|
Inability to Recognize News Source Bias and
Perceptions of Media Bias
Donna Rouner
Michael D. Slater
Judith M. Buddenbaum
Colorado State University
Department of Technical Journalism
Fort Collins, Colorado 80523
970-482-2967
Email: [log in to unmask]
June 15, 1995
To be presented at the annual meeting of the Association for Education in
Journalism and Mass Communication, Newspaper Division, Washington,
D.C.,
1995. Professors Rouner, Slater and Buddenbaum are associate
professors in
the Department of Technical Journalism Colorado State University. We wish
to thank the students in the methodology and research classes who
assisted
on this project.
Inability to Recognize News Source Bias
Inability to Recognize News Source Bias and Perceptions of Media Bias
Abstract
Some scholars and journalists would argue American journalism in the 1990s
suffers from a credibility crisis. This paper examines public perceptions
of the news media and the bias of news media sources, comparing newspaper
employees and their audience. Using three samples, a general public
sample of adults (N=245), a college student sample (N=172), and a
newspaper
employee sample from a local newspaper (N=28), this study found key
differences between the journalism professionals and their audience relat
ive to perceptions about news media providing balanced news and using
quotes from sources to show two sides of an issue. Further, the audience
differences from the professionals in the ability to perceive source
bias
predicted audience members' views that news media are less likely to
be
balanced and use two-sided quotes from sources.
Inability to Recognize News Source Bias
Inability to Recognize News Source Bias and Perceptions of Media Bias
Some scholars and journalists would argue American journalism in the 1990s
suffers from a credibility crisis (cf., Merritt, 1995). Public perceptions
of bias in the news media were detected as early as the 1960s (Roper,
1969). However, trend data suggest the American public views the media
as
increasingly less trustworthy, paralleling--possibly surpassing--a
downward
slide in trust for other American institutions (Harris, 1984; American
Society of Newspaper Editors, 1985).
What does it mean, specifically, when public opinion polls show an
increasing distrust for newspapers, television and other news media? Do
members of the public perceive the news media as out of touch,
dishonest,
biased? How do public perceptions correspond to journalists'
perceptions?
Is it part of the downward trend in trust in the media, along with other
American institutions, a function of younger people's general cynicism
and
mistrust?
This paper explores these questions. We examine perceptions of the role
of the news media and perceptions about bias, specifically in the use
of
news sources by public affairs journalists. Perceptions of the
general
public, college students, and of media personnel are explored and
compared.
More controversially, we propose that there is, and provide evidence for,
a link between the naivete of news consumers with respect to source bias
and their belief that media are biased in their news coverage.
Inability to Recognize News Source Bias 2
Bias and the News Media
Although bias is viewed as an important dimension of source credibility
(Hovland and Weiss, 1951, McCroskey, 1966), it is understudied.
Credibility research about news media
more often explores the importance of expertise as an attribute of news
sources or a newspaper, or comparatively between newspaper and
electronic
news sources (Gaziano and McGrath, 1986; Meyer, 1988; Rouner, Brown
and
Day, 1993). However, Hovland and Weiss (1951) conceptualized expertise
and
trustworthiness as the two dominant dimensions of source credibility at
the inception of social science inquiry into this topic. Even
trustworthiness, however, is conceptually problematic with respect to
judgments about the news media. One might expect trust in the news media
to be a function to some extent of the degree to which the media are
perceived to be objective or biased. Therefore, this study is concerned
with perceptions of bias on the part of news media, news consumers'
perceptions of bias on the part of news sources, and their possible
relationship.
Some government officials and political pundits have criticized what they
perceive to be a systematic ideological bias in the media,
particularly the
news media. Empirical evidence suggests that the "liberal bias" charge
against the media is largely unfounded (c.f., Entman, 1989). Some
scholars
argue, however, that at certain times the American press has been more
liberal or conservative, reflecting the climate of the country at the
time
(Bennett, 1988; Rosen, 1992; Taylor, 1992).
Psychological research has found that media bias is sometimes a mote in
the eye of
Inability to Recognize News Source Bias 3
the beholder. In particular, researchers have found that partisan or biased
individuals from both sides of a controversial issue are likely to
perceive the same media coverage as biased
in opposite directions (Vallone, Ross and Lepper, 1985). Gunther and
Lasorsa (1986) found that greater importance individuals placed on issues
led to their increasing trust of newspaper coverage on that issue.
Gunther (1988), however, found a curvilinear relationship between attitude
extremity and trust in media coverage of an issue, suggesting some
consistency with the Vallone et al. (1985) findings.
It would be, of course, self-serving on the part of journalists to claim
that news consumer partisanship is the major reason for accusations of
media bias. Bennett (1988), for example, provides a typology of four
types
of bias in the news that causes journalism harm in the eyes of the
citizenry. First, he argues that media personalize news into human
interest accounts, limiting the public's ability to see the "big picture,"
and causing a focus on trivial aspects of important news events, like
personality flaws and behavioral gaffes. Second, he argues that a drama
bias causes news media to present stories that stem from events,
leaving no
professional convention for addressing many of the most serious problems
confronting contemporary societies, like hunger, racism, resource
waste and
depletion. A third type of bias is information fragmentation, again
making it difficult to see larger issues. Finally, Bennett describes a
source bias, where news media seek out authoritative voices of
officials
who offer views that normalize the news for members of an average
public.
