Introduction
Communications studies concern mass media legitimacy, especially print journalism. This literature review takes a multi-dimensional approach to communications objectivity struggles. Firstly, Daniel Sutter’s (2004) News Media Incentives, Coverage of Government, and the Growth of Government and Daniel Sutter’s (2001) Can The Media Be So Liberal? The Economics of Media Bias presents an economic view of the effects of media bias. Secondly, Robert A. Hackett’s (1984) Decline of a Paradigm? Bias and Objectivity in News Media Studies and Jim A. Kuypers’s (2002) Press Bias, Politics, and the Media Manipulation of Controversial Issues provide an overview of media bias’s social ramifications. Lastly, Druckman and Parkin’s (2005) The Impact of Media Bias and How Editorial Slant Affects Voters deconstruct the results media bias can have in changing mass opinions. This literature review assesses media bias. Media bias can significantly alter the political spectrum.
What is media bias?
Sutter’s (2004) News Media Incentives, Coverage of Government, and the Growth of Government evaluates the business-minded influence of liberal bias in the mass media. Sutter (2004) analyzes market share and its impact on profit maximization concerning media coverage and objectivity (p. 552). Sutter (2004) emphasizes that the methods used to gather information affect the issue’s result or content. He examines “whether the news media or news-gathering techniques indirectly and inadvertently favour government growth” (Sutter, 2004, p. 550). Sutter (2004) states that media bias can be categorized into two types of discrimination: direct and indirect. In his analysis of media bias, Sutter (2004) says that media must avoid natural tendencies due to the “[reduction of] the audience and revenues of news organizations” (p. 550). Consequently, they receive indirect bias when very scant attention is given to the potential manipulation of information that remains “unnoticed and unchecked” (Sutter, 2004, p. 550). Sutter (2004) evaluates government control’s influence on reporting accuracy.
Background to Media Bias
The research methods Sutter (2004) uses are strictly empirical evidence of quantitative research and inquiry. Sutter (2004) says, “I am an economist by training, not a journalist, and thus I rely on secondary evidence concerning reporting, not personal observation” (p. 550). He uses multitudinous surveys and polls to distinguish between government influence on mass media and non-impartial emanating from improper journalistic practices. From the 1970s until 2004, he catalogues the development of mainstream media issues. Furthermore, with extensive quantitative analysis, Sutter (2004) notes the lack of government reporting and increased gratuitous information such as entertainment.
Sutter (2004) concludes that the media must exert significant effort to obtain the correct information for accurate reporting; however, that differs from the case argued by Sutter (2004). Furthermore, Sutter (2004) stresses that the media aims to maximize profits. The press will not lose its ability to obtain accurate information. The media will take whatever steps to save profits, even at the cost of objectivity.
Sutter’s (2001) Can The Media Be So Liberal? The Economics of Media Bias deconstructs the impact of monopoly or conglomerate influence on several media outlets. Rather than analyzing media bias, Sutter (2001) “[asks] what might generate and sustain a liberal news media” (p. 432). Sutter (2001) examines the pressures that hinder the survival of liberal bias in conglomerates. Sutter (2001) asks two questions that justify his concern: “Is the source of bias on the demand (news consumer) or supply side of the news market? […] do profit-maximizing owners allow their reporters to indulge their liberal views at the organization’s expense?” (p. 432). He concludes that liberal bias severely influences profit maximization. “The news industry will almost certainly feature organizations catering to a range of political perspective” (Sutter, 2001, p. 433).
Sutter (2001) explains his critique through content analysis. Sutter (2001) studied content based on quantitative research, breaking down conglomerates’ influence on liberal bias. His study included calculated percentages and several surveys and polls. Sutter (2001) gathered quantifiable information to prove his case. For example, Sutter (2001) found that most Washington journalists published 51% of their articles without editing.
