Thesis
Reference
Media bias and media firm strategy
KRISHNAKUMAR, Velamur
Abstract
Y-a-t-il des cas où la couverture médiatique des produits ou services des entreprises est biaisée négativement? Si oui, quels sont les facteurs qui déterminent ou favorisent le développement de ces biais? La partie empirique teste ces idées en s'appuyant sur une base de données construite à partir d'un large échantillon de 3991 articles de presse publiés par 46 journaux dans 17 pays principalement Européens et portant sur les aliments génétiquement modifiés. Trois grands résultats ressortent de ce travail et constituent sa contribution. 1) une confirmation qu'un sentiment fortement négatif concernant les aliments génétiquement modifiés se dégage des articles de presse 2) une preuve que les institutions des pays jouent un rôle important dans la détermination des biais dans la couverture médiatique des produits ou des technologies. 3) un résultat que les journaux les plus à même d'utiliser les biais comme stratégie de différentiation sont les journaux les moins idéologiquement marqués
KRISHNAKUMAR, Velamur. Media bias and media firm strategy. Thèse de doctorat : Univ.
Genève, 2014, no. SES 833
URN : urn:nbn:ch:unige-407378
DOI : 10.13097/archive-ouverte/unige:40737
Available at:
http://archive-ouverte.unige.ch/unige:40737
Disclaimer: layout of this document may differ from the published version.
1 / 1
Media firm strategy and media bias
THÈSE
présentée à la Faculté des sciences économiques et sociales de l’Université de Genève
par
Velamur Krishnakumar
sous la direction de
Prof. Bernard MORARD et Prof. Jean-Philippe BONARDI
pour l’obtention du grade de
Docteur ès sciences économiques et sociales mention gestion d’entreprise
Membres du jury de thèse:
Bernard MORARD, Professeur, Université de Genève, co-directeur de thèse
Jean-Philippe BONARDI, Professeur, Université de Lausanne, co-directeur de thèse Gilbert PROBST, Professeur, président du jury
Mathieu TREPANIER, PhD, Co-founder and Managing Director, Tsquared Consulting Partners S.A.
Thèse no 833
Genève, le 29 septembre 2014
La Faculté des sciences économiques et sociales, sur préavis du jury, a autorisé l’impression de la présente thèse, sans entendre, par là, émettre aucune opinion sur les propositions qui s’y trouvent énoncées et qui n’engagent que la responsabilité de leur auteur.
Genève, le 29 septembre 2014 Prof. Bernard MORARD
Impression d'après le manuscrit de l'auteur
2 Table of Contents
Table of Contents ... 2
List of Figures and Tables ... 4
List of abbreviations ... 5
Résumé ... 6
Abstract ... 7
1. Introduction ... 8
1.1 Media as a firm’s nonmarket component ... 8
1.2 Influence of media on firm reputation ... 9
1.3 Definition and reasons for media bias ... 10
1.4 Public anxieties against new technologies ... 13
1.5 Theoretical contribution of this research ... 14
1.6 Empirical field: GM foods in Europe ... 15
1.7 Measurement of media bias ... 16
1.8 Structure of the thesis ... 17
1.9 References ... 18
2. Media bias outside of politics: A study on the reporting of GM foods in Europe ... 21
2.1 Introduction ... 22
2.2 Background on genetically modified (GM) foods in Europe ... 22
2.3 New technologies and consumer reactions ... 27
2.4 Understanding media bias ... 30
2.5 Newspapers and the use of political bias in the US ... 31
2.6 Literature review of media reporting on GM foods ... 33
2.7 The role of media bias in business strategy ... 41
2.8 An overview of content analysis ... 44
2.9 Content Analysis of newspaper coverage on GM foods in Europe ... 46
2.10 Results ... 54
2.11 Discussion ... 61
2.12 Conclusion ... 62
2.13 Limitations and future research ... 63
2.14 References ... 63
3. Media bias, INSTITUTIONAL environment AND new and Sensitive technologies ... 74
3.1 Introduction ... 75
3.2 An overview of institutions ... 77
3.3 Hypotheses ... 83
3.3.1 Political institutions ... 84
3.3.2 Demographic institutions ... 87
3.3.3 Economic institutions ... 89
3.4 Data and methodology ... 92
3.5 Results ... 94
3.6 Discussion ... 96
3.7 Conclusions ... 98
3.8 Limitations and future research ... 99
3.9 References ... 100
3
4. Media bias, resource flexibility and newspapers’ strategy - A case study of genetically-modified
foods in Europe ... 104
4.1 Introduction ... 105
4.2 Newspapers and the use of political bias ... 108
4.3 Theoretical basis ... 109
4.4 Specificity of European newspapers ... 112
4.5 Resource-based analysis: flexibility versus commitment ... 113
4.6 Hypotheses ... 119
4.6.1 Hypothesis 1 – Centrist newspapers have a higher bias ... 119
4.6.2 Hypothesis 2 – Newspaper market shares play a role in the bias ... 120
4.6.3 Hypothesis 3 – Centrist newspapers are followers ... 121
4.6.4. Hypothesis 4 – Centrist newspapers show a higher bias ... 122
4.7 Data and methodology ... 122
4.8 Results ... 123
4.9 Discussion ... 158
4.10 Conclusion ... 159
4.11 Limitations and future research ... 162
4.12 References ... 163
5. Summary and Implications ... 165
5.1 Major findings ... 165
5.2 Overall implications for organizations ... 167
5.3 Contribution to various literatures... 168
5.4 Limitations of this research ... 169
5.5 The current research as a platform for future work ... 171
5.6 References ... 172
4 List of Figures and Tables
Figure 2.1. Dynamics and Stakeholder Interactions of the Fear/ Uncertainty of GM Foods in Europe 27 Figure 2.2. Number of GM-foods Articles Identified by Year. ... 5ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.