Bennett's claim regarding source selection is supported by the work of a
number of
Inability to Recognize News Source Bias 4
researchers. Most of the research on news and public affairs information
bias centers on the use of selected, elite sources (Sigal, 1973;
Gandy,
1982; Stempel and Culbertson, 1984; Brown, Bybee, Wearden and
Straughan,
1987). Sigal (1973) suggested that reporters rely on sources who are
easy
to identify and access, with most front-page news in the New York
Times and the Washington Post based on government sources. Brown et al.
(1987) examined how elites dominate as news sources, relied on because
they
are readily available and thought to provide trustworthy, authoritative
information in an articulate fashion. They found, similar to Sigal
(1973)
and others, that government sources--primarily males in executive
positions--dominated.
Perceptions of News Source Bias and its Possible Relation to Perceptions of
Media Bias
Accusations of systematic bias are frustrating and painful for
journalists. Reporters are trained to operate under a professional code of
values and ethics, where fairness and balance reign supreme (Charnley and
Charnley, 1979). All the while, audiences are showing increasing
signs of
distrust. Some of that distrust may be due to extreme partisan
positions
on the part of some consumers. This, however, is hardly likely to
explain
a more widespread questioning of media objectivity. The structural
limit
ations of journalism, and the patterns of sources typically used, may
constrain and in some senses bias news coverage. These problems and
limitations in contemporary journalism may dispose news consumers to be
critical of the news media. News consumers, however, have also
changed;
newspaper readership is shrinking and as a consequence there may be
less
attentive and less expert consumers of news. It may be that there is
something in the way journalists approach
Inability to Recognize News Source Bias 5
achieving objectivity that news consumers do not acknowledge,
misunderstand, or reject.
The problem of journalistic objectivity, of course, is a particularly
difficult one. The Oxford American dictionary defines objectivity as
"not
[being] influenced by personal
feelings or opinions" (Oxford, 1980). While journalists may seek to
exclude their own feelings or opinions from a story, they are dependent
upon sources--who usually have such opinions--in developing the story.
News stories, then, are inevitably influenced by feelings and opinions,
even when not the journalists' own. Journalists, in most reporting
contexts, finesse this problem through the convention of story balance.
This practice may often mean purposefully seeking out biased sources to
present one side's view and the other side's view. This is, of course,
presented in the name of balance and fairness; it is not objective, but
rather presents two biased sources' perspectives. The end goal is,
presumably, neutrality.
Some journalists argue this might be construed as an unusual way to present
unbiased information (Merritt, 1995). Journalists may actually be relying
on the most influential, active sources they can find, given the various
constraints of reporting, rather than purposefully looking for a
biased
perspective (Ericson, Baranek and Chan, 1987).
Clearly, there is more to the use of sources from two sides of an issue in
the name of fairness and balance that leads to perceptions of bias or
distrust in the news. However, as Lacy, Fico and Simon (1991) point out,
fairness or balance in any given news story is typically a matter of
story
balance. They measured balance by determining if contact was made
with
someone representing the two major sides of a controversy. In their
study
of news stories in 21 newspapers, they found many lacked balance. In
28
percent of instances Inability to Recognize News Source Bias 6
the other side of a controversy was not contacted, and no explanation was
offered by the story's writer. In an additional 6 percent, no contact
was
made, but an explanation
suggested efforts for such contact failed. They measured balance by
counting the number of words presented by each side and creating an
absolute difference score.
Nonetheless, the extent that the news media are to be perceived as
unbiased must
depend in part on perceptions of story balance, as well as the actual
frequency of adequate balance in news coverage. This study concentrates
on
the extent and consequences of discrepancies between journalism
professional's and the public's perceptions of news source bias. We define
bias as a perceived attribute of a news source whereby the individual, or
the group the news source represents, has a clear, vested interest in
a
cause or action relative to changing or maintaining the status quo.
This
bias is apparent knowing the person's credentials. Those credentials
are
presented such that one might predict how that individual would
respond
ideologically on political and social issues. Thus, if background
information describes an individual's positions and accomplishments but
that information does not in and of itself suggest a position on social
or
political concerns, the source is interpreted as low in bias. A
highly
biased source would be generally presented in a journalistic account as
operating to alter the status quo in some fashion, like eliminating
taxes.
Source bias as a concept is continuous. Any source, no matter how it is
presented, would convey some degree of bias, as in an allegiance to
some
group or cause, or a tendency toward action. However, for purposes of
this
study, a dichotomy of high and low will be used.
The Lacy et al. (1991) results suggest one obvious problem, a discrepancy
between Inability to Recognize News Source Bias 7
the journalistic value of presenting two sides of an issue and the actual
practice of doing so. However, in this study we propose that there
may
also be a more fundamental problem. The success of the convention of
story
balance assumes that the news consumer shares the reporter's assumptions
concerning the bias, or lack thereof, of the various sources cited in
the study. This assumption has received little empirical examination. One
recent study suggested that, at least among college students, there was
very little ability to recognize and acknowledge bias among message
sources
(Slater & Rouner, 1993). It may well be that many members of the general
public are relatively naive with respect to judging the extent of bias
of
news sources. On the other hand, journalists have extensive
opportunity
in working with news sources to experience first-hand the extent of
their
bias or self-interest. We might expect, then, that:
Hypothesis 1: There will be differences in perceptions of news source bias
between
professionals in the news industry and a) members of the general public
and b) young adults.