Sutter (2001) maintains that news gathering dramatically affects the content of published articles. Media partisanship hinders fairness: “Fairness in reporting always allows government officials to be quoted and thus to provide their spin on events” (Sutter, 2001, p. 449). Sutter (2001) critiques that for liberal bias to survive, careful consideration of article content is necessary (p. 449).
Consequences of Media Bias
Hackett’s (1984) Decline of Paradigm concerns? Bias and Objectivity in News Media Studies focus on the deconstructing process of mass media, its relationship to political inquiry, and the critique of media bias. Hackett’s (1984) essay deconstructs three key assumptions:
- News can and should be objective, balanced and reflect social reality;
- The political attitudes of journalists or editorial decision-makers constitute a significant determinant of news bias;
- Bias in news content can be detected with existing reading methods
- Discrimination is based on partisanship (p. 229).
Hackett (1984) compares journalistic ethics to past methodological inquiries and mass media exploitations. Hackett (1984) states that: “In journalistic practice, balance and accuracy (non-distortion) may not always be compatible” (p. 230). Secondly, he notes the undeniable influence of 1) political partnerships, 2) advertisers, and 3) editorial decision-makers (Hackett, 1984, p. 229). Following his second assumption, his third analysis examines the detection procedures necessary to avoid biased inferences in the media.
Hackett’s (1984) research methods are extensive but not exhaustive, partly due to his reliance on textual evidence. He proposes that content analysis is “usually quantitative” (241). Hackett (1984) praises message decoding with its disadvantages and relevance to media such as television and some aspects of literature. Following content analysis, Hackett (1984) suggests that researchers must view material based on semiotic deconstruction. Hackett (1984) explicitly notes that “the message intended may not be the message received” (p. 243). Hackett (1984) says that qualitative methods are repeatedly decoded and re-coded.
Hackett (1984) concludes that a quantitative approach to media analysis is helpful. However, qualitative methods such as content analysis and semiotic deconstructions help pinpoint media bias in politics. Kuypers’s (2002) Press Bias, Politics, and the Media Manipulation of Controversial Issues analyze media bias in politics. Throughout the article, Kuypers (2001) tracks the history of media ethics from its past ethical grounds to more conscious agenda-setting, goal-oriented manipulative behaviour. In his thesis, Kuypers (2002) states, “I believe the press exhibits an easy willingness to advance its ideals concerning appropriate public policy” (p. 202). Kuypers (2002) states that the mass media constructs frames using “certain keywords, metaphors, concepts, and symbols” (p. 199). In conclusion, they establish the relevance of one issue over another.
Framing and Media Bias
Framing occurs when the media emphasizes one political viewpoint over another, thus promoting biased agenda-setting media coverage (Kuypers, 2002, p. 199). Moving forward, Kuypers (2002) analyses an ideologically reinforced liberal bias. Despite this, he states, “What is of concern here is not that the bias is liberal, but that such a bias is so extensively present throughout the institution” (p. 203). Kuypers (2002) emphasizes the difficulty of objectivity and condemns agenda-setting on controversial issues. Kuypers (2002) encompasses both quantitative and qualitative sourcing. He uses six historical case studies plus endless diagrams and compiles statistics from polls, surveys, interviews, and government sourcing. This is to emphasize the different frames developed by the media. Kuypers’s (2002) case studies meticulously deconstructed the values placed by the named individuals and how the press relied upon them through rhetoric, bias, and misleading ideas. Following the case studies, Kuypers (2002) utilizes surveys and polls to draw public opinion to support his views. Kuypers (2002) found that press coverage ran under the cloak of a definite agenda whereby the media manipulated its people on controversial issues.
