The moon, satellite...or cheese whiz?

September 7, 2004 9:59 AM

The bias of balance : new study of how media "evenhandness" distorts truth"Two researchers argue, in a paper published this month in the journal Global Environmental Change, that following the norms of American journalism, U.S. media have promulgated a bias in the coverage of climate change essentially by giving too much credence to climate skeptics at the expense of the scientific consensus." - "Reporters and editors at four of the nation's top newspapers [ New York Times, Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, Wall Street Journal ] adhered to the journalistic norm of balance at the expense of accurately reporting scientific understanding of the human contributions to global warming" (an earlier work in this vein).
posted by troutfishing (28 comments total)

I'll add a Canadian perspective to the mix.
posted by dpkm at 10:04 AM on September 7, 2004

Here's how this dynamic plays out in the political arena ( right-leaning Metafilter members may be able to provide analogous examples which apply to the Kerry campaign ).

How it works :

1) Kerry says "The moon is made out of rock" (or whatever it's made from) - a factually accurate, verifiable statement.

2) Bush says "The moon is made out of green cheese!".

3) The media slavishly airs the two statements, side by side, without stopping to comment on the fact that Bush's statement is demonstrably untrue and amounts to a delusion, a fantasy, or a lie.

4) 55% of Americans come to believe that the moon is made out of green cheese.
posted by troutfishing at 10:04 AM on September 7, 2004

One of the most dangerous things happening in the media now is that a statement is made which has a partial bit of truth is isn't immediately falsifiable, and the media reports on it. The public picks up on it, but by the time the statement is retracted or proven wrong, it has been accepted as truth.

One way to counteract troutfishing's problem, would be for the media to move to the "european model." Say, we're going to report the news from this perspective, and then carry through on it.
posted by drezdn at 10:10 AM on September 7, 2004

I agree that there's a bias to the right, but I don't think it has anything to do with conscious decision-making or with the right-wing owners of the presses trying to impose their viewpoints. It's just that the right has mastered the art of "playing" the press using the techniques in this article, and the left doesn't try so hard to play them (or, perhaps, just isn't as good at it). Meanwhile, the press tend to be both so arrogant about their own "creative" role and so pressured by deadlines and low staffing (thanks to those owners) that they miss the way they're being played.

What I don't get, though, is how supposedly self-respecting outlets like the NYT and WaPo can do grandiose mea culpas about how they were shamefully played by the Bush administration and then turn around and fall for the very next talking point out of their lying mouths. I mean, if the goal is "balance," and they've already tipped over to the armageddon side by legitimizing the fraudulent Iraq war, don't they feel any compunction to "balance" that with a commensurate tilt to the other side now? Obviously, I'd settle for a tilt just in the direction of the facts, but I think we deserve to see some left-wing bias for at least a few months.
posted by soyjoy at 10:16 AM on September 7, 2004

This piece illustrates my point, and also brings up a real problem in newspaper writing that I don't think a lot of people grasp (Jay Leno, for one, certainly doesn't seem to): The headlines to stories are almost never written by the people who write the stories. Rather, they're written by copy editors/paginators who read through the story in question, far enough to get what they feel is a good idea of the point of it, and then put the headline - the first and most persuasive portion of the story that the reader sees - on top of it. Needless to say, the headline writer rarely has the same understanding of the story that the reporter does. Sometimes the hed will be a little bit off from the real point of the story; sometimes (more often than some journalists would like to admit) it will be flat-out wrong.

This is not something that inherently works toward right-wing bias, but it does lend itself to issues where one side has staked out the simplest, most dumbed-down black-and-white version of an issue, and as this example shows, helps to perpetuate lies that have been cynically introduced and then are repeated via the Clara Bow is tough syndrome outlined by Paul Jarvis (from this thread)
posted by soyjoy at 10:28 AM on September 7, 2004

"What I don't get, though, is how supposedly self-respecting outlets like the NYT and WaPo can do grandiose mea culpas about how they were shamefully played by the Bush administration and then turn around and fall for the very next talking point out" - soyjoy, I think many in the media may be innocent, dumb, naive, oblivious (or whatever - and also your point about titling, above, is well taken) but I suspect many are not.

