Nov/Dec 2004

Mass Media:
Weapons of Mass Distortion?

by Doug Trouten

A press conference opened my eyes. It was the early 1980s, during Jerry Falwell’s “Moral Majority” days. Falwell came to my town for a fundraising dinner and held a press conference. As the new editor of a regional Christian newspaper, I joined my secular media colleagues to see what Falwell had to say.

After an opening statement, Falwell threw it open for questions. Everybody had questions about abortion, homosexuality, pornography and other “hotbutton” issues on the Moral Majority’s agenda— leading questions designed to provoke juicy sound bites.

One reporter asked him to comment on the protesters he’d attracted, a motley crew bearing signs with clever slogans like “Jerry Falwell go to Hell” and chanting “Two, four, six eight—Jerry
Falwell stands for hate” (basic protesting rule: If it rhymes, it must be true). Falwell said his security people had warned him that there might be protesters, and that they might include members of the feminist community, the homosexual community and possibly even the American Nazi Party. He said he certainly respected their First Amendment right to protest outside the auditorium and hoped that they would show the same respect for his group’s right to meet inside.

Pretty reasonable, right? But the next day’s daily newspaper headline said, “Falwell calls protesters feminists, Nazis.”

In the accompanying story the crowd of protesters had grown to nearly 1,000 (my own count and police on the scene said fewer than 100). The story said the protesters were “peaceful,” although I saw police dragging screaming, spitting protesters away from the doors. Falwell’s many reasonable remarks didn’t make the story.

Reading the story of an event I had attended drove home this simple truth: What happens and what’s reported are sometimes two very different things.

A Mediated World

You’ve probably never met Falwell or Bill Clinton or Madonna, and you probably don’t know anybody who knows them, but you have an opinion about each of them based on press reports. Nearly everything we know about national and international events comes through the media.

But can the media be trusted? Most Americans say no.

An extensive survey of public opinion regarding the media was done in 1997 by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press. It found that 67 percent of Americans believe that media coverage of political and social issues “tends to favor one side”— up from 53 percent in 1985. That response was found across the political spectrum, although it was more likely from Republicans (77 percent) than Democrats (58 percent) or independents (69 percent). A year later a survey commissioned by the American Society of Newspaper Editors found the same thing: 78 percent of Americans said the media was biased.

It should be noted that people at both ends of the political spectrum see bias, and that a person’s perception of media bias may say as much about them as about the news they watch. In other words, if you’re on the far right, something in the center seems to be to the left. Still, a 1997 Harris Poll commissioned by the Center for Media and Public Affairs found that those who see liberal bias outnumber those who see conservative bias by a two-to-one margin.

Is It The People?

Experts also see problems with media reliability but offer a variety of explanations. Perhaps the most common explanation is that media bias reflects the personal views of media decision-makers.

In a groundbreaking 1980 study of the “media elite,” researchers Robert and Linda Lichter and
Stanley Rothman found that key decision-makers in the national press are out of step with most Americans. They found that 86 percent of media “gatekeepers” studied said they seldom, if ever, attend church, 90 percent approved of abortion on demand, 75 percent approved of homosexuality and over half saw nothing wrong with adultery.

A 1996 survey by the American Society of Newspaper Editors found that of 1,037 reporters questioned, 61 percent identified themselves as “liberal” (compared to 15 percent self-identifying as “conservative”).

A New York Times reporter’s informal survey of 153 journalists covering the Democratic National Convention found that journalists from outside of Washington D.C. favored Kerry over Bush by a three-to-one margin, while journalists based in the nation’s capital favored Kerry 12 to one.

Former CBS news correspondent Bernard Goldberg, author of the popular media criticism book Bias: A CBS Insider Exposes How the Media Distort the News and Arrogance: Rescuing America From the Media Elite told Plain Truth, “These people live in a very comfortable, elite, liberal bubble. Inside that bubble they can go for a week, a month or a year and not run into anybody who disagrees with them on the issues of the day. Whether it’s abortion, feminism, issues about race— anything. As a result, they don’t intentionally try to stick it to anybody, but they have this group-think mindset, and because journalists are only human they carry their biases with them to work. They say they don’t because they’re professionals and can put it aside. But ask any journalist if they think a cop, a judge or a corporate executive can put their personal biases aside. All I’m saying is that when you have newsrooms that are overwhelmingly liberal, they see things in a certain way.”

Is It The Funding?

