MSM Bias 101: An Essay

By: Celestial Junk Blog

Mainstream Media uses a number of techniques to foist upon the public its views, but all the while maintaining the appearance of impartiality. Media Bias 101 is a description of the more subtle techniques used. Those who follow the more intelligent discussions and posts on media bias, will find nothing in Media Bias 101 to be surprising. However, I have become convinced that all too many well meaning individuals are completely ignorant of the methods used by media to distort the truth, and therefore fall victim to its ploys. I must stress that the following essay is not about op-ed writing, but the straightforward reporting of hard news. Editorial pieces are opinion, so they should not be governed by the same rules as “News” pieces, but by other standards which are not a part of this commentary.

Index: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Part One: Images

The easiest way to manipulate the truth is through the use of misleading visual images. Digital technology gives newsrooms the choice of splicing and dicing from thousands of still images taken over very short periods of time. Any video footage can be dissected into a multitude of still images. It is child’s play to make sure that the visuals presented reinforce the expressed theme, even though in reality, the images used may be garnered out of context or selectively edited from imagery that in fact does not support the theme.

In other words, any event can be manipulated to present a certain theme by simply being selective of the imagery used. Furthermore, neglecting to use images that provide context, or scope, is akin to forcing consumers to view events with one eye closed, or through a keyhole. They simply don’t get the whole picture.

One of my favorite MSM ruses was the imagery that made the rounds in Canada during the VE-Day celebrations in Europe. The Canadian MSM was given a golden opportunity to work its magic because Stephen Harper and Gilles Duceppe (leader of the separatist Bloc) sat next to each other at several of the functions. Of the thousands of stills that were available, the CTV made sure that the most unflattering or “conspiratorial” looking images were used. It was deliberate, it was disingenuous, and it was dirty politics from the so-called impartial media. The MSM imagery reinforced the notion of sinister collusion between the two men, which was a theme in Canadian politics at the time.

One of the worst failings of the MSM is that it purchases vast quantities of visual and text material from Reuters and Associated Press, and presents it to the public at face value, completely trusting AP and Reuters. This purchasing is done not only by the major networks, but by virtually every news source. Recent events in Lebanon underscore this fact and suggest that the blogger blowup of Reuters in Lebanon is just a little scratch on the surface of a very dodgy problem. At times these two agencies are so far off the mark and so blatant in their bias that when one finally discovered “the rest of the story”, one is literally dumbfounded. Whether through incompetence or purposeful bias, the MSM is often guilty of altering reality through the disingenuous or misleading use of imagery. A video essay of how Palestinians distort reality using video film can be found HERE.

Part Two: Omitting Context

A favorite trick of the MSM is to withhold context from reports. Much like a child leaving out need-to-know information when explaining a wrong to a parent, the MSM often does not provide the whole picture. A typical example would be the following statement:

“Insurgents in Iraq today attacked a police station in Mosul. Twenty Five people were killed, among which were civilians and police.”

A statement of this sort leaves the impression that the terrorists completed a successful attack, when in fact, most of the dead were terrorists and more importantly, the police demonstrated their ability to repel the attack and inflict heavy causalities. Some would argue that the only valid number is the kill total, because people are people whether terrorist or not. But, in reality the purpose of misleading statements like this is to mislead. The reader is left with the impression of a successful insurgency battling a struggling police force. Furthermore, the report may neglect to mention that civilians called the police on cell phones to assist them in repelling the attack, and that some actually attacked the terrorists. Furthermore, the report may mention nothing of the fact that in the hours after the attack, civilian tips assisted police in capturing a number of terrorists who fled the botched attack.

The MSM regularly omits context in order to create headlines. Can any of us, whether politically left, right, or center, trust the MSM to fairly represent issues if context is omitted? After all, context is the single most important element in any news story because it is context that gives us the whole picture; not just the snippet that the MSM or any other disingenuous force wants us to believe.

Part Three: Controlling focus

As news stories develop, there are often a number of directions they can take. One would think that it would be the responsibility for the media to explore all relevant angles to a story, especially if that story unfolds over a protracted period of time. All to often though, the media will take it’s lead either from non-media sources such as the communications department of a political party, or will flog only one aspect of a story. Because I am conservative, I’ll use one recent example of this; keeping in mind of course that different agencies may favor different political perspectives.

For instance, coverage of Iraq has focused virtually exclusively on the violence. Reconstruction, heroic deeds on the part of Iraqis and Coalition forces, democratic reforms, and economic gains and successes have been virtually ignored. Nobody would argue that the violence in Iraq should not be covered; it should, but by not covering other and often positive aspects, the MSM has willfully mislead those of us who are not there to judge for ourselves. As a sign of rejection and mistrust of MSM attempts to write the agenda and keep world focus where it wants it, millions of consumers now turn to the New Media for alternate, and some would argue, more honest, information.