This thread dovetails nicely with owillis' post yesterday ( The Noise machine), in which I made the following comment (addressing hank_14) :

"...I believe you are letting mainstream media - TV, print, even NPR (see below) - too easily off the hook.

Take the Kerry/Swift Boat Vets smear campaign - it was painful to see mainstream media, Public Radio included, endlessly repeating in close proximity to each other, the words "Kerry","Vietnam","Controversy","War Record".

I cannot bring myself to believe that many members of the US media are so unaware of the effect that the ceaseless repetition of those very contiguous words has on subjective public sentiment about John Kerry.

I call COMPLICITY.

But assume, for the sake of argument, that this was unwitting propaganda. What was less generally noticed was the fact that true equivalence would have demanded the corresponding airing, matched up with the Swift Boat "story", of the controversy over Bush's Guard service record - in the form of the words "Bush", "Guard Duty", "Missing", "Absent" (and so on).

What a sweet dream !

But, the need for that type of balance not recognized, acknowledged, or even generally perceived - it's entirely missing from the media discourse or even from the "media on the media" discourse (except on Metafilter). But I do NOT believe that all mainstream media professionals are so dumb as that would indicate - far from it - and hence my point here : US media refuses to take responsibility for true equivalence, and that amounts to complicity."

Then also - of course - you can get some journalists for a few hundred buck
posted by troutfishing at 10:41 AM on September 7, 2004

The media slavishly airs the two statements, side by side, without stopping to comment on the fact that Bush's statement is demonstrably untrue and amounts to a delusion, a fantasy, or a lie.

Not only that, but the headline of the article will be Views Differ on Moon.

Keep in mind that if the article was headlined Bush Wrong on Makeup of Moon, or the article itself otherwise points out that Bush is in the wrong on this issue, then the editors will get flooded with hate-mail from right-wingers complaining of "bias."

It's not a left-wing/right-wing thing, except insofar as right-wingers seem to be the most worked up about ensuring that reporters do not fact-check their sources. Rather, the problem is about both journalistic laziness and the desire of journalists to hang around with important people and act as a mouthpiece for those in power. Fact-checking is difficult, and it's more pleasant act like one is part of the power structure rather than deny oneself by opposing it. After all, why spend all your time behind a desk trying to point out that the president is wrong when you could be hanging out having drinks with the president and writing down whatever he says as thugh it were true?
posted by deanc at 11:05 AM on September 7, 2004

It's a standard fallacious argument: "The recommendation of a position because it is a mean between two extremes" (see Robert Thouless' Thirty-eight dishonest tricks which are commonly used in argument, with the methods of overcoming them). With nespapers, though, it's hard to tell if it represents bias or because it makes better (and safer) copy to portray issues as a battle between equally matched positions.
posted by raygirvan at 11:10 AM on September 7, 2004

deanc, that was a coffee-spewer. Good thing I hit the wall and not the keyboard. "Views differ on Moon" - (!) Also, I generally agree with your comment in spite of the tenor of my material posted below. Never underestimate the power of laziness or the appeal of brown-nosing.

[ Oooops.... I accidentally hit the "post" button there in that last comment. ]

Reviewing a little, this was discussed in a July 7, 2004 post of mine, in which I asked "What shall we call such pervasive, ongoing and seemingly willful patterns of inaccuracy, distortion, and selective omission?" (Metafilter 34186)

As I was saying, "You could get a journalist cheaper than a good call girl" (Metafilter 30843) : let's take a dive down the rabbit hole, to ogle Journalism and the CIA: The Mighty Wurlitzer, and "CIA funds "alternative" media through nonprofit foundations?" (metafilter 21228) and that reminds me, too, of this : "Where's Thursday, May 6 ? - Nightline "disappears" show segment" (Metafilter 33204)