In particular, we might expect to find that professionals in the
journalism industry will more readily attribute bias to sources with a
strong probable self-interest related to the news story. The nature of
the
differences with respect to sources with relatively less self-interest is
more problematic. On one hand, members of the public may be simply
less
attuned to bias judgments, and more inclined in the case of both high
and
low bias sources to make neutral judgments. On the other hand,
members of
the public may tend to assume less bias than the more experienced and
perhaps more cynical journalism professionals even among relatively less
apparently self-interested sources.
Inability to Recognize News Source Bias 8
What might be the consequences of such a mismatch between journalist and
public
perceptions of bias? The problem is most easily apparent in the case of
high bias sources. Story balance is achieved by offering the views of
competing biased sources in counterpoint. If the bias of these sources
is
not well-distinguished by some news consumers, they are unlikely to grasp
the nuances of story balance. Such news consumers, then, should be
more
likely to perceive bias in the news media. Therefore:
Hypothesis 2: The less bias that a) members of the general public and b)
young adults perceive in high biased sources, relative to
journalism
professionals' own judgments, the greater their perceptions of media
bias.
This, of course, represents a counterintuitive prediction. In the absence
of the process described above, one would expect that members of the
public who tend to perceive bias in media institutions would also be
quick
to attribute bias to individual news sources as well. After all, such
sources are also normally affiliated with social institutions, and ones
with clear political and social agendas of their own.
The issues around perceptions of low-bias sources are more complex. On
one hand, members of the public may be, as discussed earlier, more
likely
to make neutral judgments about sources. On the other, they may tend
to
consistently perceive less bias among low bias sources as well as
among
high bias sources. Either case, though, might under different
circumstances reduce the ability to recognize and correctly process
the
story balance convention. Sometimes, a low-bias source is used to
provide
presumably objective comment on an issue. If news consumers perceive
the
source as biased, then the intended effect of increased objectivity is
lost. If less-biased sources are used to provide opposing viewpoints,
Inability to Recognize News Source Bias 9
the inability to perceive potential bias inherent in embracing a given
viewpoint will interfere with acceptance of the story balance
convention.
Therefore:
Hypothesis 3: Differences between journalism industry professionals and a)
the general public and b) college students in perceptions of bias among
apparently less-biased news sources will be associated with
greater
perceptions of media bias.
Of course, all these hypotheses are based on the assumption that members
of the
public are more critical of the news media and have different expectations
regarding the news media than do journalism professionals. These
expectations and assessments are also compared in this study.
Method
Data Collection
Three samples were generated for this study, a convenience sample of N=172
students enrolled in an undergraduate journalism course at a Western
University, a random sample of N=245 individuals over 18 who live in a
small Western community near the university, and a mail sample of N=28
employees of the newspaper serving that community.
In November, 1993, the students responded to a call for volunteers and
completed a survey instrument en masse in their classroom setting.
Uninterested students engaged in an alternative activity. This yielded a
95% response rate.
Trained telephone interviewers asked nearly identical questions to the
general audience sample in March, 1994, with a 67% response rate.
Inability to Recognize News Source Bias 10
The same survey instrument that was used for the student sample, with a
few minor changes in demographic questions, was dropped in the office
mailboxes, or left with clerks for distribution, in September, 1994, at
the
newspaper under study. Employees used stamped return envelopes to mail
the instruments back to the researchers. Two follow-up letters served
as
reminders for the employees to complete the surveys and were left,
with
additional survey instruments, in the employee mailboxes. Twenty-eight
of
the 72 employees responded, a 39% response rate.
Measurement
All individuals responded to a series of questions about information they
get from the news media in general, from newspapers, television, radio
and
news magazines. First, they were asked to rank their perceived roles
of
journalism, with a "1" as the most important role and "5" as the least
important role, using each number only once. The roles included: to
entertain people, to interpret events, to make a profit, to provide
neutral, unbiased news coverage, and to serve as a watchdog.
They were also asked to respond to statements regarding their level of
agreement, using a Likert-type 5-point response scale that ranged from
strongly agree to strongly disagree. These statements were, "I can
trust
the information I get from news stories," "Most news stories present
issues
accurately," "News stories are just that--stories. They are not factual
accounts of events," "Most news stories are presented in a balanced
and
fair manner," "News stories usually quote at least two sources--one
from e
ach side of an issue," "Most sources quoted in news stories are
knowledgeable," "Sources quoted in news stories
Inability to Recognize News Source Bias 11
are usually appropriate to the story," and "Most sources quoted in news
stories are just
trying to bring attention to themselves or to the cause they represent."
To investigate specific differences in perceptions about the use of biased
sources, eight descriptions were generated as source stimuli.
Similar to experimental conditions that manipulate bias in the source
credibility literature, four types of sources were described in
individual
paragraphs. Political, scientific, religious and business-related
sources
were described as either low or high in bias, depending on information
provided about their allegiances, affiliations and background
experiences.
Names that were used (or gender references in the telephone sample of the
general public) were male, to avoid a sex bias confound. Information
about
the individual's affiliations and experience was included in order to
convey a degree of bias for each individual.
The four high bias descriptions follow:
A spokesperson for Capital and Class--a citizen lobby that works to change
the way federal and state governments in the U.S. operate. Founded in
1970, Capital and Class is committed to developing a Marxist tradition
within movements of liberation in the U.S., including the labor,
anti-racist, environment, peace and women's movement.