Part Four: Creating Myths

The MSM often manufactures issues based on scant facts. In other words, some of the key political stories featured in the MSM are by and large baseless. The method used is simple; seize onto an obscure comment, an obscure statistic, an announcement from a dubious source, or even a poll result, then create an issue around it that is many times larger than the statistics or facts suggest. Right-wing politicians are subjected to this sort of media spin more than any other group. They constantly find themselves explaining their way out of non-issues. The most insidious aspect of this type of media mendacity, is the fact that even its victims often begin to believe what is being postulated in the press. In the War on Islamic Extremism, MSM providers regularly post as fact information coming from incredibly dubious sources in the Middle East and elsewhere, while ignoring or scrutinizing sources from Liberal Democracies.

A perfect example of myth making is the rush by the MSM to proclaim as fact every supposed report of “massacre” by either Israeli or American forces. The problem comes not in the reporting of “rumors” but in the disseminating of unsubstantiated, unproven, and dubious information as if it were fact.

Part Five: Circular Reasoning

Typical MSM circular reasoning works as follows:

Media outlet “A” presents a thesis or apparent “fact”, citing dubious source “B” or another media source “C” as evidence. Other media sources then cite media source “A” as proof of the same, completing the circle. The layperson then may state that, “I believe myth X, because media A said so. In parlor lingo, we’d call this one big “circle jerk!”

An international example of this is the myth that the United States virtually single-handedly armed Saddam Hussein. The main source cited for proof is usually the New York Times, which itself cites incredibly suspect sources, if any at all. Even academic sources on this topic often cite The New York Times. After a while the myth becomes fact, when in reality, there was never any hard evidence to go by. Note that in this case nobody ever sites the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, because this Left-wing organization has hard factual data that debunks the Myth. CLICK GRAPH

Part Six: Disingenuous Retractions

As an educator, I’ve become used to the artificial apologies of bullies. Bullies apologize for a number of reasons, but seldom out of a genuine sense of remorse. They apologize in order to avoid punishment, they apologize in order to appear less threatening, they apologize to gain advantage, they apologize in order to dupe parents and inexperienced teachers, and they apologize to gain favor with peers. But, seldom do they apologize because they genuinely feel they’ve done something wrong and bully’s apologies usually come with a minimum of words, in quiet mumbles, or with provisos attached.

When the MSM makes errors, rare is the occasion that it apologizes in a truly contrite manner. For example, if a story leaves false impressions, uses fictitious data, or counterfeit sources, by design or by accident, seldom are we treated to retractions that are equal in magnitude to the damage done or false impressions left.

For example: If a story is found to be false or partially false, for whatever reason, retractions are usually made in such a secretive and hidden manner that the average consumer is never made aware of them. My favorite culprit is the BBC. Anti-American stories that have fallen far short of journalistic integrity are usually retracted in the most minimal way possible. The BBC on-line news service usually posts retractions for very brief periods of time and buried so deep in the on-line site that an electronic retraction-meter would be needed to find them.

I suggest that if a story is so short of journalistic standards that a retraction is necessary, that the retraction be made with the same magnitude that the original story was published.

What do retractions have to do with bias in the media? Simply this: Tepid and limpid retractions, on political issues, leave intact the impressions left by the false story or false portions of the story. In this way, a scurrilous story can be published, a retraction issued, yet the damage permanently done. If any news organization has a political bent, which it is obvious I believe most have, then disingenuous retractions are one of the most arrogantly flagrant forms of bias. I’ll leave it up to you to decide which political varieties fall victim to this media modus operandi most often.

Part Six: Misleading Headlines

Headlines are often the most important part of a news piece, whether print or audio visual. Attention getting headlines are necessary in a competitive environment and are often the only thing that may halt a disinterested consumer long enough to actually pickup, listen to, or watch the product.

The problem comes when headlines scream out misleading information; misleading as to the actual content of the story or misleading as to the actual facts. The danger of misleading headlines it that they may leave consumers with a completely wrong impression, especially consumers who do not take the time to actually read or listen to entire pieces.

Headlines that are politically based, and misleading, can be particularly damaging. When three centimeter block text on the cover of a newspaper is used, it can be read by passersby, and even if these people do not purchase the product, impressions are made. If the headline is disingenuous, then false impressions are left. Surely, given their literary skills, journalists could conjure up headlines that are catchy, enticing, yet accurate in their portrayal of what the story they advertise contains. It is the mere fact that misleading headlines are written at all, by people who’s literary skills far exceed that of the general public, that I contend that misleading headlines are not a product of accident.

