Biased News Media or Biased Readers?

[Dill]

For those interested in the phenomenon of selective skepticism, here is an interesting study by Gallup and the Knight Foundation. The comments following it are also interesting, and in some cases seem to confirm the experiment.  

Biased News Media or Biased Readers? An Experiment on Trust
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/26/upshot/biased-news-media-or-biased-readers-an-experiment-on-trust.html

Those who are most distrustful of the news media, and those with more extreme political views, tend to be the most biased readers, research shows. Some excerpts

Gallup survey data indicates that Americans are increasingly distrustful about potentially biased news. But they should also worry about the partiality of their own judgment as well as how their news consumption habits may affect it.

The bias consumers bring with them distorts their rating of news content, new research shows, and those who are most distrustful of the news media tend to be the most biased readers.

The evidence also suggests that people are at greater risk of bias if they habitually turn to more extreme sources — such as those least often preferred by political moderates.
......................

Who is at greatest risk of bias?

Among all readers in the group who could see the news source, 35 percent exhibit large bias — meaning their trust rating of an article diverged from the blind-review group by 1.5  points or more on the 1-to-5-point scale.

Not surprisingly, those with more extreme political views tend to provide more biased ratings of news. Those who described their political views as very liberal or very conservative exhibited large bias across 43 percent of the articles they rated, whereas those who described their views as moderate exhibited bias just 31 percent of the time. Likewise, those who leaned toward one party but did not fully identify with it exhibited about the same bias as the moderates.

The data also suggests that those who approve of President Trump rate news articles with more bias than those who disapprove of the president (39.2 percent versus 32.8 percent). However, Trump supporters tend to be less biased than those identifying as “very liberal.”
..........................
Chosen news sources shape perceptions

Another reason some people may demonstrate high levels of bias in reading the news is that they habitually consume highly biased news, distorting their frame of reference. The Knight-Gallup data provides some evidence for this. Respondents were asked: “Is there a news source that you trust to report the news fully, accurately, and fairly?” Those who responded “yes” were then asked to list the source.

There were very large differences in measured bias across the various news sources people regularly consume. Those who turn to Rush Limbaugh, Breitbart and Fox News tend to generate the most biased ratings of news content. Rush Limbaugh listeners demonstrated large rating bias in 52 percent of news content rated, and it was 50 percent for Breitbart readers. Fox News watchers showed large bias 45 percent of the time.

The PDF of the full study is here:
https://kf-site-production.s3.amazonaws.com/publications/pdfs/000/000/257/original/KnightFoundation_NewsLens1_Client_Report_070918_ab.pdf

[Benton]

(10-01-2018, 10:53 PM)Dill Wrote: For those interested in the phenomenon of selective skepticism, here is an interesting study by Gallup and the Knight Foundation. The comments following it are also interesting, and in some cases seem to confirm the experiment.  

Biased News Media or Biased Readers? An Experiment on Trust
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/26/upshot/biased-news-media-or-biased-readers-an-experiment-on-trust.html

Those who are most distrustful of the news media, and those with more extreme political views, tend to be the most biased readers, research shows. Some excerpts

Gallup survey data indicates that Americans are increasingly distrustful about potentially biased news. But they should also worry about the partiality of their own judgment as well as how their news consumption habits may affect it.

The bias consumers bring with them distorts their rating of news content, new research shows, and those who are most distrustful of the news media tend to be the most biased readers.

The evidence also suggests that people are at greater risk of bias if they habitually turn to more extreme sources — such as those least often preferred by political moderates.
......................

Who is at greatest risk of bias?

Among all readers in the group who could see the news source, 35 percent exhibit large bias — meaning their trust rating of an article diverged from the blind-review group by 1.5  points or more on the 1-to-5-point scale.

Not surprisingly, those with more extreme political views tend to provide more biased ratings of news. Those who described their political views as very liberal or very conservative exhibited large bias across 43 percent of the articles they rated, whereas those who described their views as moderate exhibited bias just 31 percent of the time. Likewise, those who leaned toward one party but did not fully identify with it exhibited about the same bias as the moderates.