A researcher in environmental ethics at the University of California at
Berkeley, who also heads the California chapter of Earth First. He
has
been arrested seven times for chaining himself to trees to prevent
logging
in old growth forests in the Pacific Northwest. He recently received
a
$70,000 grant from the National Endowment for the Arts to build an art
museum display commemorating the northern spotted owl.
A graduate of the University of Connecticut and former $500,000-a-year
investment banking executive at JBMI Financial Corporation, who was
convicted of banking and securities fraud in 1990. Although he is now in
prison, he devotes his time to writing on a wide range of social and
economic topics. His latest book, "Taxpayers, Suckers and Free Riders,"
was published by the Libertarian Press.
Inability to Recognize News Source Bias 12
A clergyman who is the head of mail order ministries at the Church of
"What's Happening Now." He holds college degrees in marketing, mass
communications and religious studies and recently wrote a book titled
"Churches as Tax Dodges." His television show can be seen on Sunday
mornings in Kansas City, Missouri.
The four low bias descriptions follow:
A man who was a tenured professor in international political science at
Michigan State University and who is now a private consultant to U.S.
and
foreign government trade organizations. His areas of expertise
include
world population growth and environmental economics.
The chairman of the Department of Immunology at Penn State who regularly
contributes to the Journal of the American Medical Association. He
has
served with distinction on the boards of several different scientific
organizations, including the Smithsonian Institution's Science
Information
Exchange.
A professor of comparative religion at Arizona State University. He is
the author of more than 30 books, including "Religious Social Doctrine
and
New Thinking in Economics," and "That They May Speak: Voices of
Religious
Social Thought." He also contributed articles to The Encyclopedia of
World
Religions and Religion in America.
The chief financial officer at Brown Investments International, a publicly
traded company operating in nine states and two foreign countries. He
holds graduate degrees in economics and medical ethics from the
University
of Illinois. He has written more than 20 articles on economics and social
issues and is a regular contributor to The
Journal of the American Economics Association.
The general audience sample responded to a question that asked how biased
they considered each of the eight possible sources to be, using a
7-point
scale that ranged from unbiased to biased.
The students and newspaper employees reacted to six of these source
stimuli, presented in random order on the instruments, by responding to a
question that asked how biased they considered each of the possible
sources
to be. The remaining two sources were each presented in relationship to a
text that the respondents reacted to. Responses included
Inability to Recognize News Source Bias 13
with a text are not analyzed in this study to keep bias measures
consistent.
Additional questions ascertained media use patterns and demographics for
the three samples. The media use questions, about which media are the
most
important sources for news and information, differed slightly among
the
three groups.
For this exploratory study, simple frequency percentages and mean
comparisons were used to assess patterns of similarity and differences
among the three samples. Because the professional sample is small, even
the independent sample T-tests used to determine significant
differences
should be interpreted with caution. We are primarily concerned with
patterns of difference, given the exploratory nature of this project.
The
more important function of the professional sample was to provide a
benchmark with respect to bias assessments of the sources against which we
could compare our general public and college student samples.
In order to create an index for each respondent that represented a
discrepancy between public perception of bias and journalist perceptions of
bias, difference scores were calculated for the perception of each source
stimuli in the general public and student samples. For the high
biased
source stimuli, each respondent's raw score measuring the perceived
bias of
a source stimulus was subtracted from the mean of the journalists'
assessment of the same source stimulus. This was done for the eight source
stimuli. For the low biased source stimuli, the mean of the journalists'
assessment of a source stimulus was subtracted from each respondent's
raw
score measuring perceived bias of the same source stimulus. Again,
this
was done for all eight source stimuli. The difference in the
directions
corresponds to the
Inability to Recognize News Source Bias 14
predicted differences in perceptions. A higher discrepancy score on a high
biased source meant less bias perceived by the general public sample
compared to the newspaper employee sample. For low biased source
discrepancy scores, the higher the score, the more the distance between the
general public and newspaper employee sample, and between the students and
the newspaper employee sample.
These discrepancy scores were added to form indices of high source bias
discrepancy and low source bias discrepancy for the general public and
the
students (Cronbach alpha coefficients: General public high source
bias
discrepancy alpha= .65; general public low source bias discrepancy
alpha=.66; students high source bias discrepancy alpha=.62, students low
source bias discrepancy alpha=.50[1].
Results
To generally describe the samples, the students were 45% male and 55%
female, closely corresponding to the university population breakdown.
About one-third said they were journalism majors, with 30% majoring in
another liberal arts area and the remainder in hard science,
agriculture,
forestry, etc. Television was the preferred medium for the news
(62%),
with magazines the least preferred (54%).
The mean education level for the general public sample was some college,
the mean age 54. Forty-five percent were male and 55 percent female,
reflecting the conventional female bias of a telephone sample. The
primary
news source of the general public sample was listed as television for
international news (73%); television for national news (74%); television
for state news (34%), followed closely by their local newspaper (29%);
and
their
Inability to Recognize News Source Bias 15
local paper for local news (87%).
The newspaper employee sample (of the newspaper referred to above as the
local paper) was 67% female, with an mean age of 38. The mean
longevity at
that newspaper was about 5 years; 34% were in news editorial positions.
