Bias in the media

I know that there is a vocal group which claims that the media is biased. Which, while the statement isn't untrue, is also not true in anywhere near the sense implied. Any human organization is biased. Period. We are creatures of bias.

But, the notion that the mainstream media's bias is in anyway egregiously so, is just unsupported. I read a lot of news. And, I try to read pieces which disagree with me more than ones which do, so as to avoid feeding my own biases. But, I have encountered a small problem. I have detected clear and present in the pieces which disagree with in alarming magnitude.

Let me be clear. A "standard" level of bias would involve reporting the news in an unbiased fashion. Rather than over biases, the bias comes in the form of controlling what is covered, and perhaps even the default stance. But, the literature itself tends to be more neutral, or at the least one sided.

Overt bias comes when the language used does not do these things. Today I read an article which is one of the clearest examples of overt bias I have ever seen.

To start, I found this particular gem early on in the article:

made America safe for deplorable Westerners

Here, the author is clearly using the word "deplorable" as a rallying cry to Republicans. Prior to this, the article had largely been a history lesson. Something I am noticing lately is common in these pieces. The attempt to use history to legitimize or justify the present of future. But, that would be a topic for another time. This was the point in the article where the bias begins to manifest. 

That word was NOT chosen by accident. The word was chosen specifically to indicate who the audiences intended target was. And, while I noticed it in my first read through, I decided to ignore it, and let the rest of the article inform my opinion.

Then, we get to this in the next paragraph:

Donald Trump is America's second disrupter-in-chief. There was an obvious reason that official Washington cheered so lustily for Joe Biden's victory. It's the same reason that Wall Street supported the Biden campaign overwhelmingly while big tech and the big media worked so hard to tip the scales in favor of the former vice president.

It is no longer an implied. After he used the prior paragraphs to glorify disrupters, he then labels Trump as just such a person. The first incident of minor overt bias occurs at the end. Claiming that certain industries actively worked to undermine Trump without any proof is interesting. Especially given that the prior 6 paragraphs were devoted to drumming up historical evidence on an unrelated topic. Methinks that effort would have been better spent providing proof of the articles claims.

But, as I said, this is really just a minor bias issue. While it does clearly expose the bias of the author. It could be argued that the author simply thinks it obvious enough that this point needs no explanation. That being in no small part, due to the bias of the author and their intended audience.

The proceeding paragraph is even worse. It continues the unproven tirade and degrades to petty insults. And this is, in my opinion a mid-level bias. A less biased article would not stoop to flinging emotionally charged insults. This isn't to say that insults don't appear in other articles. More that they tend to quote people flinging insults rather than the author doing it themselves. Directed insults within an editorial exposes a clear bias. Which is rich for an article deriding other media sources for their biases. But, as stated, far from the most egregious.

As we continue on, get a rapid fire of claims, which from my perspective seem to exist only to reset the tone of the article after the prior degradation. For instance, lines like this are seemingly calmer and of a much lesser bias:

The truth of this election is that there was a lot more support for Trump than the progressive left could ever imagine.

I would agree with the statement. But, at the same point, it ends on an unsubstantiated claim.

And then there is the paragraph ending in "It just didn't smell right." The author is trying to back pedal, or level set here. I suspect he thinks or fears Trump will lose his law suits and wants his readers to not accept this result. Because, basically, he is saying that there are legal ways Biden could win, but that doesn't mean that they are above board. 

Again, none of this is much more than garden variety bias. Though, at this point the article is so heavily laden with it that it would almost be pointless to bother labelling such germane incidences. But, the point of my article is to provide examples of overt bias. And this is but another case.

The claim which drove me to write this article was this one:

But he will enter the White House with a hostile Senate, a resurgent Republican House minority and geriatric House Democratic leadership that totters on the edge of irrelevancy.

It has been a while since I have seen such an overt bias. Firstly, without even diving into the facts of it, in a single sentence you have a explicit praise of one side, with explicit rebuke of the other.

But, then there is the basis of the attack itself. "Resurgent" is NOT the word I would use here. Republicans may have gained some seats, but they are still a minority. And then it goes on to criticize the age of the house Democrats, while McConnell is by no means a spring chicken. On top of which, the social relevance of the house leadership is immaterial to their ability to perform their job.

Then it attacks Biden for his "advanced age" in an article which talks about Trumps return in 4 years. At which point he will be older than Biden is now.

That end of the article is the icing on the cake. That last quoted chunk of paragraph shows, simultaneously a bias for one party and then a bias against another. Overtly. And, then it follows it up with an argument which applies a double standard.

If Biden's age is AT ALL material, then the author shouldn't be promoting a return of Trump in 4 years.

While this is NOT the crux of the article by any means, I will repeat, I am simply exposing the bias of the author. The point didn't need to be made. And, it is clearly a flawed statement, in its entirety. They author went out of the way to add it because of either their own bias. Or to prey on the biases of the intended audience.  

A passionate or even extremely biased article does not mean that the contents are invalid. That isn't the argument I'm trying to make. The linked article is devoid of any attempt to support claims which certainly makes it suspicious. But, again, that is another topic entirely.

I would simply say that before you grab your pitchforks and proclaim what you consider to be opposing media outlets to be biased. Maybe use a more careful on the news outlets and articles you're consuming.

Now, this article only shows examples of overt/explicit bias. If you're going to criticize a new organization on the whole, you should also look for implied bias by analyzing a broad sampling of articles to see if there is a particular lean to the news outlet on the whole. After all, a news outlet could post overtly biased articles, but balance out its overall bias by also posting an equal amount of overtly biased material balancing it out.