The data also suggests that those who approve of President Trump rate news articles with more bias than those who disapprove of the president (39.2 percent versus 32.8 percent). However, Trump supporters tend to be less biased than those identifying as “very liberal.”
..........................
Chosen news sources shape perceptions

Another reason some people may demonstrate high levels of bias in reading the news is that they habitually consume highly biased news, distorting their frame of reference. The Knight-Gallup data provides some evidence for this. Respondents were asked: “Is there a news source that you trust to report the news fully, accurately, and fairly?” Those who responded “yes” were then asked to list the source.

There were very large differences in measured bias across the various news sources people regularly consume. Those who turn to Rush Limbaugh, Breitbart and Fox News tend to generate the most biased ratings of news content. Rush Limbaugh listeners demonstrated large rating bias in 52 percent of news content rated, and it was 50 percent for Breitbart readers. Fox News watchers showed large bias 45 percent of the time.

The PDF of the full study is here:
https://kf-site-production.s3.amazonaws.com/publications/pdfs/000/000/257/original/KnightFoundation_NewsLens1_Client_Report_070918_ab.pdf

Interesting, but I don't think it's too shocking. Especially the last part. Limbaugh, Brietbart and Fox have made their money by telling people everyone else is lying and out to get them/their guns/their money. And everyone is anyone who isn't a conservative. So, it shouldn't be shocking that someone who thinks everyone else is out to get them would only believe the people who tell them "everyone is out to get you."

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

Quote:Gallup also confirmed that perceived trustworthiness of news content depends on how one
views the news source. Particularly striking was the magnitude of devaluation in perceived
trustworthiness Democrats exhibited when rating Fox News and Breitbart News articles
when source was shown. The small partisan differences in perceived trustworthiness of Fox
News content when source is hidden similarly constitutes a novel finding.

A rather interesting blurb from the conclusions page.

[*Nately120*]

And to think, just a few years ago this type of blathering paranoia was relegated to street corner doomsayers and that woman with unmedicated borderline personality disorder that my cousin married. What progress.

[*michaelsean*]

So if you think certain news outlets are biased you are correct, but if you think other news outlets are biased then you are biased.

[fredtoast]

(10-02-2018, 01:35 PM)michaelsean Wrote: So if you think certain news outlets are biased you are correct, but if you think other news outlets are biased then you are biased.

No.

Try again.

[Dill]

(10-02-2018, 01:20 PM)Benton Wrote: Interesting, but I don't think it's too shocking. Especially the last part. Limbaugh, Brietbart and Fox have made their money by telling people everyone else is lying and out to get them/their guns/their money. And everyone is anyone who isn't a conservative. So, it shouldn't be shocking that someone who thinks everyone else is out to get them would only believe the people who tell them "everyone is out to get you."

They also tell people NOT to trust other sources--the FAKE NEWS of the NYT and WaPo, for example.

That's in part why we meet people who are convinced Obama wiretapped Trump and the FBI sought to throw the election for Hillary--and now it is trying to unseat Trump.  A dizzying number of "facts" about the FBI and Bruce Ohr et al. circulate without challenge among newsites and blogs which tell us what the liberal (responsible) press won't.

[Dill]

(10-02-2018, 01:35 PM)michaelsean Wrote: So if you think certain news outlets are biased you are correct, but if you think other news outlets are biased then you are biased.

The singular feature of the study's methodology was the use of "blind" tests.  What was the study designed to measure, in your view?  What is the dependent variable?

[ballsofsteel]

So say Wolf Blitzer on CNN reports that Trump said something either in a tweet or one of his rallies, word for word. If after investigating,
CNN confirms that what Trump said was 100% false and makes trump look like an ass, does this mean CNN is biased against him? For just reporting "facts"?

[Dill]

(10-02-2018, 06:48 PM)ballsofsteel Wrote: So say Wolf Blitzer on CNN reports that Trump said something either in a tweet or one of his rallies, word for word. If after investigating,
CNN confirms that what Trump said was 100% false and makes trump look like an ass, does this mean CNN is biased against him? For just reporting "facts"?

