The Bias of American Media versus the Democratization: Which Will Prevail?

Chapter 6 in The Struggle for Democracy discusses the role news media organizations play in American democracy. The chapter highlights the media’s essential function of educating and informing citizens about current events, trends, and policies while also pointing out how scholars argue the media is biased, unreliable, and deceptive. The news media heavily influences significant actors in the political system: citizens and elected leaders. Thus, it is important to evaluate the degree to which the news media advance democracy in the US or hinder it.

The book describes many components of news media operations and practices that may contribute to biased information. First, media corporations are so large, powerful, and interconnected, making it unlikely for voices that challenge the economically and politically powerful to be aired. Second, the concentration of media ownership may lead to less diversity of news and opinion or a failure to provide substantive information about politicians and public policies to citizens, instead focusing on the bottom line by entertaining audiences. Local newspapers are still the only source of of news in many small towns and rural areas across the US, but this article explains that the big media firms, like the New York Times or Washington Post, are moving in and taking over most local newspapers, making news consistent across US towns. As citizens, we are socialized to believe that the news media’s main function is to inform us about politics, but in reality, their main function is to make money. 21CF, who owns Fox News, reported $28.5B in revenue in FY 2017 (10 K). At the end of the day, media corporations cannot continue to operate and produce media without making money, so they prioritize the profit motive. To do so, they focus on trends like infotainment to attract viewers, sharing more audience-grabbing topics than politics, government, and policies that affect the public. This is critical to understand when evaluating news media’s effectiveness and reliability. The media’s priority of making money instead of making the public more informed citizens raises the question, how informed can our citizens and public opinion truly be?

Thirdly, most political news is based on what public officials say, which has serious consequences for how well the media serve democracy. As a reader, I was shocked to hear about the close relationships and mutual dependence between reporters and top government officials. For example, beats and news-gathering routines encourage mutual dependence as reporters need information from government officials and government officials provide this information with the implicit arrangement that reporters will speak about them in a favorable light. I was even more shocked when I read about how the Washington press corporations and top government officials live in the same neighborhoods, attend the same social gatherings, and send their children to the same private schools. Will the media and government officials genuinely challenge and debate each other’s opinions if they know they must preserve their relationships to continue producing news media and stay in office?

Ultimately, it seems like the media industry is corrupt because the public’s opinion is manipulated by the media, which is actually manipulated to an extent by government officials as a result of their mutual-dependent relationship.

To evaluate whether US representative democracy is working, we have to consider the three necessary benchmarks that must exist: popular sovereignty, political equality, and political liberty. The central idea of democracy is popular sovereignty, which is the basic principle that “the people are the ultimate source of government authority and of the policies that government leaders make.” However, citizens must be well informed about politics and policies to influence what government does productively. Most of that information must come through the news media, so how well democracy works depends partly on how well the news media informs the public as well as how well policies enacted by government represent the interests of the public (and of course, this requires the public be discerning of the information they receive from the media).

Take, for instance, this two-minute video full of clips of Trump lashing out at and criticizing the media – consistent with his frequent claims that unfavorable headlines and media are “fake news.”

The video explains how the president sees the media and how he wants the American people to see the media – as dishonest, or “fake.”

This New Yorker article explains his “fake news” tactic: “Judging from the President’s tweets, his definition of ‘fake news’ is credible reporting that he doesn’t like. But he complicates the matter by issuing demonstrably false statements of his own, which, inevitably, make news.” Thus, his never-ending comments may be a tactic to reassure his supporters that he is not making irrational or erroneous decisions, but that the news media has got it wrong. This challenges the notion that the government and reporters always have a mutual-dependent, convenient relationship. Throughout history, presidents have expressed their disapproval of various aspects of the media.

One of the conditions of popular sovereignty is access to high-quality information so that people can form authentic, rational attitudes about public policies and political leaders. If there is false or biased information or misleading interpretations, people cannot form accurate opinions. Based on the deceptive aspects of the media described earlier, it appears that this condition of popular sovereignty is not entirely satisfied as many Americans consume misleading media without realizing that media can be biased. Public opinion cannot be most productive if it is influenced from above. The video included above should be thought about further – although Trump is calling the public’s attention to notice his “misrepresentation” in the media, we must recognize that he says this with a bias and has a track record of doing so. For popular sovereignty to exist and representative democracy to flourish, I suggest the media continue to represent what government officials say while also representing more of the public’s opinion, reporting both of their stances in a more informative, neutral way to act as more of a balanced back-and-forth channel of communication. Although reporters are supposed to write in an objective voice, they are selective in choosing whose opinions to include and reference and what sources they use, so the media will always have some bias, and it is essential that citizens are told this and can recognize this bias.

