Definition and reasons for media bias

The Oxford dictionary defines the word 'biased' as 'unfairly prejudiced for or against someone or something' and gives the example as 'we will not tolerate this biased media coverage'. The University of Michigan's website says that the most common ways that bias manifests itself in the news are through word choice, omissions, the limiting of debate, framing of the story, and a biased selection of sources.

11 Bias thus refers to something "unfair", which is perhaps more easily understood in a political context where the candidates of the main parties should have about equal voice, or writing in favour of or against a particular political party. The role of media bias in business is possibly more complex and hence requires a focussed and different investigation.

How is media bias created? Baker (1994) divides media bias into seven types – by commission, by omission, by story selection, by placement, by selection of sources, by spin, by labelling and by policy endorsement or condemnation.

Media bias can thus be created and shaped by various forces: the biases generated by the pressure from the advertisers (Reuter and Zitzewitz, 2003 and Herman and Chomsky, 1988) and financial institutions (Dyck, et al., 2006), media ownership (Besley and Pratt (2001)), competition for audience (Baron (2005), Mullainathan and Shleifer (2005) and Gentzkow and Shapiro (2006)), government control over the media (Gelbach and Sonin (2009)) and the interplay between journalists and sources (Dyck and Zingales, 2004)).

While discussing the different types of media bias, Mullainathan and Shleifer (2002) argue that media reports can ignore or omit information inconsistent with the message of the story,

‘build up’ information sources that corroborate the story, ignore or undermine information sources that contradict the message, or use colourful but misleading language and images that support the story.

While in certain cases, it may be easier to make a direct measurement of the bias inserted by the media, in certain other cases, it may have to be measured as a bias perceived by the consumers, after ensuring that all the necessary research conditions are taken into account.

Media bias is thus measured by scholars in various ways as will be discussed in Table 2.2 in Chapter 2. Many research methodologies have been used to measure newspaper reporting, such as time-series analyses, panel studies, laboratory experiments and content analysis.

Nyhan (2012) highlights the on-going debates on the measurement tools used in media bias research by saying that there is ‘a deep epistemological problem that plagues all research on media bias – the lack of well-defined and widely accepted definition of unbiased reporting’.

12 The media thus tries constantly to shape the opinions of the public, and looks for news that is not only of interest to its consumers but also where it will be able to provide an opinion that will find acceptance with its consumers. In this context, the launch of a new technology is a particularly interesting example. As explained in the following section, a launch of a new technology is often met with public apprehension. The media, which is in need of constant public attention, is likely to bias the story around the new technology in line with the fears felt by the consumers, particularly since news reporters have been shown to slant news and bias stories (Dunham, 2011). The media’s role is important in communicating such information to the consumers; for example, over 90% of consumers receive information about food and biotechnology primarily through the popular press and television (Hoban & Kendall, 1993).

While discussing the fear of GM foods amongst the European public in the article titled ‘GM Foods OK in the US’, Social Institute Research Centre states that the following ‘process’ is adopted by the British press to create this fear¹:

Fear sells newspapers, and the British press have found the perfect 3-step formula for engineering and then commercially exploiting public fears. First they 'plant' the fear with a series of scare-stories. Then they commission a poll which - surprise, surprise - shows that people are scared, worried, anxious, etc. about the product in question. Then they mount a moralistic, high-profile campaign to ban the product, claiming that they are merely reflecting existing public concern and that "people's anxieties must be respected". This formula is highly effective, and allows newspapers to profit from fears they have created, while claiming the moral high-ground. In terms of social responsibility, this practice is on a par with shouting 'fire!' in a crowded theatre.

Hence an in-depth examination of the reporting on a relatively new and contentious technology may offer interesting insights into the dynamics of media bias.

1http://www.sirc.org/articles/okinus.html

13 While the methodologies used are still being debated by scholars, content analysis as a method of examining the qualitative or quantitative aspects of social communication is well established. According to Holsti (1969), communications have three major components: the message, the sender and the audience. Hence, any methodology used to evaluate the communications will have to accommodate for the complexity in this area, and more specifically for the formation of the bias by the reporters and the perception of the bias by the reader. The measurement of the bias in this research through a content analysis, as explained later in this dissertation, takes into account the specific ‘themes’ of bias as inserted by the reporter and how they are perceived by the reader.