Twenty percent were in advertising, while 15% were in production. The
mean
educational level was a college degree. The medium used as a primary
source for news was newspapers (64%) followed by television (29%). The
medium least used as a source for news was magazines (50%).
In assessing the role of journalism in American society, the three samples
showed strong similarity on their most important role choice. The most
respondents (65% of the general public, 69% of the students, and 86%
of the
newspaper staff) selected as the most important role providing neutral,
unbiased news coverage.
The only other role for which more than 10% of any of the respondents from
their respective samples selected as first in importance was to interpret
events. None of the newspaper employees, however, selected the
interpretation of events as the most important (i.e., the number one in
importance) role of the mass media. As for the student sample, 11%
indicated this was the number one most important role, and 9% of the
general public selected this as most important.
The student sample emphasized this role across the second and third
choice, compared to the others, with 83% indicating it was either first,
second or third in the five roles described. This compares to 68% of
the
newspaper employees and 56% of the general public who placed it in the
top
three positions of roles.
Inability to Recognize News Source Bias 16
Regarding the role of the news media's serving as a watchdog, none of the
newspaper employees indicated this role as most important (ranked 1
out of
5). However, 50% of them placed it as second in importance. This
compared
to 18% of the general public indicating this was the most important
(ranked 1 out of 5) and 31% selecting this as second in importance (ranked
2 out of 5), with a total of 49% for the top two categories--close to
the
newspaper employees' 50%. A little less than 5% of the students chose
the
watchdog role as first in importance (ranked 1 out of 5), but 30%
selected
it as second in importance (ranked 2 out of 5), with only 35%
reporting
this in the top two positions.
The three groups were quite similar in how they ranked providing
entertainment as a role of news in the mass media, which was about in the
middle (3 out of 5 ranked positions).
Students were quite different in their views about the news media making a
profit. While 32% of the general public and 25% of the newspaper
employees placed making a profit at first, second or third as the most
important role for news media, only 13% of the students ranked profiting
that high. Conversely, 67% of the students ranked making as profit as
last, or fifth, in importance as a role. This compared to 49% of the
general public sample and 46% of the newspaper employees.
General Perceptions About News Media and News Media Sources
Turning to the respondents' general perceptions about the news media, two
differences were found between the general public and student
perceptions
(See Table 1).
Inability to Recognize News Source Bias 17
Table 1 Mean Differences Between General Public Sample and Student Sample
on Statements about the News and News Sources
Newspaper
General Sample Student Sample
N=245 N=172
standard standard
Source Type mean deviation mean deviation T-score
Trust news info 2.94 1.07 3.20 .83 ns
News not factual 2.53 .60 2.19 .62 3.88**
Issues accurate 3.07 1.00 3.24 .85 1.77*
News balanced 3.09 1.03 3.10 .88 ns
Sources 2-sided 2.86 1.11 2.89 .95 ns
Sources informed 3.34 .91 3.40 .78 ns
Sources appropro 3.74 .62 3.75 .71 ns
Sources biased 3.06 .95 3.02 .87 ns
*=p<.05
** = p< .01
*** = p< .001
The general public was more inclined to perceive the news as just stories,
not factual accounts (general public mean=2.53, student mean=2.19, t=3.88,
p<.01), and the students were more likely to see issues presented
accurately (student mean=3.24, general public mean=3.07, t=1.77p<.05).
Otherwise, these two groups showed similar perceptions.
When comparing the general public with the newspaper employee sample, more
differences resulted (See Table 2).
Inability to Recognize News Source Bias 18
Table 2 Mean Differences Between General Public Sample and Newspaper
Employee Sample on Statements about the News and News Sources
Newspaper
General Sample Employee Sample
N=245 N=28
standard standard
Source Type mean deviation mean deviation
T-score
Trust News Info 2.94 1.07 3.43 .92 ns
News not factual 2.53 .60 1.93 .92 3.21**
Issues accurate 3.07 1.00 3.24 .85 1.77*
News balanced 3.09 1.03 3.77 .83 3.69**
Sources 2-sided 2.86 1.11 3.43 .88 2.90**
Sources informed 3.34 .91 3.46 .92 ns
Sources appropro 3.74 .62 3.82 .62 ns
Sources biased 3.06 .95 3.11 .95 ns
*=p<.05
** = p< .01
*** = p< .001
The same pattern emerged on the items about the news presenting stories,
not facts (general sample mean=2.53, employee sample mean=1.93,
t=3.21, p<
.01) and issues being presented accurately (general sample mean=3.07,
employee mean=3.24, t=1.77, p< .05).
The newspaper employees perceived the news media as more likely to present
facts, not stories, and to present issues accurately.
These two groups also showed differences on the perceptions of how
balanced and fair the news is and whether sources are quoted from two sides
of an issue, with the
Inability to Recognize News Source Bias 19
newspaper employees more likely to agree with these assertions (for news
balanced, general public mean=3.09, employee mean=3.77, t=3.69, p<
.01; for
sources are two-sided, general public mean=2.86, employee mean=3.43,
t=2.90, p< .01).
In a similar fashion, the student sample differed with the newspaper
employee sample on these two items, news balance and fairness and whether
news stories included quotes from two sides of an issue (see Table 3)
(for
news balanced, student mean=3.10, employee mean=3.77, t=3.70, p< .001, for
sources are two-sided, student mean=2.89, employee mean=3.43,, t=2.81, p<
.001).