This begs the question of whether it would be helpful or better to have a more partisan press. This Washington Post article explains how the 2016 presidential election has split American media into two “distinct waters, with very little irrigation connecting them.” Part of this is a result of the accounts and pages we follow on social media and websites we subscribe to online, but now consumers have to consciously seek out the “other side’s” point of view. The press should not be more partisan because it limits people’s thought, and makes us more narrow-minded. The article suggests it is up to future journalists to change the future public’s consumption of media. I think it is also the government’s duty through public schooling to teach American youth (as well as all Americans) how to interpret media and recognize the need for critical analysis and thought, pushing people to think about what has happened historically, what stance have these media publications and channels taken in the past – are they representing more of a liberal view or more of a conservative view? Then, it is the citizens’ duty to continue to glean through information, constantly trying to find out what is actually resourceful, valuable information to make an informed opinion.

Once citizens recognize the media’s bias, which is largely a result of the media industry’s profit motive, we will be able to consume and produce media more effectively and productively. Consider the Internet as a source of media – it has become tricky, especially for younger viewers who share opinions and voices in a much more candid way. The Internet as a source of media has become a prominent way for Americans to share and discuss ideas, continue dialogue, and open up our thoughts. This New York Times article explains how social media has been key in helping the Parkland, Florida students shine a light on gun control. Many of the students have found the use of quote tweets to be one of their most effective tools, while others use memes to mock the students’ ideological opponents. They are using social media to continue the conversation about gun control and hear other sides of a debate without filters. However, it is important that the younger generation know how to appropriately use media in a productive way so that it advances our democracy. Some students say they compose their tweets in the moment, while a more thoughtful student spoke about how important it is to be mindful of your audience and the gravity of what you say online because it has a much bigger effect nowadays due to the immediacy of social media. The latter student’s practice is more forward-thinking (and one the POTUS does not use).

Overall, the media is a critical component to advancing our democracy as it has opened up so many different channels and ways for people to educate themselves, hear others opinions, voice their own opinions, and talk openly about how they feel. Our democracy is working as a result of media, but we need to make some changes to media to ensure our public opinion is truly represented in government actions. As a first step, we need to educate citizens more about media consumption. Then, we need to tackle the way the media industry works. Do you think it is possible for media corporations to prioritize educating citizens over profitability? If so, in what ways?

Sophia Harrison says:

March 21, 2018 at 5:30 pm

Virginia,
Thank you for your post! I think you touched upon a lot of important topics and questions that surround the subject of the news media. I also like how your post ultimately tied into the question of whether or not our democracy is working, and if we, as individuals, are fully exercising our popular sovereignty. I was also shocked to read about the relationships between reporters and top government officials. I think this definitely taints our country’s democratic principles, because at the end of the day, the information we are being fed is manipulated. While we would like to hope that this will change, it will not, and we as citizens must take it upon ourselves to better inform one another. While the officials have a reporter painting them in a favorable light, there will always be another reporter painting them in an opposing one. It is acknowledged that Fox News leans right while MSNBC leans left. Generally, republicans watch Fox while democrats watch MSNBC because each party wants to be fed positive information about the candidate they are voting for to reassure them that they are making the right decision. I think we as Americans need to take a more neutral approach to the news or at least listen to what the opposing side has to say. The only way to come up with rational decisions is through debate, however, it is impossible to debate if you are uninformed on what the opposing side has to say.

Sara Milano says:

April 1, 2018 at 5:16 pm

Virginia,

I find your central question: “does the news media advance or inhibit democracy?” very intriguing and relevant in the modern age. You’ve pointed out that increased corporate ownership may lead to a stifling of minority opinions or suppression of democracy. I completely agree that this is a “con” of the news media when it comes to democracy. Large companies are only beholden to shareholders in those companies, therefore the mission of journalistic integrity or validity in reporting may be negated by the desire to profit. If a democracy means that everyone enjoys equal representation in the political sphere, the inability of small sources to be heard is a threat to democracy.

Your ideas about a partisan press remind me of Anderson’s term cyber balkanization. There is an abundance of formal or informal sources/blogs/sites on liberal or conservative ideologies and political commentaries. People gravitate towards what they already believe in, thus reinforcing their own ideas and neglecting to consider the other side’s. However, Anderson explains this may not be all bad. By criticizing what “the other side” is doing, a partisan news source must acknowledge it. Even in doing this they are engaging rather than ignoring the opposing viewpoint, which is healthier for dialogue. I think that the internet may be a cure for the profit bias the news media has, as people with no incentive or sponsorship can post their honest reflections on politics.