News Source Shapes Perception
Conservatives have complained about “the liberal media” for decades. Many have asserted that there was an institutional conspiracy with media organizations attempting to pass along their liberal biases to the young for just as long. Academic institutions have been liberal strongholds for a very long time evidenced by the anti-Vietnam War and Civil Rights movements in the 60’s and 70’s. Is there a conspiracy or is cultural liberalization a natural consequence of higher levels of education? More on that later.
No news source is currently more divisive than Fox News. Fox News was created on October 7, 1996 by Rupert Murdoch to fill a vacuum of conservative news. Recently, Fox News has been antagonistic with Barack Obama’s administration on almost every issue. They have given free air time to anyone with a criticism of Democrats but especially Obama. Ironically, the Birther movement has gotten much publicity on Fox with its viewers and guests decrying the man they perceive as a non-American for having such sway on American politics. It is especially ironic since Rupert Murdoch himself is from Australia and he has gotten a large number of flag-waving conservatives to denounce their president.
Despite this irony, it is unlikely that conservative feelings are a factor in Murdoch’s motivations. He simply recognized that there was a natural left-leaning bias in almost every American news source. This bias is likely derived not from any conspiracy but from the preponderance of left-leaning college graduates. It is only logical that if a majority of college graduates are on the political left, that a preponderance of reporters will be as well. For example, if 60% of college graduates are liberals and none of those graduates are robots, then 60% of news stories will contain a liberal “flavor” no matter how diligent the reporter may be in trying to avoid any appearance of bias.
Rupert Murdoch recognized this and created Fox News as a remedy. As business decisions go, this one was brilliant. If roughly 50% of the population is conservative and unhappy with left-leaning news organizations, then Murdoch’s network will have a potential to grab 50% of the viewers with little effort. The other 50% would be divided among the other news sources. That would leave Fox News with a 40-50% viewership plus an automatic number one rating and 10-20% each for the other 3 networks. You can argue with concepts but you can’t argue with math (or ratings).
If you accept this as logical, then it leaves a disturbing fact. If Fox News is right-leaning, it is the only news network that was created with the goal of disseminating slanted news to gain market share. Conversely, if the other news services are left-biased, it is likely a natural result of the demographic make up of most major universities. These journalists no doubt make an effort to get it right as much as is humanly possible, whereas Fox has the objective of presenting conservative news. If this is a fact, what ethical conclusions can be drawn from having the production of slanted news as a business model?
You can surmise that all things being equal, under the above example the NY Times would have a composition of 60% left-leaning journalists and 40% right-leaning journalists simply by employing normal hiring practices. That would give the newspaper a 60/40 left-leaning slant. Till now, I have heard no accusations that the NY Times discriminates against Republican or conservative journalists. That is not to say definitively that it does not but if it did I imagine it would be big news on Fox.
Now lets look at the reverse situation. If your goal is to present conservative news, what would you have to do to ensure that your news has a conservative slant? Assuming (as conservatives have complained for decades) that American universities are bastions of liberalism, thus creating a national pool of left-leaning journalists to choose from, would you not have to discriminate against journalists who are left-leaning in order to produce a demographically unnatural, right-slanted writing staff? Under those circumstances, how likely would it be that you could match the gradient of the left slant say, 40/60 instead of 60/40 and how could this be quantified? What are the ethical implications of even attempting to do this? Does it not create a risk of an over-slant, which may cause a serious distortion of the news? What affect does it have on the accuracy of the news being reported?
Rupert Murdoch, Chairman News Corporation
In a Pew Research Center survey report dated September 13, 2009 respondents indicated that their perception of news accuracy reached its lowest point in decades. 63% of respondents said that they believe news sources are “often inaccurate.” Further research bares the truth of this perception. A survey called the PIPA survey was conducted to try to understand why so many Americans held so many misperceptions about world events when compared to citizens of other countries. Their findings found not only that there were a large number of people who held stark misperceptions about news stories but that the number of misperceptions varied according to which news sources individuals got their news from.
They took a known news story with quantifiable facts, asked participants a series of questions about the story, and then measured the number of false responses categorized by news source. Which news source would you expect to score the worst? The questions PIPA wanted answered include:
- Is there a difference in perception between readers of print media compared to television viewers?
- Does the problem vary according to how much attention an individual pays to the news?