To a certain audience, yes. That would be another attack on Trump by people who "just hate."

In Trumpworld, actions and choices are separated from consequences.

If Trump sends out stupid tweets every day and they are reported everyday, then that indicates more bias against Trump than against other presidents who didn't do stupid every day.

I should add that stupid to you might not be stupid in Trump world. A tweet claiming Obama wiretapped Trump might seem stupid to you, but to Trump supporters it challenges an abuse of power.

[ballsofsteel]

(10-02-2018, 07:36 PM)Dill Wrote: To a certain audience, yes. That would be another attack on Trump by people who "just hate."

In Trumpworld, actions and choices are separated from consequences.

If Trump sends out stupid tweets every day and they are reported everyday, then that indicates more bias against Trump than against other presidents who didn't do stupid every day.

I should add that stupid to you might not be stupid in Trump world. A tweet claiming Obama wiretapped Trump might seem stupid to you, but to Trump supporters it challenges an abuse of power.

I shouldn't of implied that CNN purposely would make Trump look like an ass.  I meant the things he says that are easy to proof false makes him look like an ass. Your right though I shouldn't generalize. Whats seems dumb to me might seem smart to someone else.

[Dill]

(10-02-2018, 07:52 PM)ballsofsteel Wrote: I shouldn't of implied that CNN purposely would make Trump look like an ass.  I meant the things he says that are easy to proof false makes him look like an ass. Your right though I shouldn't generalize. Whats seems dumb to me might seem smart to someone else.

I didn't take you to be implying that.  I am just saying that straight reporting of what Trump actually does in public is often framed by Trump supporters/defenders as an "attack" on him. Hence claims that the media are against him. "Why didn't the liberal media cover bad stories about OBAMA all the time ?!?!"   LOL.

Alsl, sometimes dumb is dumb, even if it seems smart to someone else.

[ballsofsteel]

(10-02-2018, 08:38 PM)Dill Wrote: I didn't take you to be implying that.  I am just saying that straight reporting of what Trump actually does in public is often framed by Trump supporters/defenders as an "attack" on him. Hence claims that the media are against him. "Why didn't the liberal media cover bad stories about OBAMA all the time ?!?!"   LOL.

Alsl, sometimes dumb is dumb, even if it seems smart to someone else.

Yes. Let me ax you this. If the President or anyone else for that matter, attacked a news organization like CNN by calling them Fake news, stupid dumb or any other derogatory terms, wouldn't you think CNN would be out to get him back? Just by repeating what Trump actually says? Trump makes it easy for them.
Take the "failing NY Times" as Trump calls them. Do you think they were out to get Trump? What if they were? If by getting back is reporting FACTS about his actions, what is wrong with that? This latest report about Trumps wealth and Tax evasions must of cost them a lot of money to dig all this info up. I got to believe it was due to payback. It wasn't solely done to be "biased".
When your dirty as Trump is, F'n with the media is the last thing he should of done. What do you think?

[Dill]

(10-03-2018, 07:07 AM)ballsofsteel Wrote: Yes. Let me ax you this. If the President or anyone else for that matter, attacked a news organization like CNN by calling them Fake news, stupid dumb or any other derogatory terms, wouldn't you think CNN would be out to get him back? Just by repeating what Trump actually says? Trump makes it easy for them.
Take the "failing NY Times" as Trump calls them. Do you think they were out to get Trump? What if they were? If by getting back is reporting FACTS about his actions, what is wrong with that? This latest report about Trumps wealth and Tax evasions must of cost them a lot of money to dig all this info up. I got to believe it was due to payback. It wasn't solely done to be "biased".
When your dirty as Trump is, F'n with the media is the last thing he should of done. What do you think?