Figure 2.3. Number of GM-foods Articles per Country and Newspaper. ... 56
Figure 2.4. No. of GM-foods Articles with negative Content Score per Country per Newspaper. ... 58
Figure 2.5. GM-foods Articles by Country and Theme. ... 60
Figure 4.1. Resource Commitment versus Flexibility. ... 116
Figure 4.2. Newspapers Strategy: Bias, Differentiation and Credibility. ... 118
Figure 4.3. Average Negative Bias by Newspaper and by Country. ... 124
Figure 4.4. % Negative-bias Articles by Newspaper. ... 164
Table 2.1. Trends in support for GM food. ... 26
Table 2.2. Summary of Literature on Media Bias. ... 38
Table 2.3. No. of GM-Foods Articles Identified by Newspaper. ... 49
Table 2.4. List of Themes Identified. ... 51
Table 2.5. Number of GM foods articles per country. ... 57
Table 2.6. No. of GM-foods Articles with Negative Content Score per Country. ... 58
Table 2.7. No. of GM-foods Articles with Score per Country. ... 59
Table 3.1. Effect of institutional variables on the negative bias of content score. ... 95
Table 4.1. Political Orientation of Newspapers. ... 106
Table 4.2. Average Negative Bias Score by Country - Mean and SD by Year. ... 128
Table 4.3. Average Negative Bias Score by Country - Overall Mean and SD. ... 130
Table 4.4. Mean and SD – Liberal Newspapers. ... 132
Table 4.5. Mean and SD – Conservative Newspapers. ... 133
Table 4.6. Mean and SD – Centrist Newspapers. ... 134
Table 4.7. Means of Average Negative Bias – Centrist versus Liberal Newspapers. ... 135
Table 4.8. Means of Average Negative Bias – Centrist versus Conservative Newspapers... 135
Table 4.9. Newspaper tilt and the negative bias of content score. ... 136
Table 4.10. Probit Regression Results - Centrist papers but with one year lag for newspaper market shares. ... 137
Table 4.11. Results of OLS Regression with interaction. ... 138
Table 4.12. Results of OLS Regressions – bias versus circulation. ... 139
Table 4.13. Results of Regressions for Individual French Newspapers... 142
Table 4.14. Analysis of Articles with ‘Christine Lagarde’ - Descriptive Statistics. ... 150
Table 4.15. Regression Results on Political Articles with mention of ‘Christine Lagarde’. ... 151
Table 4.16. Analysis of Articles with ‘Tax Increase’ - Descriptive Statistics. ... 154
Table 4.17. Regression Results on Political Articles with mention of ‘Tax Increase’. ... 155
Appendix 2.1. Examples of Original Language and Translated Articles. ... 68
Appendix 2.2. Codes for file names... 72
Appendix 2.3. Grading of the titles and the articles for possible bias. ... 73
Appendix 3.1. Freedom of Press Indices by Country and Year - 2005-2010. ... 103
5 List of abbreviations
BSE Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy Bt Bacillus thuringiensis
CEO Chief Executive Officer
ENPA European Newspaper Publishers’ Association EU European Union (27 countries, excluding Croatia) GDP Gross Domestic Product
GM Genetically modified
GMO Genetically modified organism
INRA International Research associates, Europe Left Left of political system, liberal
NGO Non-governmental organization OLS Ordinary least squares
Right Right of political system, conservative
6 Résumé
Les peurs et doutes du grand public lorsque de nouvelles technologies sont lancées sont un phénomène bien connu. La couverture médiatique de tels événements joue souvent un rôle important dans l’exacerbation de ces peurs, facteur que les entreprises doivent donc prendre en compte. La question pour ces entreprises est notamment la suivante : Y-a-t-il des cas où la couverture médiatique de leurs produits ou services est biaisée négativement? Si oui, quels sont les facteurs qui déterminent ou favorisent le développement de ces biais? L’objet de cette thèse est de répondre à ces deux questions. Une littérature conséquente en économie suggère en effet que ce type de biais existe dans le contexte politique, notamment à travers un biais des médias américains en faveur des Démocrates.