_______________

"Question is: what are you doing about our media's problems (other than kvetching)? Have you gotten involved with Free Press, the Media Access Project, or any of the other groups working to reform the media" - Drywall, from Metafilter 34186

_________________

Meanwhile : ".....The author makes evident that the captions of industry sought to exert control over the entire social milieu beginning in the 1920s. Their foremost project was to define American life as consumerism. Consumption was marketed ......it was a means to transform ones life: to achieve social esteem, to escape otherwise mediocre, humdrum lives. It was very much an individualistic approach to life in contrast to the traditional focus on small communities or extended families.

Industrialism was not easily swallowed by workers of the 19th and early 20th century......The strike wave of 1919 and the "Red Scare" of the early 20s convinced economic elites to set upon a course of pacification of discontented citizens in addition to measures of suppression.

The advertising in the 20s tried to convince that the mass production of consumable items was of tremendous benefit to society......Every effort was made to see that mass-culture goods penetrated and hence defined all areas of life. Non-acceptance of that corporate-defined world was not viewed kindly......By the 1950s the transformation of the US to a consumerist culture was virtually complete. The penetration of corporate-owned television into all households ensured that alternatives to consumerism would not surface" ( from "Captains of Consciousness : Advertising and the Social Roots of the Consumer Culture" )
posted by troutfishing at 11:14 AM on September 7, 2004

Global Environmental Change, that following the norms of American journalism, U.S. media have promulgated a bias in the coverage of climate change essentially by giving too much credence to climate skeptics at the expense of the scientific consensus.

Another way of translating the above is: "Highly biased environmental organization calls for suppression of ideas it does not believe are true."

Haven't you people ever heard of the marketplace of ideas? American businesses spend billions of dollars every year trying to shove ideas down the popular throat via the most sophisticated communications methodologies known to man, and in nine out of ten cases, they fail to make any impression -- because what they are saying is patently untrue, or the general public makes up its own mind, and decides that their product or idea sucks.

People aren't idiots, and to imply that they can't judge for themselves is contemptuous and elitist.
posted by Faze at 11:14 AM on September 7, 2004

I just noticed "captions of industry" in that cut-and-pasted book review - it should be, I think, "captains of industry".
posted by troutfishing at 11:16 AM on September 7, 2004

I'd say that it's contemptuous and elitist to suggest that most Americans have time to keep up with a bazillion technical details about Global Warming and other such issues.

That takes a lot of time, and most people have more pressing things to do......like going to work, buying groceries, sleeping, and so on.

People rely on the media to present them with the basic facts so that they can make up their minds. But, the media isn't doing so well with basic facts these days.

_______________

"Another way of translating the above is....." - Another way of translating THAT above statement is "I actually don't want to talk about the details of the study in question" .

"American businesses spend billions of dollars every year trying to shove ideas down the popular throat via the most sophisticated communications methodologies known to man" - Isn't that called, basically, advertising and propaganda ? Are we discussing possible media bias or the marketing of toilet paper ? Or is that an artificial distinction, and is the news equivalent to the selling of toilet paper, as something to be sold through advertising and propaganda ?

Sheesh, that sounds to me like communist thought control.
posted by troutfishing at 11:35 AM on September 7, 2004

People aren't idiots, and to imply that they can't judge for themselves is contemptuous and elitist

They may not be idiots but they may be misinformed on scientific matters, especially when misled by biased on unreliable press reportage. Example, the vaccination/autism controversy in the UK: {almost universal medical opinion based on properly conducted clinical trials} vs. {one maverick doctor and a lot of parents looking for something to blame} - treated by the tabloid press as equally valid viewpoints.
posted by raygirvan at 11:54 AM on September 7, 2004

A lot of people take the contrarian minority position because it is their temperment to do so. It has little to do with the facts or the press. It is very much in the American character I would argue to side with the underdog.
posted by stbalbach at 12:25 PM on September 7, 2004

I just need to be clear here....