A typical headline may read, “Blair Under Attack from Within”, or, “Clinton Aid Cleared”. Upon reading further, we may find that one Blair MP has expressed concern, and that the Clinton aid has been cleared of the least serious charge, out of six. If a consumer did not read further, the false impression in each case has been left. Why not a headline that reads, “So and So Dissatisfied”, or, “So and So Cleared of Fraud Charge”.

Headlining is part of the competitive game played between news providers, but it need not be misleading. I suggest that misleading headlining is a symptom of MSM editors playing god with our impressions of what the world is about.

Part Seven: Terminology

The MSM ascribes to benign terms, connotations that forever leave those terms loaded with singular meaning. Furthermore, it plays disingenuous games with terminology in order to either create impressions, suppress impressions, or distract.

A typical example of this is the use of the word “conservative” or “rightwing”. We have “conservative organizations”, “conservative think-tanks”, “conservative professors”, “conservative institutes, and even “rightwing Catholics.” We have the “radical-right”, “neocons”, “Christian Right”, “right-wing newspapers”, “rightwing magazines”, “rightwing filmmakers”, and even “rightwing Liberals.” And, in most cases the terms are used with a subtle negative connotation attached. A typical method of doing so would be to introduce two guests during a television news program; one a member of the “Conservative think-tank, the Fraser Institute”, and the other a Professor of Economics, from Simon Fraser University. We would not be told though, that the professor is a proponent of massive government intervention in the economy, in short, an economic socialist. Viewers impressions would change significantly if he were introduced as , “the leftwing professor of economics…”

Another example might be the introduction of an organization as a “rightwing anti-abortion organization”, or a member of the “Christian Right”. At the same time, a proponent of unrestricted abortion, say from the “Committee on the Status of Women”, would NOT be introduced with political connotation added at all, such as, “the member of the radical feminist organization…”

I ask in all sincerity, how often does one hear an introduction on an MSM television program that goes, “We have with us today, So-and-So of the Leftwing think-tanks…!” or “Mr. So-and-So, a radical leftwing member of the…!” I am sure there are examples to be found, but they are far and few between.

On the other hand, terms such as “progressive” are doled out by the media as rewards to those who move to the left, or towards that which the MSM views as being praiseworthy. We are assaulted with phrases such as “Progressive member of the ….”, or how about “progressive elements within the church”, or even “progressive members within the party…” In virtually every instance, the term is used in a positive light to denote a move to the left, especially on social issues.

Another example is the use of words such as “terrorist”, “freedom fighter”, “insurgent”, “killers”, “militants”, “assassins”, etc. In Iraq, where Coalition efforts are seen as an affront to World Government, a favored lovechild of the MSM are the killers of women and children in market places, who are simply called “insurgents”, and “militants”. Even after the London bombings, the bombers were not called “terrorists”, “killers”, or even “murderers” by the likes of BBC.

I simply ask that readers watch, listen, and observe the media at work, as it gently massages and corrals us with words and phrases. It creates negative connotations in order to disparage, and positive connotation for that which it approves. In most cases, I suggest that the practice is done as second nature, not through design, but simply as an extension of the superciliousness and pomposity that members of the MSM possess. This group has gotten by without serious challenge for decades; and because it works primarily in words, it’s intents, whether by design or by habit, can be seen in its manipulation of terms and phrases.

Part Eight: Passing the Buck

There are two activities engaged in by the MSM which should always raise eyebrows and which should always warn readers that all is not as it seems. The first is deliberate, the second, is a matter of economic necessity.

1. How often have you heard or seen media use “unnamed sources”, or “officials within the department of ….”, or “ military sources…”, or “some within the community”, or “a sampling of street interviews”, or “a member of the …”

Anytime unspecific sources such as the the above are used to bolster a story, I recommend flat out disregarding of the story. Turn off the TV, turn the page, toss the news paper. The above are typical ways that media uses substitution for hard facts, in order to fill out a story or to manipulate the truth. Only in extremely rare cases, when the well-being of the “source” is at stake, should “unnamed” sources be used. Journalists like to justify the “unnamed source” technique by falling back on the long worn out credo of “protecting our sources”. Basically, it’s a canard. As of late, “unnamed sources” have become the chief sources of myth making and propagating rumors. The use of “unnamed sources” is basically the reduction of big-time media into small town gossip rag.