Three things, Balls:

1. I don't think any of the reputable news agencies wants to "get back" at Trump for attacking them.  It's not like one school boy called another a name and so naturally the other responds in kind.  They ARE disturbed, however, that the man occupying the highest office in the land is behaving like that--like a schoolboy.  Along with other rash and uniformed behaviors, the press baiting points to a problem for the country, not a spat between two parties. No doubt most all responsible journalists would like to see Trump gone, but not because he called them names.

2. I don't think the latest dirt on Trump is "payback." The reporters involved have been following Trump for years. What they have discovered about his finances and lifetime of doubling--if it is not "made up," then it is important for the public to know the character of the man leading the executive.

3. So I think "f'n" with the media is really neither here nor there. In the short run, it has served Trump well. Many reporters were afraid to tangle with him. Normally respectable papers like the WSJ were rather soft on him for decades.  Dissing the responsible media fit an already developed narrative about the liberal press. Trump just needed to massage that in his favor, encouraging his followers to believe that institutions like the FBI and CIA could actually be "out to get' a president or candidate.  He was speaking to people who, when they hear that contact with Russians (including spies) led to surveillance of Trump campaign members, totally miss the CONTACT WITH THE RUSSIANS part, and just imagine OBAMA out to get Trump (they'd been warned for years he was a dictator!). Like he could just order the FBI to do that for him.  Trump's actions help create a media sphere in which Alex Jones' version of Trump can compete on equal footing with the NYT's.  Very bad for the country, but good for holding onto power, keeping Congressional protection rather than oversight, etc. 

Whether he "f'd" with the media or not, the negative reports were coming sooner or later, once he declared his candidacy, because of the kind of person Trump is and what he has done all his adult life, and because presidents--all presidents--get the deepest and most long term scrutiny from the press.  As they should.

[ballsofsteel]

(10-03-2018, 04:13 PM)Dill Wrote: Three things, Balls:

1. I don't think any of the reputable news agencies wants to "get back" at Trump for attacking them.  It's not like one school boy called another a name and so naturally the other responds in kind.  They ARE disturbed, however, that the man occupying the highest office in the land is behaving like that--like a schoolboy.  Along with other rash and uniformed behaviors, the press baiting points to a problem for the country, not a spat between two parties. No doubt most all responsible journalists would like to see Trump gone, but not because he called them names.

2. I don't think the latest dirt on Trump is "payback." The reporters involved have been following Trump for years. What they have discovered about his finances and lifetime of doubling--if it is not "made up," then it is important for the public to know the character of the man leading the executive.

3. So I think "f'n" with the media is really neither here nor there. In the short run, it has served Trump well. Many reporters were afraid to tangle with him. Normally respectable papers like the WSJ were rather soft on him for decades.  Dissing the responsible media fit an already developed narrative about the liberal press. Trump just needed to massage that in his favor, encouraging his followers to believe that institutions like the FBI and CIA could actually be "out to get' a president or candidate.  He was speaking to people who, when they hear that contact with Russians (including spies) led to surveillance of Trump campaign members, totally miss the CONTACT WITH THE RUSSIANS part, and just imagine OBAMA out to get Trump (they'd been warned for years he was a dictator!). Like he could just order the FBI to do that for him.  Trump's actions help create a media sphere in which Alex Jones' version of Trump can compete on equal footing with the NYT's.  Very bad for the country, but good for holding onto power, keeping Congressional protection rather than oversight, etc. 

Whether he "f'd" with the media or not, the negative reports were coming sooner or later, once he declared his candidacy, because of the kind of person Trump is and what he has done all his adult life, and because presidents--all presidents--get the deepest and most long term scrutiny from the press.  As they should.

Hey Dill thanks for your explanation. I just have a hard time wrapping my head around the "liberal media" talking point that I have been hearing for decades. As you said above the negative reports were coming. If those reports are true and based on fact however, why does that make the reporting "bias"? Is it because the particular news organization who reported it is considered liberal? What makes a news organization liberal?
Most of the journalist and reporters there are democrats? The owner is democrat? If Fox news just reports positive reports about Republicans, wouldn't that make them "bias" also? Thanks!