When someone is openly biased (Rush, say) they are slammed by the left for not giving "equal time".

When the press doesn't supress idea or stories they don;t like, the press isn't being biased ENOUGH.

Ok then. Have cake, eat too. Got it.

Basically anything but "biased in favor of my ideas" will be attacked.
posted by soulhuntre at 12:25 PM on September 7, 2004

Actually troutfishing, the way I've seen it play out is

"Give me a billion dollars"
"No, I don't want to give you any money"
"Alright, we'll compromise, give me half a billion"
"No"
"You see? You see how my opponent won't negotiate? I've offered to meet him half way..."
posted by Capn at 12:26 PM on September 7, 2004

It was Kenneth Burke who first realized that persuasion doesn't work (anymore, if ever) by convincing someone through the best argument, best evidence, or most logical proof. Rather, persuasion works by getting the addressee to identify with the rhetor, either on a personal level or at the level of embodied value-claims.

That he would realize during immediately after the professional political consultant was born (circa 1920) should tell you something.

That journalists have evolved, perhaps in response to the dictates of a television audience and perhaps due to the craftiness of those that govern their right to public speech, and developed rules that make it impossible to mediate identification by way of fact-checking means we end up with a media that serves as a catalyst to identification as the persuasive strategy.

As a random aside, I think it was Jean Baudrillard who said something to the effect: Americans all love and appreciate facts, they just have no appreciation or understanding of facticity.
posted by hank_14 at 12:42 PM on September 7, 2004

And Faze, just because I'm having so much fun picking on you, let me try to think of a company that sells products to the American population entirely through the marketing of sign-value. Tommy Hilfiger (pure markup), Polo (the perfect horse), Ralph Lauren (the world of), Old Navy (each winter, a new fleece!), Nike (the Swoosh!), Toyota (driving excitement), BMW (beauty of design), ING (stupid ass name recognition commercials), Budweiser (whassssssup), Miller (President of Beers) and every other dumb-ass company you see branding itself on television... Oh, I guess I can't think of any.
posted by hank_14 at 12:46 PM on September 7, 2004

Are we discussing possible media bias or the marketing of toilet paper ?
It's all communications: toilet paper, global warming, presidential candidates. You are trying to communicate the attributes of your product, whether it is a thing, an idea or a person.
Actually, global warming is a mature issue that has saturated the public consciousness more successfully than a lot of other critical issues of our day. The public has been exposed to all sides of the debate, and more or less accepts that the climate is warming, and that human activities are responsible for it. For all but a few, it is no longer a controversial issue -- if it ever was.
What is still debated are the Kyoto treaty, laws limiting the use of internal combustion engines, etc. Those are rightfully hot issues, upon which men and women of good will can disagree -- and whine about the other guy getting all the attention, as it is human nature to do.
posted by Faze at 12:53 PM on September 7, 2004

There's a difference between bias and critical thinking. The complaint is that the press isn't judgemental enough. I think it's the decline of the interview and the rise of the talking heads that is to blame.

Reporters tend to mutely supply opposing viewopints (only two, not a spectrum, never a third point-of-view) without comment. By opposition, both appear equally credible. It's a cop-out for doing a good one-on-one interview. It's easier for the journalist to setup a quotefight that it is to ask educated questions of the person making the claim and get to the bottom of their position.

This is particlarly true in technical fields like science or law or finance. Pick a pair of talking heads, and instant story, no need to worry about learning the issues. It's not bias so much as the reporter not bothering to understand the subject to do a good interview.
posted by bonehead at 12:56 PM on September 7, 2004

People aren't idiots, and to imply that they can't judge for themselves is contemptuous and elitist.

This coming from someone who routinely puts people (as in the masses) in their place? I guess you've changed your mind.
posted by juiceCake at 1:07 PM on September 7, 2004

The complaint is that the press isn't judgemental enough. I think it's the decline of the interview and the rise of the talking heads that is to blame.