2. Out of economic necessity, media sources rely on international news providers, such as Associated Press and Reuters, when reporting on global issues. The main source of international news is, therefore, Associated Press and Reuters. AP and Reuters news, video, and photos, are purchased and run at face value worldwide. Canadian news media providers have virtually no way of checking the accuracy of these stories. Suffice it to say, that both AP and Reuters have given news watchers, whether bloggers or watch-dog organizations, within the United States, a hay-day in pointing out errant and even contrived reports or footage via these two souces.

Let’s consider the immense trust we have to put in the MSM if we are to believe a story from Iraq, or any other problematic corner of this globe. A little known source takes photos and pictures, ads interpretation, then sells the work to AP. AP adds it’s own interpretation, then sells the same to a MSM provider. The local provider adds interpretation, then sells the same to us. In short, do you really know, what you think you know, based on what you’ve just read or watched concerning events half a world away. A detailed description of the process can be found HERE.

Part Nine: Group Think

I’m going out on limb with this concept because I have for evidence only my impressions, a few personal experiences, op-ed articles which are debatable, and a number of books that again, are debatable. And, a recent US study commissioned by journalists themselves, which I’ll use as a basis.

It seems apparent to me, that whether my design or by accident, the vast majority of journalists tend to be left of center in their personal political beliefs. I like to refer to a survey commissioned by Journalism.org, a US organization made up by journalists. (the site and links have recently been removed) In its 2004 survey, it was found that 7% of national journalists considered themselves to be conservative, in comparison to 33% of the general population. Furthermore, only 5% of journalist thought that homosexuality should be discouraged, compared to 42% of the general population. There are other stats to ponder in the survey, but I chose these specifically, in order to make a point.

With only an astounding 7% of national journalists considering themselves to be conservative, is there any wonder that media reports in general seem to be slanted to the left. 54% of journalists did consider themselves to be moderate, but this does in no way change the balance, which is tilted considerably leftward. Basically, 92% of American journalists would have to put their personal biases on hold in order to report favorably on a conservative concept or issue.

The media, in general, is made up of left to center thinking individuals, yet they like to assure us that this cant does not find its way into their work. With so many lefties finding employment within news media, it’s small wonder that media bias tends to be favorable to the left. And, with that many like-minded people employed together, one would think that group-think is virtually impossible to avoid.

One final aside I need to point to is that the same journalists who were surveyed by Journalism.org , and who overwhelmingly admitted to center or left personal views, also thought that they had been far to easy on G. W. Bush during the last election. Now that, truly, made me laugh out loud.

Part Ten: Conclusion

The Mainstream Media is not going away. It is the only industry with resources capable of bringing us news from around the globe in a timely fashion. Nobody else has access to the infrastructure it has built up, and paid for. We rely on the MSM to disseminate knowledge of events worldwide. It’s here to stay.

I believe though, that Main Stream Media is on balance, unbalanced; and that its bias is tilted considerably left of center. But, even if you disagree with my assessment, I hope that MSM Bias 101 helps you to better discriminate that which you read, see, and hear in the news media. I suggest that once you know what to look for, especially the more subtle distortions that news media uses, you will find examples of media bias on a daily basis. All it takes is a good dose of skepticism, knowledge of what to look for, and a willingness to become a filter of news media, not a sponge. As a right of center libertarian and Canadian patriot, I of course spot left-bias all of the time; that’s what I’m conditioned to look for. The left-wing individual of course spots right-wing bias within the media. In international news, I find services such as AP, Reuters, and the BBC, to be incredibly anti-American, incredibly statist when it comes to the United Nations, and more flagrant in providing spin, instead of hard news, than any other major news providers (not counting developing world providers) I watch and read a fair quantity of US media as well, and have found a general tempering in what in the past has been a liberal press. I think that a realignment of market share has more to do with this than genuine desire to change, but nevertheless, American news providers are being forced to change. The impact of large right-wing blogs, media watchdog organizations, conservative books, and FOX, cannot be underestimated.

In summary, let me say that one of the best deconstructions of media spin is the internet. From blogs, media watchdog organizations, to serious op-ed writers, a great variety of sources examine and dissect what we are fed. I say go there, and often you’ll be surprised at just how much garbage you’ve been fed by the modern day press. Seldom, will the MSM give you the whole picture, with all relevant context, and seldom will it focus on all aspects of a story, equally and fairly giving each element the scrutiny it deserves. For decades the news media megalith has gone unchallenged; the best way you can challenge it is to use modern day resources to get the whole story. And, raise your expectations of the media. Don’t expect it to be accurate and fair 70 percent of the time, not even 80 percent of the time, but virtually every single time. Demand the best of those who constantly tell us that they are the best.

Media Watch Organization: Click Click Click Click