Table 3 Mean Differences Between Student Sample and Newspaper Employee
Sample on Statements about the News and News Sources
Newspaper
Student Sample Employee Sample
N=172 N=28
standard standard
Source Type mean deviation mean deviation T-score
Trust news info 3.20 .83 3.43 .92 ns
News not factual 2.19 .62 1.93 .92 ns
Issues accurate 3.24 .85 3.24 .85 ns
News balanced 3.10 .88 3.77 .83 3.70***
Sources 2-sided 2.89 .95 3.43 .88 2.81**
Sources informed 3.40 .78 3.46 .92 ns
Sources appropro 3.75 .71 3.82 .62 ns
Sources biased 3.02 .87 3.11 .95 ns
*=p<.05
** = p< .01
*** = p< .001
Inability to Recognize News Source Bias 20
Perceptions of Source Bias
Turning to the reactions to the source stimuli, indices of the low and
high sources were not created for comparison across the three samples,
given the low number of newspaper employees. Significant mean
differences
between the low and high sources within the sample groups provided
evidence
of concept validity for these manipulated items.
Tables 4 , 5 and 6 show the comparative means and t-tests between paired
sets of the three samples. The general public and student samples
showed
no differences (see Table 4). However, differences were found between
the
general public and the newspaper employees and between the students
and the
newspaper employees.
Table 4 Mean Differences Between General Public Sample and
Student Sample on Perceived Bias of Hypothetical Sources
General Sample Student Sample
N=245 N=172
standard standard
Source Type mean deviation mean deviation
T-score
High Political 5.08 1.60 5.08 1.83 0.00
High Scientific 5.18 1.92 5.30 1.61 .58
High Religious 5.01 1.86 5.09 1.73 .38
High Business 5.18 1.61 5.33 1.64 .79
Low Political 3.81 1.57 3.61 1.63 1.08
Low Scientific 3.44 1.67 3.31 1.63 .65
Low Religious 3.94 1.72 4.07 1.70 .64
Low Business 3.63 1.55 3.80 1.61 .89
*=p<.05
** = p< .01
*** = p< .001
Inability to Recognize News Source Bias 21
Looking at how the general public and the newspaper employee samples
differed on perceived bias of the hypothetical sources (see Table 5),
three
of the sources manipulated to appear highly biased were perceived
differently by these two groups (political source: general sample
mean=5.08, newspaper employee mean= 5.80, t=1.87, p< .05; scientific
source: general sample mean=5.18, newspaper employee mean=6.33, t=5.53, p<
.001; religious source: general sample mean=5.01, newspaper employee
mean=6.22, t=4.54, p< .001). The high biased business source was not
significant, but its means differed in the hypothesized direction. As
predicted in Hypothesis 1, the newspaper employees perceived the highly
biased sources to be more biased than the general public perceived them
to
be.
Table 5 Mean Differences Between General Public Sample and
Newspaper Employee Sample on Perceived Bias of
Hypothetical Sources
Newspaper
General Sample Employee Sample
N=272 N=28
standard standard
Source Type mean deviation mean deviation
T-score
High Political 5.08 1.60 5.80 1.64 1.87*
High Scientific 5.18 1.92 6.33 .69 5.53***
High Religious 5.01 1.86 6.22 .95 4.54***
High Business 5.18 1.61 5.67 1.27 1.71
Low Political 3.81 1.57 3.10 1.67 1.83*
Low Scientific 3.44 1.67 2.62 1.16 2.89*
Low Religious 3.94 1.72 3.68 1.89 .53
Low Business 3.63 1.55 3.74 1.74 .09
*=p<.05
** = p< .01
*** = p< .001
Inability to Recognize News Source Bias 22
As for low biased sources, the political and scientific sources showed
differences (political source: general sample mean=3.81, newspaper
employee
mean=3.10, t=1.83, p< .05; scientific source: general sample mean=3.44,
newspaper employee mean=2.62, t=2.89, p< .05). Here, the newspaper
employees perceived the low biased sources to be significantly less biased
than the general public.
As for comparisons between the student sample and the newspaper employees
(see Table 6), the same pattern of findings occurred. Each of the
high-biased sources except the business source were significantly different
(political source: student sample mean=5.08, newspaper employee mean=5.80,
t=1.78, p< .05; scientific source: student mean=5.30, newspaper employee
mean=6.33, t=4.73, p< .001; religious source: student mean=5.09,
newspaper
employee mean=6.22, t=4.15, p< .001) . Although only the scientific
low-biased source showed a difference between the two groups (student
mean=3.31, newspaper employee mean=2.62, t=2.33, p< .05), all the mean
differences in sources, low and high, were in the expected direction.
Again, the newspaper employees showed a higher perception of bias than
the
student sample on the high-biased sources and a lower perception of
bias on
the lower-biased sources.