- Does the number of misperceptions vary by source, even among the same medium?
- Do levels of misperception vary according to a person’s political bias?
Worldpublicopinion.org has a simplified version of the report here.
Specifically, they asked individuals about the Iraq War, about the US’s reasons for going to war, the existence or non-existence of WMD, and various other questions long after the facts became known. Some Americans continued their belief of inaccurate information despite those facts. For example, 68% of Americans believed that Iraq played a role in the 9/11 attacks. 13% said that “conclusive evidence” had been found even though this was completely false. 6 months later, as much as 52% still believed that there was evidence to support this. Of 20 European countries surveyed, not a single country could be found where a majority of the populace shared this belief, including those countries which joined the US coalition.
What is the point of this? You have to consider the breakdown of the American perceptions by news source. Not surprisingly, the people who got their news from NPR/PBS had the lowest rate of misperceptions among the questions answered with only 23%. Fox News had the highest rate with 80%. NBC split the difference with 55%. According to the report, here are the rates where all questions were answered correctly.
NPR/PBS 77%
Print media 53%
NBC 45%
ABC 45%
CNN 39%
CBS 30%
Fox 20%
Rates where people answered multiple questions incorrectly:
NPR/PBS 11%
Print media 25%
NBC 30%
ABC 30%
CNN 31%
CBS 36%
Fox 45%
You can see from the last set of numbers that a person watching Fox News was 50% more likely to hold multiple misperceptions as someone watching say, NBC.
Here is where these numbers get costly. The report concludes that there was a direct correlation between a person’s willingness to go to war and the number of misperceptions they held about the situation. Simply put, your military family member is more likely to be sent into combat unnecessarily when the public perceives the situation incorrectly, especially when the decision makers are relying on that public perception to build support for war. If your response is, “Well, I would have been in favor regardless,” then you have missed the point. Whether you are in favor of an action or not, the chances of making a bad decision either about the timing, the opposition you will face internationally, the long term justifiability of your stance, and a host of other factors will hinge on the accurateness of your information. Also, if you can be wrong about this, what else are you wrong about?
According to PIPA:
The percentage of people who supported the war was directly proportional to the number of misperceptions about the conditions leading up to the war. This revealed a strong cumulative effect. Among those with none of the three misperceptions, only 23% support the war. Among those with just one of the misperceptions, 53% supported the war–rising to 78% for two of the misperceptions and to 86% for those with all three.
PIPA also states, “78% of Bush supporters who watch Fox News thought the US has found evidence of a direct link to al-Qaeda, but only 50% of Bush supporters in the PBS and NPR audience thought this.”
If you consider this information, you can see why the Birther movement continues despite an overwhelming body of information that would convince any rational person that Barack Obama is a US Citizen. It goes without saying that both Fox News and the Republican party have read the reports described here. When they give misinformation on Fox News, they understand full well the consequences to their viewers.
US President Barack Obama
One of the conclusions of the PIPA survey is that many people choose a news source that presents the news in a manner that they find palatable. More importantly, Fox News viewers tend to be less well educated (read the survey) and are more sensitive to having their beliefs challenged. They tend to have higher numbers of evangelical Christians who don’t need to be able to articulate why they believe something. The say things like, “Well that’s what I was raised to believe.” or “Because it says so in the Bible.” Who can argue with logic like that?
We were all raised to believe certain things. One’s personal test for things one promotes as factual should be, can this be proven? Can I explain in clear terms, why I believe that? Can I cite objective evidence to support my claim? Anything that one “just believes” should remain internalized and one should never try to assert their ideals over someone else’s ideals. For many conservatives, not sharing their beliefs indicates that you have “no morals.” This concept insists that “The only way to have morals is to believe like I do.” Fox News never challenges these obvious barriers to communication.
Where would the Civil Rights Movement be if people only did as they were raised to do? At one point in the South, segregation was the law of the land. Every person was raised to believe that it was right. How can such ideas ever be questioned if each person is nothing more than a clone of his parent, body and mind? How can we be presented with new ideas that can move us forward culturally if each person chooses information sources that only reinforce what he already believes?
I don’t fault conservatives for standing up for their beliefs. I believe they SHOULD stand up for their beliefs. If they are true Americans and believe in our constitution, they will stand up for mine as well.
