Understanding Media Bias

Media sources serve an important function in society as they disseminate news. Many citizens depend on media sources for up to date information regarding political developments, social change and current events. However, news is too often distorted as a result of media bias. Particularly in recent years, claims of a biased media are on the rise. In this essay, I will argue that biased media sources, understood as outlets for news and information that widely disseminate incorrect, misleading, even false information, often to serve a political goal, are detrimental to society. This is because they are epistemically irresponsible and lead to irresponsible decision making in practice.

In section 1, I will explore the best way to understand and define the notion of media sources and the numbers of ways in which bias can present itself. I will make the case that some types of bias are worse than others. In section 2, I will argue that media bias is epistemically and practically irresponsible. In section 3, I will present a possible objection to my argument: that it is impractical to think that bias can be entirely removed from media sources. Each of these elements forms an important piece of my ultimate conclusion that it is necessary to continue to criticize bias in the media to stem the rise of misrepresented stories.

Section 1: What is a biased media source

For the purposes of this paper, I will define media source as a resource for information that disseminates such information to a wide audience. I will be focusing on media sources that claim to be news sources and present themselves as telling true stories and who are viewed by their audience as reliable and credible. The media sources I am discussing are distinguished from fake news sources. Fake news sources are those wherein the creators of fake news know the story to be false (Rini 2017). Biased media sources are telling true stories, but in a way that does not present the complete truth.

Firstly, as a broad category, bias may be defined as a slant or skew that can be seen in how stories are covered. Within this category of bias, there are a number of types of bias. Firstly, there is the non-neutrality conception of bias, which is when a media source fails to report in a neutral way. Next, there is the inaccuracy conception of bias, which is when media sources report what they conceive to be incontrovertibly true facts, however, they only view them as such because the facts support their view on controversial topics. Finally, there is the selectivity conception of bias, which is when a media source is selective in which stories they choose to cover based on which news stories coincide with their values. Note though that the mere failure of a media source to cover a given story does not in itself constitute bias. The reasons for the omission of a story are important: if it is for a constraint such as time or relevance to their viewership, the source would not necessarily be biased. On the other hand, if it is not reported on because it conflicts with the agenda of the media source, it would be considered bias (Worsnip 2019). Each of these categories may fall under a broader split: intentional versus unintentional bias. These are discussed below, as well as which type of bias may be better than the other.

b) Which type of media bias is best?

While ideally there would be no media bias, there are types that are better than others. Intentional bias is when media sources attempt to push an agenda or perspective by telling stories that only support that point of view. The stories are still true, however, the truth is lopsided. Unintentional bias is when media sources are so compelled by their own perspectives that they do not realize they are presenting stories in a skewed manner or omitting stories that would convey an alternate point of view.

While at first it may appear that intentional bias is clearly the more problematic of the two, it is in fact the opposite. Intentional bias actively skews stories to persuade their audience, which promotes epistemic irresponsibility. These media sources seem to have little regard for the truth. However, media sources with intentional bias may be easier to recognize as biased sources, and thus less insidious. Media sources that are influenced by unintentional bias believe that they are presenting wholly truthful stories, but they are affected by implicit bias from journalists. The unintended skew or slant may make it more difficult to recognize the bias within the story. If bias is not recognized, it cannot be criticized. Because the core of my argument is that we must criticize bias in order to dissuade people from it, it is a necessity that bias be recognizable. I argue that unintentional bias is worse for the pursuit of truth because it will likely or misinform people. This is important to understand because if we are given a choice of which type of bias to allow, I argue that it may be better to allow intentional bias over unintentional bias.

Section 2: Is media bias always a bad thing?

For the purposes of this paper, “bad” is defined as irresponsibility. This comes in two forms: epistemic and practical. Epistemic responsibility is the idea that if one is going to hold a belief, they should have reasons and evidence to support that belief (Huemer 2005). I claim that if the evidence one has for holding a belief is biased because it was reported by biased media sources, the evidence does not provide a valid reason to continue holding that belief, and to continue to do so would be epistemically irresponsible. Practical irresponsibility is holding beliefs that are based on unreliable evidence and making decisions based on those beliefs.

a) Biased media sources are epistemically irresponsible

An important concept to establish first is the idea that, in general, people desire to hold true beliefs rather than false beliefs, where possible. Beliefs should be understood as those things that you hold to be true. They are considered to be the truth when they are objective, based in reality, and the same for all. Along with this assumption, we should go one step further to add that individuals want their true beliefs to be complete, meaning the truth is not skewed, slanted or misrepresented. While biased media sources do present true stories, by definition they do not present complete truths.

Media sources are designed so that people will trust them and as a result, many people do not look at their news source critically. This means that they do not recognize the bias in the information they are receiving and trust that they are receiving whole truths. Individuals will unquestionably believe the evidence they are given and then use that evidence to support their own beliefs. They will be unlikely to question their beliefs or be open to the beliefs of others. For this reason, media sources are epistemically irresponsible.

b) Biased media sources are irresponsible in practice

Biased media sources lead people to form beliefs based on unreliable evidence. If people’s evidence is unreliable, their beliefs are irresponsible and the decisions they make are not responsibly informed. This will lead to poorer decision making. For example, there has been a pattern of some American media sources using mugshots when presenting stories about African-American individuals, even when the individuals are not accused of a crime in the story. The choice to use a mugshot instead of finding a different picture may occur because of bias, intentional or unintentional. Unfortunately, when viewers see these images, it perpetuates an untrue stereotype that African-Americans are inclined towards crime. This perpetuates implicit racial bias that undermines how people will interact with African-Americans in their day-to-day lives. This is problematic because it heightens racial tension, despite there being no valid reasons for this perpetuation.

Section 3: Objection and reply

Some may object to the idea that biased media sources should be criticized because they say it is impossible to remove all bias. Because all individuals, including journalists who work for media sources, come to stories with unique backgrounds and values that influence how they perceive events, they will be incapable of separating themselves as professionals from their personal ideals. If journalists are incapable of viewing stories without inputting their own opinions, we cannot practically remove bias from media sources.

In reply, I argue that there may be a compromise between my argument that biased media sources are irresponsible and the idea that bias is inherent in human nature. Moving forward, media sources should present their biases upfront so that viewers can more easily identify bias. This will encourage viewers to balance the news they receive from one source with other sources until they feel confident that they have found the truth. For example, some newspaper reporters are publishing which party they affiliate with to appear more transparent to their readers. This allows readers to continue to consume media but will stem the rise of epistemic and practical irresponsibility because readers will look to other sources to form a complete belief.

Conclusion

I have argued that biased media sources are always bad because they are epistemically and practically irresponsible. I have added a caveat that unintentional bias is worse than intentional bias. Finally, I have pushed that we continue to criticize biased media sources in order to protect against the perpetuation of incomplete truths that leads to irresponsibility.