Or, to put it another way, the lazy assed press will regurgitate the fax supplied talking points rather than doing a little research, some (what should be required) fact checking, and then report with a bias toward the truth, and not the spin.

Is that too much to ask of the good-hair talking heads and their corporate masters?

See CJR's Campaign Desk blog for more information.
posted by nofundy at 1:22 PM on September 7, 2004

juicecake -- I change my mind all the time, thank goodness. In any case, as a citizen I honor and observe all the public pieties about the masses and their collective wisdom, because I think it's good for the country. But I privately subscribe to the good old bohemian contempt for the common ruck of humanity, which is my privilege in our wonderful free society.
posted by Faze at 1:28 PM on September 7, 2004

In any case, as a citizen I honor and observe all the public pieties about the masses and their collective wisdom

Which I find perfectly reasonable. However, you have no possible reason to be mouthing these public pieties in this particular thread, because deference to such pieties is irrelevant to the discussion. Unless you're just trying to be annoying.
posted by deanc at 1:50 PM on September 7, 2004

Or, to put it another way, the lazy assed press will regurgitate the fax supplied talking points rather than doing a little research, some (what should be required) fact checking, and then report with a bias toward the truth, and not the spin.

Shit, that sounds a lot like MetaFilter, and the rest of humanity as well. Problem here is that the "Press" is at the forefront of the problem because they're being read/seen/heard everyday.

To blame the media for a problem with society is just silly. They represent the public quite well; a bunch of sheep eager to fit into a party, a meme, an opinion, etc.

owillis said it quite nicely in his thread down the page; BAA-AA-AA...except it's not just Republicans, contrary to popular MeFite beliefs.
posted by BlueTrain at 4:33 PM on September 7, 2004

BlueTrain you're doing the same thing that the article points out.

The president is lying eggregiously about something.
Yeah, well, all politicians are currupt, so what are you going to do?

Is a cheap cop out. Especially since 1) the republicans are the ones who are in power at the moment, and 2) they really are breaking new ground in the lying / curruption department.
posted by Space Coyote at 4:43 PM on September 7, 2004

It's not a cop-out if I'm actively engaging the problem. At this stage of my life, the best I can do is to speak out for myself, my values, and accept the consequences of societal rejection.

The larger problem is our society's unwillingness to engage itself in its problems, leaving those in power and those who retain wealth to their own devices. I've harped constantly about Pennsylvania's fiscal crisis, for instance.

The idiots in charge decide that legalizing slot machines will help solve our budget deficit. Now I ask you, how the fuck does a couple million in people hard-earned revenue, which SHOULD be going toward healthcare and personal well-being, help the state fix the larger crisis, a declining taxable base? It doesn't. In fact, it makes those who need the money most even more financially destitute.

And now, the Democrats want to use the cash for property tax relief, while Republicans simply want to cut state taxes. All the while, the deficit rages on, healthcare sucks, two cities virtually bankrupt, and public services are being cut everywhere (Hey morons, those who are the most in need for these services are those who are on the fringe of being legally poor).

All the while, Pennsylvanians are sitting on their hands, preparing to gamble at the new slot machines, instead of paying attention to the larger issues.

It's society. We're more complacent than ever before, partly due to the rise in cost of living and having to work multiple jobs, partly due to our college educations meaning jack shit when we graduate because colleges get more cash by churning out graduates, partly due to the parties giving us wedge issues (what's more important? Lack of well-paying jobs or gay marriage?), etc.

It's a hell of a lot more complex than I originally stated, but there is a method behind my madness.
posted by BlueTrain at 5:01 PM on September 7, 2004

raygirvan - thanks for that link!

(9) The recommendation of a position because it is a mean between two extremes (pp 52-54)
Dealt with by denying the usefulness of the principle as a method of discovering the truth. In practice, this can most easily be done by showing that our own view also can be represented as a mean between two extremes.
posted by Stuart_R at 7:02 PM on September 7, 2004