Inability to Recognize News Source Bias 23
Table 6 Mean Differences Between Student Sample and Newspaper Employee
Sample on Perceived Bias of Hypothetical Sources
Newspaper
Student Sample Employee Sample
N=172 N=28
standard standard
Source Type mean deviation mean deviation T-score
High Political 5.08 1.83 5.80 1.64 1.78*
High Scientific 5.30 1.61 6.33 .69 4.73***
High Religious 5.09 1.73 6.22 .95 4.15***
High Business 5.33 1.64 5.67 1.27 1.14
Low Political 3.61 1.63 3.10 1.67 1.30
Low Scientific 3.31 1.63 2.62 1.16 2.33*
Low Religious 4.07 1.70 3.68 1.89 .79
Low Business 3.80 1.61 3.74 1.74 .15
*=p<.05
** = p< .01
*** = p< .001
Discrepancy Between Source Bias Perceptions and its Relationship to Media
Credibility
The two major differences found between the general public and the
newspaper employee samples, and between the student and newspaper employee
samples, were the general public and students perceived news media to
be
significantly less likely than the newspaper employees did to present
balanced, fair news and to quote sources from two sides of an issue.
Inability to Recognize News Source Bias 24
Given these findings, Hypothesis 3 was tested by regressing the indices of
the perception of high source bias on these two newspaper credibility
measures, balanced news and quoting two sides. Greater distance
between
general public and newspaper employee, and between student and
newspaper
employee, perceptions of source bias are represented by a positive
beta
coefficient in the regression analysis. In the general sample, the
more
distance between the perceptions of a high biased source, the more
respon
dents perceived the news media as presenting quotes from two sides of
an
issue, with a beta coefficient of .29, p< .001 (see Table 7)[2] .
Eight
percent of the variance was accounted for (p< .001). The pattern of the
remaining coefficients is in the direction of the hypothesis. These
data
lend support for Hypothesis 2, that the less bias members of the
public
perceive in high biased sources, relative to the judgments of
journalism
professionals' own judgments (the greater the discrepancy between
members
of the public and the newspaper employees), the greater their
perceptions
of media bias.
The same dependent variable, only for low bias source discrepancy, was
regressed on presenting balanced news and quoting two sides of an issue.
Results supported Hypothesis 4 (see Table 8). For the general public
sample, the more discrepant the perceptions of low source bias, compared
to
the newspaper employees, the less likely the public perceived the news
media
to
Inability to Recognize News Source Bias 25
Table 7 High Bias Source Predictors of Perceptions About News Media
Credibility
Entries are standardized beta coefficients and significance
level
Perception About News Discrepancy between General Discrepancy between
Students
Media Credibility Sample and News Employees and
News Employees
(N=156) N=170)
beta R2 beta R2
Present balanced, fair
news .14 .02 .11 .01
Present quotes from
two-sides of an issue .29*** .08*** .07 .07
*=p<.05
** = p< .01
*** = p< .001
Table 8 Low Bias Source Predictors of Perceptions About News Media
Credibility
Entries are standardized beta coefficients and significance level
Perception About News Discrepancy between General Discrepancy between
Students
Media Credibility Sample and News Employees and
News Employees
(N=156) (N=170)
beta R2 beta R2
Present balanced, fair
news -.22** .05** -.16** .16*
Present quotes from
two-sides of an issue -.23** .05** -.10 .10
*=p<.05
** = p< .01
*** = p< .001
Inability to Recognize News Source Bias 26
present balanced, fair news (beta= -.22, p< .01) and to present quotes from
two sides of an issue (beta= -.23, p< .01). Thus, the greater the
difference
between the two groups, the greater the perceptions of media bias.
For the students, this same prediction held up relative to discrepancy of
low bias sources' predicting the perception that news media present
balanced,
fair news (beta= -.16, p< .01). The nonsignificant finding was in the
hypothesized direction.
Discussion
These results provide support for the hypothesis that members of the public,
as well as college students, are less likely to discriminate between low and
high bias sources. The results also generally support the hypotheses that
suggest that such perceptual mismatching is associated with perceptions
of
news media bias.
Of course, the presence of this association cannot provide evidence that the
relationship is causal. However, the fact that respondents who assessed
biased sources to be relatively less biased also assessed the news media
to
be relatively more biased would otherwise be counterintuitive. While we
by
no means wish to suggest that the possible failure of the story balance
convention with some consumers is primarily responsible for perceptions of
media bias, these data provide at least some preliminary and provocative
evidence that it may play a contributing role.
The tendency of respondents from the general public, and among college
students, to fail to discriminate news source bias in the same way
journalism
professionals did has even broader implications for the working journalist.
If a sizable percentage of news consumers are not making the same
assumptions regarding the bias of self-interested news sources as is the
journalist, the
Inability to Recognize News Source Bias 27
news story will not be interpreted as it was intended. What must the
reporter or the editor do to clarify the biases of the news sources, and the
implications of these biases for the story? It is important that future
research clarify the extent of the problem with news story interpretation,
rather than merely assuming such problems exist because of limited
discrimination of news source bias. These results, preliminary though
they
may be, are troubling.
Unsurprisingly, the overall patterns of these results suggest that
journalism employees perceive journalism more favorably than their audiences
and more favorably than students, including journalism majors.
Consistent
with the discrepancies in perception of source bias, the general public
and
students did not perceive balance and the presentation of quotes showing
two
sides of issues as prevalent in the news media.
The finding about the role of journalism in interpreting events, with the
students assigning far more importance to this role than the journalism
employees or the general sample, suggests another possible problem between
what the news media do and what the young readership and viewership
wants or
believes is important as a media role. The general public sample was
particularly low on this, compared to the other two. While the general
public may be complacent about the news media's remaining neutral and fair,
staying out of news interpretation as much as possible, the younger news
audience may see this as what is necessary and missing. Where else does
one
obtain interpretation? As news media may be less inclined to engage in
investigative reporting, interpretation, lengthy accounts, the younger
cohort
of potential subscribers may see this role as especially important.