The Impact of Media Bias and How Editorial Slant Affects Voters discusses how media bias in editorial content can influence voting decisions. Central to their concern is the ramifications of this on democratic principles (Druckman & Parkin, 2005, p. 1030). Druckman and Parkin (2005): Expect that a relative editorial slant influences voters. Newspaper coverage is a primary source of information for voters during Senate campaigns. There is, therefore, good reason to expect that the type of coverage will impact voters’ candidate perceptions and, ultimately, their vote choices. (p. 1032)
In their analysis of the media bias, they categorize their organization in three steps: 1) whether editorial slant is essential, 2) deconstructing media-based “literature by studying relative slant” (Druckman & Parkin, 2005, p. 1031), and 3) the influence of editorial slant on voters (Druckman & Parkin, 2005, pp. 1031-1032). Druckman & Parkin (2005) critique the development to assess the accuracy of individual voting on particular issues.
Druckman and Parkin (2005) use an excellent tactic to test their critique of editorial slant and its effect on voters. Firstly, before their entire study begins, they analyze the population by deconstructing, through questionnaires and surveys, their age, sex, marital status, education, level of interest in politics, annual income, and political identification (i.e. republican, independent or Democrat). After gathering an exit poll, Druckman and Parkin (2005) initiated “[a] team of content analyzers [to analyze] two papers every day from September 13th (the day after the primary election) through November 7th (Election Day), resulting in an analysis of 112 newspapers” (p. 1036). Essentially, Druckman and Parkin (2005) note that “Our coders coded each article for several characteristics including length, position, soundbites, and overall focus or frame” (p. 1036). After tabulating their statistics: “Coders also analyzed the content of each story by coding each paragraph as covering any of 28 issues (e.g., defence, social security), 11 candidate personal/image characteristics (e.g., leadership, integrity, empathy), or 13 strategic elements (e.g., poll results, ads, fundraising), noting, in each case, the candidate focus” (Druckman & Parkin, 2005, p. 1037). Furthermore, Druckman and Parkin (2005) state that “we focus on a single campaign in a single market with two competing, editorially distinct newspapers. Combining comprehensive content analyses of the papers with an Election Day exit poll, we assess slant and its effects on voters” (p. 1031). Druckman and Parkin (2005) conducted a comprehensive analysis of the current issue they are trying to put forward, which significantly rewarded their praise for their contribution.
From their analysis, Druckman and Parkin (2005) conclude that “We [found] concrete evidence that relative editorial slant can influence voters” (p. 1047). The effect of editorial slanting significantly alters the message invoked in various newspapers (Druckman & Parkin, 2005, p. 1047). Through a careful assessment of the sources mentioned earlier, the source that utilized the most influential research methods would have to be Druckman and Parkin (2005) for several reasons. Firstly, before going into the study, they performed an exit poll to quantify the preferences or political spectrums associated with their two comparison groups—The Star Tribute and St. Paul Pioneer Press in their coverage of the 2000 Minnesota Senate Campaign. Secondly, they gathered a team of content analyzers to deconstruct newspaper affiliations. They were distinguished and creative in their methods of quantifying public opinion, thereby strengthening their critique that relative editorial slant, or media bias, significantly alters the result of any campaign.
Sutter (2004) and Sutter (2001) were limited in their discussion because their research methods were proper but needed more insight. Due to his singular deconstruction of media bias through an economic lens, Sutter eliminated an entire category of qualitative evidence. Furthermore, Sutter (2001) used outdated sources to prove his case. Considering his lack of present sourcing, his decision to look for sources of twenty to thirty years of age emphasized his lack of evidence because he connected to the present—the past is not the same as the present. Kuypers (2002) uses commendable research methods. Kuypers (2002) deconstructed six case studies through a comparative scenario of how the message was represented and how the media altered its message. As far as any critic would describe Kuypers’s work, this is a significant contribution to the debate on objectivity.
Hackett’s (1984) analysis of media bias was outdated, although the concepts of objectivity and how media bias develops were not. He dismisses anything quantitative and primarily concerns his critique with qualitative evidence, which is not preferable, especially for those who seek hard proof. Moving forward, with these sources as evidence of the dangerous ramifications media bias can have, Druckman and Parkin (2005) were correct in their analysis of what it would mean to democracy if media bias went on its path.