More information: Book, “Just How Stupid Are We?: Facing the Truth About the American Voter,” Rick Shenkman, Basic Books (June 9, 2008)
I have gotten much feedback from conservatives since writing this article. Unfortunately, though these individuals had strong opinions about the subject, their stance lacked the conviction necessary to comment publicly here.
As one might imagine, the criticisms stem not from any logical rebuttal but from an inability to grasp ideas outside the scope of their preconceptions. They say they don’t believe the data in the cited surveys or that these are biased liberal organizations. They also say that Democrats do it too and that MSNBC is worse.
Not one person has found any evidence that my conclusions are inaccurate or that the well-known and reputable sources for my data are impeachable in any way. This is typical of the party that still claims global warming is caused by cow farts.
I invite any one with an opposing opinion to post evidence. I would even be willing to make a front page, top-level post of an intelligently-written, well supported rebuttal.
So far however, I got nothin’.
Man give it a rest. I get so tired of you guys dumping on Fox News. If they are so bad, why are they number one by far? Do you think the majority of people in this country can be wrong? Who are you to make that assumption? They just don’t bend over for liberals like MSNBC does.
Stephen,
1. If so many people dump on Fox as to make you sick, wouldn’t that indicate at least the possibility of a problem?
2. Why are they number 1? Re-read the article. They have nearly all the conservatives watching which is nearly half the country. No one else is stupid enough to put all their eggs in one basket! Non-conservatives vary their news sources. The other networks get just a percentage of non-conservatives which can never reach number 1. That’s 3rd grade mathematics my friend.
3. Can a majority be wrong? They were wrong about slavery. They were wrong about the 9/11-Iraq tie. At one point, they were also wrong about the Earth being flat. Nuff said.
4. Say what you want about MSNBC. They don’t claim to be fair and balanced. They also don’t allow people to make unopposed, false claims on their shows. They don’t organize rallies and then claim they are just there to report on it. It’s like starting a fire and then being the first reporter on the scene. Of course to know this, you would have to watch news from more than one source, which is unlike most Fox viewers…
Stephen,
You sound like an intelligent person who may be able to offer some insight into views from the right. So, when you see and hear blatant lies, smear tactics and information that you know is only so much spin, do you think that this is okay? Is this all a part of the way the game is played, or is it a profound insult to the American IQ?
Okay “Bro”,
I can tell by your name why you think that. The only lies I hear are from Obama worshipers, which I assume you are one! This guy is running our country into the toilet. Do you think THAT is okay?
The “right” as you say doesn’t have a monopoly on smear tactics. What about Rachel Maddow and Keith Olberman attacking Glen Beck everyday! How do you explain that???
You say it is the way “the game is played.” Maybe those of us who watch Fox don’t think our country’s future is a game. Did you ever think of that!?
By the way, you sound intelligent too. But if you are a liberal, YOU’RE NOT! That is why we are at every rally raising hell. That is why you don’t see a single derogatory posting like this where there won’t be one of us to chime in but how many comments do you see from liberals? There is a reason liberals don’t have much to say. In their hearts, they know they are wrong. We cannot be silenced because we know we are right.
Stephen,
I think we can all keep a respectful tone here. These are emotional topics for some of us but if we are to respect the principals of democracy, it can’t only be when we WIN elections. To value democracy is to value the will of the people even when you lose. Patriotism must be a calling above your own personal agenda.
Stephen,
I feel as if I have just attended a townhall meeting. My opinions have nothing to do with personalities in the media. My question to you is based on news that is reported on network television and news radio. I know that we can converse on a level other than this about issues we differ on. If your reply is how you really feel, then I just want to understand how you come by this train of thought.
Well you did talk about smear tactics so a list of personalities on the other side engaged in like activities shows that it’s a two way street. You made reference to that just like you made the “townhall meeting” comment just now. That is a very passive aggressive way to label someone, then you follow it up with an appeal to converse on a higher level to seem non-combative. You can’t hurl a label and then take the high road.
Stephen,
It is not my intention to label you, analyze or convert you. I have legitimate questions about how people with your expressed point of view form those opinions. I am from a time when people could talk about the world from opposed viewpoints and still maintain civility. I refuse to believe that anyone who values the validity of their conversation could think that the current tone of communication amounts to anything of substance. I am not going to assume anything about you. This is not taking a high road. This is me trying to get a deeper understanding about ideas that I clearly do not share.