Duke University economist Jay Hamilton says the problem isn’t really the people— it’s how they’re paid. In his new book All the News That’s Fit to Sell, The Death of Wisdom in an Information Age, Hamilton argues that media bias, like the growth of fluff news and celebrity journalism, is symptomatic of a new industry obsessed with profits.

“At its heart, news is a commodity,” explains Hamilton. “It’s a product, and that really helps you understand the shape that a particular news story is going to take. We view news as either a
mirror of reality or a distorted mirror, but we don’t necessarily think about what factors drive the formulation of a story. I think it’s important to understand the economics, because if you want to see news change— especially in policy— you need to understand how the market for information works.”

Hamilton presents evidence that evening news broadcasts became more partisan when networks decided to pursue young female viewers by presenting stories aimed at their political interests.

Is It The News Itself?

Historian C. John Somerville of the University of Florida, Gainesville, sees an even larger systemic problem. In his book How the News Makes Us Dumb, he argues that the real problem with today’s media is that we insist on having it daily. The need to fill a 24-hour news cycle has created a bias toward what’s new, blurring the definition of what’s important and increasing the odds that the media will get it wrong. He notes, “Its most troubling effect is on the religious mentality, since religion tries to see things in an eternal context.”

Sommerville’s book is filled with examples of the daily news cycle creating a lack of accurate
perspective. For instance, in 1988 a Washington Post headline said, “Zia death probe said to indicate sabotage.” On the same day the New York Times ran a headline stating, “No sabotage clues seen in Zia crash.” In 1989 the Boston Globe reported, “No improvement cited in Marcos’ condition,” while on the same day the Boston Herald said, “Marcos shows improvement.”

Humor columnist Dave Barry observed this when he wrote, “If the news media owned airlines, there would be a lot less concern about how many planes crashed and a lot more concern about whose plane hit the ground first.” Barry saw this in the chaotic coverage that followed the 2000 presidential election. He wrote, “If you had hoped to inform yourself about the most important story in the world by watching network T.V. news— the most expensive and sophisticated news-gathering operation in history— you actually wound up less informed than if you had spent the night staring at your refrigerator.”

Sommerville notes that the Internet offers people the ability to cobble together their own view of the world from a wide variety of sources— similar to what once happened in colonial-era coffeehouses. But, he says, “I think people are too lazy in the final analysis to use the Internet. It’s amazing what they’re satisfied with today. You look at headline news and try to watch it, and the mixture of insignificant news and advertisements is staggering.”

What Can We Do?

Some say the media leans left, some say right. Some say the problem is the people in charge, while others see larger systemic issues. But nearly everyone agrees that the press doesn’t provide the unvarnished truth. So what’s a news consumer to do?

Sommerville offers perhaps the most radical solution: Simply stop paying attention, at least to daily news. “There are things in the newspaper that are valuable— they just don’t appear on the front page,” he says. Christian magazines are a good alternative, he notes, since the editors sort through the news to find items of significance.

Hamilton believes media economics need an overhaul, with non-profits playing a larger role and government working to reduce the cost of covering hard news. He also points to media outlets with lower costs as part of the solution. “A good thing about print is that you can afford to be boring in print,” he explains. “In television the channel has to tell the same story to everybody, while a newspaper is a portfolio of stories, and you can select among them. And on the Internet you don’t need to be profitable—you can be a blogger.” Hamilton also suggests that consumers offer financial support for non-profit media outlets they find beneficial.

Goldberg says the solution may be a sort of ideological affirmative action in the media. “Let’s go out and consciously try to hire people who don’t just ‘look like America’ but who think like America— people who go to church on Sunday, who are from blue collar backgrounds.” He also suggests getting news from multiple sources to get different perspectives.

Other suggestions:

•Don’t believe everything you hear. Be a little skeptical.

•Learn about media. Reading stories by “insiders” can help you understand the process and how it can break down.

•Read widely. Expose yourself to varying viewpoints and use that wide range of information to put together your own world view.

•Realizing that some bias is inevitable, find a news source whose bias matches your own world view.

•Directly question the people involved. Journalists are surprisingly accessible, both by phone and by e-mail. Be polite, but let them know when you think they’ve missed the mark. Your comment might help them do a better job next time.

•Write letters to the editor. The letters column is one of the most-read items in a daily newspaper and is your opportunity to present a different viewpoint to a paper’s readers.

•Support media you agree with. Subscribe to magazines that do a good job. Let advertisers know you appreciate their support of your
favorite media.

Doug Trouten is the Executive
Director of the Evangelical Press Association. He and his wife Lis live in Minnesota.

Return to Plain Truth Ministries Home Page