Propaganda…
The press is often thought of as a unified voice with a distinct bias (right or left depending on the critic). This simplistic thinking fits the needs of ideological struggle, but is hardly useful in coming to a better understanding of what is happening in the world.
One point of clarification: When I say “hardly useful in coming to a better understanding of what is happening in the world,” I am talking about the desire to understand our world in general, i.e. how and why it works–an ongoing effort to be sure. Bias crusaders divert your attention from such understanding for their own political gain, although we may add their efforts to the list of things we would hope to understand.
I find the bias wars annoying because they fool people into thinking that the news media have one political bias (right or left). In fact, they have many political biases. But it is far more important to understand the structural biases if what we wish to do is understand how journalism works and why journalists do the things they do. On this I have said:
For that better understanding we need a theory.
A theory offers us a model that tells us why things happen as they do. Further, a theory allows us to predict outcomes and behavior. Assertions of ideological bias do neither. While we can expect the press to demonstrate ideological biases in regard to certain issues or other localized phenomena, these and other behaviors are explained and predicted by the structural biases. Since the press sometimes demonstrates a conservative bias, asserting that the press is liberal neither predicts nor explains. Since the press sometimes demonstrates a liberal bias, asserting that the press is conservative neither predicts nor explains.
Let me state this more forcefully: Claims of political bias do not predict journalistic behavior. This means a claim of political bias against the news media in general (right or left and stated as theory), that ignores the structural bias theory, is propaganda.
Again, we may point to any number of localized instances of political bias. And these instances must always be challenged by critics and news consumers. But such localized events do not add up to a liberal or conservative news media in general.
I’m wondering if there is a Bias Bias?
Is there a weighting of the frames that make up the structural bias model? So when one bias may suggest/predict certain outcomes and behavior, another bias might carry more weight and suggest a different ones?
Might those weights differ based on measurable attributes of a newsroom based on mission/goals, goup dynamics/personalities, resources, …?
Tim…excellent question, and I think the answer is: yes. That’s work I’m trying to accomplish now. Some of it I’ll publish here. The balance will have to wait for my book
Of those listed, I think the narrative bias in the controlling structure of journalistic practice.
While I agree that a more general theory would be useful, I’m less inclined to dismiss broader claims of bias as propaganda. To the extent that structural biases align with political biases, the structural biases can lead to broader political bias worthy of comment. To the extent that a group understands or controls the elements of structural bias, it may be able to cause broader political bias in the media.
It may be, for example, that selection for certain attributes of the profession cause individual journalists to tend liberal or conservative, and it may be that those attributes and tendencies change as journalists become more senior. It could be that the desire to have journalism be profitable causes journalists to be dependent on interested parties for their information, creating an implicit bias in favor of well-funded, well-organized interests.
While an operative theory is necessary for someone who hopes to understand and/or guide the process, a broad understanding that publication X tends to align with group Y may be more useful for a general reader. It is nice to imagine a world where every reader applies a rigorous 7-fold test to everything they read, but it seems a bit fanciful. A more useful model might be that readers develop trust relationships with publications and authors, and treat them as authorities within the domains of granted expertise.
Bob…I believe the broad claims are propaganda because such claims are simplistic. Specific claims are another matter.
And I agree, and have maintained all along, that much of the political bias we see in the press follows directly from the structural biases.
I do not imagine a world in which readers apply “a rigorous 7-fold test to everything they read.” I imagine a world in which those interested in a deeper understanding of what’s going on do so–a small number to be sure.