The results of this study are clearly preliminary. Results are obtained
from a single
Inability to Recognize News Source Bias 28
location, the sample of journalism professionals is small and is not confined
to people working in an editorial capacity, and the influence of news source
bias perceptions not directly linked to problems in interpreting balance of
actual stories.
Were the samples larger, the student sample could be broken down into
journalism and non-journalism majors to see if majoring in journalism helps
explain the results.
However, the results are just as clearly intriguing and provocative. If
audience perceptions of news source bias are in fact often inaccurate
from
the journalist's perspective, the success of the story balance
convention
may be less certain and news consumer interpretation of stories in some
cases
more distorted than journalists, and journalism researchers, assume.
Inability to Recognize News Source Bias 29
References
American Society of Newspaper Editors. (1985). Newspaper credibility: Building
reader trust. Washington, D.C.: American Society of Newspaper Editors.
Bennett, W. Lance. (1988). News: The politics of illusion. New York: Longman.
Brown, J. D., Bybee, C.R., Wearden, S.T., and Straughan, D.M. (1987). Invisible
power: Newspaper
news sources and the limits of diversity. Journalism Quarterly, 64:1, 45-54.
Charnley, M. V., and Charnley, B. (1979). Reporting (4th edition). New York:
Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Entman, R.M. (1989). Democracy without citizens. New York: Oxford University
Press.
Ericson, R.V., Baranek, P.M., and Chan, J. B. L. (1987). Visualizing Deviance: A
Study of News Organization. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Gandy, O. H., Jr. (1982). Beyond agenda-setting: Information subsidies and
public policy. Norwood, N.J.: Ablex Publishing Company.
Gaziano, C. and McGrath, K. (1986). Measuring the concept of credibility.
Journalim Quarterly, 63, 451-462.
Gunther, A. (1988). Attitude extremity and trust in media. Journalism Quarterly,
65, 279-287.
Gunther, A., and Lasorsa, N. (1986). Issue importance and perceptions of a
hostile media. Journalism
Quarterly, 63:844-848.
Harris, L. and Associates, Inc. (1984). Harris Public Opinion Poll.
Hovland, C. and Weiss, W. (1951). The influence of source credibility on
communication effectiveness.
Public Opinion Quarterly, 15, 635-650.
McCroskey, J. C. (1966). Scales for the measurement of ethos. Speech Monographs
, 33, 65-72.
Lacy, S., Fico, F., and Simon, T.F. (1991). Fairness and balance in the prestige
press. Journalism
Quarterly, 68, 363-370.
Merritt, D. (1995). Public journalism. Presented at the Society of Professional
Journalism Annual Regional Meeting, Denver.
Meyer, P. Defining and measuring credibility of newspapers: Developing an
index. Journalism Quarterly, 1988.
Inability to Recognize News Source Bias 30
Oxford (1980). Oxford American dictionary. New York: Oxford University Press.
Roper, B., (1969). A ten-year view of public attitudes toward television and
other mass media, 1959-1968.
New York: Television Information Office.
Rosen, J. (1992). Politics, vision, and the press: Toward a public agenda for
journalism. In Rosen, J. and
Taylor, P. The new news v. the old news: The press and politics in the 1990s.
The Twentieth
Century Fund, Inc., 1-33.
Rouner, D., Brown, R., and Day, A.A. (1993). A Meta-analysis of the concept
source credibility. Paper
presented at the annual meeting of the Midwest Association for Public Opinion
Research, Chicago.
Sigal, L. V. (1973). Reporters and officials: The organization and politics of
newsmaking. Lexington,
Mass.: D.C. Heath and Co.
Slater, M.D. and Rouner, D. (1993). Spokesperson expertise and bias: An
experiment. Presented at the
annual meeting of the International Communication Association, Washington, D.C.
Stempel III., G.H., and Culbertson, H.M. (1984). The Prominence and dominance of
news sources in
newspaper medical coverage. Journalism Quarterly, 61:671-676.
Taylor, P. Political Coverage in the 1990s: Teaching the Old News New Tricks.
In Rosen, J. and Taylor, P. The New News V. the Old News: The Press and
Politics in the 1990s. The Twentieth Century Fund, Inc., 1992, 35-69.
Vallone, R.P., Ross, L. and Lepper, M.R. The Hostile Media Phenomenon: Biased
Perception and
Perceptions of Media Bias in Coverage of the Beirut Massacre. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 49:3, 577-585, 1985.
Inability to Recognize News Source Bias 31
Endnotes
[1] These Cronbach's alpha reliability coefficients are reasonable, given
the method in which these indices were created. The original measures
were
dispersed farther in the process of creating the difference scores. Als
o,
these scores each represent an index of four sources that are similar in
bias but differ according to topic discussed.
[2] Sample sizes dif
fer here, and in Table 8, because of the complexity of
creating the discrepanc
y indices. For the general public sample, missing
values on any o
ne variable led to a smaller sample size. Because the eight
high and low bias
sources were rotated in the students and the newspaper
employee s
amples, not all respondents in each sample reacted to the same
six
source stimuli, and the two with text. Therefore, the student sample
regression analyses used a means substitution for missing values command,
thought appropriate in this exploratory study.
|
