought a different way from the beginning it would not have been vulnerable to Cronkite.  The Democrats directing the war fed the media narrative instead of countering it and so the story or better said lie became very, powerful.  Also you are talking about an ear when liberals controlled practically all media.  That is not the age we live in today.

    • #8
  9. Brian Wolf Inactive
    Brian Wolf
    @BrianWolf

    WI Con:@brianwolf – Terrific post, well presented and argued. The Media magic definitely seems to have failed this year, that ‘Birtherism’ episode being the most illustrative.

    I’d wonder what my fellow Ricochetti would think of: 1) having the GOP spokespersons or people that are introducing our candidates make highlighting egregious examples of media bias against said candidate part of the introduction – ‘working the ref’s’ so to speak. 2) Design a podium that could actually project those highlights and/or produce our own ‘crawler’s’ with pertinent information relating to the topics being discussed. If the GOP candidate/office holder is speaking about some level of funding (which never goes down) have those fact projected on that podium screen – don’t give them opportunity to fudge. Project DOJ facts about officer shootings, crime rates etc. Project per pupil spending for different periods when addressing the inevitable – your cutting money for kids.

    We can and must do better. This post definitely highlighted some of the factors that could make us more successful.

    These are some great ideas.  Doing more fact checking in a even handed manner would be great for Conservatives.  It also would directly attack liberal media’s credibility.

    • #9
  10. Brian Wolf Inactive
    Brian Wolf
    @BrianWolf

    Don Tillman:I think that calling it Media Bias is an understatement, and kind trivializes the issue. Propaganda is more accurate.

    Glenn Reynolds famously boiled it down to, “think of them as Democratic operatives with bylines and you won’t go far wrong.”

    I think this is right is some cases but I am trying to capture the reporters that think they are doing their jobs but their total ignorance of guns, God, and Conservative lead them to push the liberal line because they simply don’t know any other line.  That kind of media bias is real and more common then we would want.  I don’t deny that many reporters are doing straight up propaganda though.  I would point out though that their propaganda is one reason why they are losing trust and credibility like never before.

    • #10
  11. Umbra Fractus Inactive
    Umbra Fractus
    @UmbraFractus

    WI Con:@brianwolf – Terrific post, well presented and argued. The Media magic definitely seems to have failed this year, that ‘Birtherism’ episode being the most illustrative.

    Even a NeverTrumper like me had to admit that was a stroke of genius. :)

    • #11
  12. drlorentz Member
    drlorentz
    @drlorentz

    Bill Nelson:On Feb. 27, 1968, Walter Cronkite closed his report with an assessment of the Vietnam conflict as un-winnable.

    “But it is increasingly clear to this reporter that the only rational way out then will be to negotiate, not as victors, but as an honorable people who lived up to their pledge to defend democracy, and did the best they could. ” [emphasis added]

    He was wrong, but it changed the nations concept of the war. And it changed Pres. Johnson’s also.

    To be fair to Mr. Cronkite, it was clearly expressed as his personal opinion. The difference today is that reporters represent their opinions as facts.

    • #12
  13. Sash Member
    Sash
    @Sash

    The media and the way they refuse to hold Clinton accountable, made me realize that it is more important to elect someone who can be impeached.  Hillary could never be impeached, no matter what she does the media will stall it and cover it up… she is above the law.

    We can’t elect someone above the law.

    If Trump wins, and does something illegal he’ll be gone faster than you can dial Pence’s number.

    That actually makes Trump the safer pick because he is not above the law.

    Weird.

    • #13
  14. KC Mulville Inactive
    KC Mulville
    @KCMulville

    The media’s effect is mitigated on two counts: First, unlike when the New York Times and the Big 3 networks dictated all other points of view, the media marketplace isn’t monolithic anymore. Second, the cumulative effect of liberal predictions and analysis being wrong so often eventually catches up to you.

    The assurances of global warning, for instance, are countered by the memories of the same experts assuring us of the imminent Ice Age. Sooner or later, those analyses catch up to you – and when the media elite can’t prevent you from hearing conflicting points of view, their control lessens even more.

    The problem, of course, is timing. While it is true that over the long term, people distrust the media … let’s face it, in the short term, people rely on the media. When a big story first happens, everyone turns on CNN or Fox or the networks to get the details of the story … even though they’ve been wrong so many times before.

    • #14
  15. Brian Wolf Inactive
    Brian Wolf
    @BrianWolf

    KC Mulville:The media’s effect is mitigated on two counts: First, unlike when the New York Times and the Big 3 networks dictated all other points of view, the media marketplace isn’t monolithic anymore. Second, the cumulative effect of liberal predictions and analysis being wrong so often eventually catches up to you.

    The assurances of global warning, for instance, are countered by the memories of the same experts assuring us of the imminent Ice Age. Sooner or later, those analyses catch up to you – and when the media elite can’t prevent you from hearing conflicting points of view, their control lessens even more.

    The problem, of course, is timing. While it is true that over the long term, people distrust the media … let’s face it, in the short term, people rely on the media. When a big story first happens, everyone turns on CNN or Fox or the networks to get the details of the story … even though they’ve been wrong so many times before.

    But I think the interesting thing here is to see how the media bias is limited in new ways today.  The media has power but they can’t simply shape the story as they used too.

    For instance during Reagan’s Presidency the media manufactured a homeless crisis almost out of whole cloth and then the homeless vanished without a trace when Clinton was inaugurated.  I don’t think they could manage that now.  Also I have found it interesting how difficult it has been for them to fix up Clinton’s reputation and present her new to the public.  The public just doesn’t buy it.  We live in interesting times.

    • #15
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.