La présente thèse adapte cette idée au management stratégique et explore les raisons théoriques possibles de ces biais, notamment les raisons liées à l’influence de l’environnement institutionnel sur les médias, ainsi que les raisons liées aux stratégies de différentiation développées par certains journaux. La partie empirique de la thèse teste ces idées en s’appuyant sur une base de données construite à partir d’un large échantillon de 3991 articles de presse publiés par 46 journaux dans 17 pays principalement Européens et portant sur les aliments génétiquement modifiés.
Trois grands résultats ressortent de ce travail et constituent sa contribution. En premier lieu, le Chapitre 2 de la thèse propose une méthode de mesure des biais dans les médias, et confirme qu’un sentiment fortement négatif concernant les aliments génétiquement modifiés se dégage des articles de presse publiés dans certains pays et par certains journaux, alors que c’est beaucoup moins le cas dans d’autres. Le Chapitre 3 explore cette variation et montre que les institutions des pays jouent un rôle important dans la détermination des biais dans la couverture médiatique des produits ou des technologies. Les sentiments négatifs identifiés dans le Chapitre 2 ne sont donc pas dus au hasard, ce qui soutient l’idée que des biais systématiques sont possibles. Le Chapitre 4 renforce cette analyse en étudiant les stratégies de différentiation des journaux, et démontre un phénomène intéressant et contre- intuitif : les journaux les plus à même d’utiliser les biais comme stratégie de différentiation sont les journaux les moins idéologiquement marqués, c’est-à-dire les journaux répertoriés comme ‘centristes’. La conclusion de cette thèse discute ces différents résultats et proposent plusieurs pistes pour des recherches futures.
7 Abstract
Consumer fears and doubts when new technologies are launched are well-known. The media coverage of such events often plays an important role in aggravating these fears, and firms should therefore take this factor into account. The question for firms is particularly as follows: are there instances where the media coverage of their products or services is negatively biased? If yes, what are the factors that determine or encourage the development of this bias? The objective of this thesis is to answer these two questions. There is substantial literature in economics which suggests that such a bias exists in the political context, particularly in the context of a bias by the American media in favour of the Democratic Party.
The current thesis adapts this idea to strategic management and explores possible theoretical reasons for this bias, particularly the reasons related to the influence of the institutional environment on the media, as well as the reasons related to the differentiation strategies developed by certain newspapers. The empirical section of thesis tests these ideas using a database constructed from a large sample of 3991 articles over 46 newspapers in 17 essentially European countries concerning GM foods.
The contribution of this thesis is its three main results. Firstly, Chapter 2 proposes a method to measure media bias, and confirms the existence of a strong negative media bias regarding GM foods in certain countries and newspapers, while the bias is less strong in other cases.
Chapter 3 explores this variation and shows that institutions in respective countries play an important role in determining media coverage of products or technologies. The negative sentiment identified in Chapter 2 is not a random phenomenon, which supports the idea that a systematic bias is possible. Chapter 4 reinforces this analysis by examining the differentiation strategies of newspapers, and shows an interesting and counter-intuitive phenomenon: the newspapers that are most likely to bias as a differentiation strategy are that are ideologically less defined, i.e. the newspapers that are listed as ‘centrist’. The conclusion chapter discusses the results and proposes different directions for further research.
8 1. INTRODUCTION
“If you don't read the newspaper, you're uninformed.
If you read the newspaper, you're mis-informed.”
― commonly attributed to Mark Twain
Every newspaper when it reaches the reader is the result of a whole series of selections as to what items shall be printed, in what position they shall be printed, how much space each
shall occupy, what emphasis each shall have. There are no objective standards here.
- Walter Lippman, in Public Opinion New York, Harcourt, Brace and Co. (1922)
1.1 Media as a firm’s nonmarket component
According to Baron (2006), the environment of firms can be split into connected spaces: the market environment – with price competition, differentiation, suppliers, consumers, etc. – and the nonmarket environment, characterized by institutional, social and political forces, including the media. Firms’ decisions regarding investments in, and the structure of, nonmarket strategies have been analysed in many studies such as Bonardi (2004), de Figueiredo & Tiller (2001), Grier, Munger & Roberts (1994), Hillman & Hitt (1999), Holburn &
Vanden Burgh (2002, 2004) Keim & Zeithaml (1986), Lenway & Rehbein (1991), Schuler (1996), Schuler, Rehbein & Cramer (2002). Whereas much effort has gone into explaining the role of other nonmarket factors such as NGOs, activists, shareholders, financial experts, government, etc. within the nonmarket environment, media as a nonmarket component has received limited attention.
The term ‘media’ relates to the main means of mass communication and comprises television, print, radio, hoardings, internet, etc.
Several articles in the management literature already suggest that the media has an important impact on firms. Deephouse (2000), in particular, shows that media reputation can be used as a resource by a firm. On the other hand, Bonardi and Keim (2005) suggest that the negative impact of media on a firm can be significant, as the media contributes to shape public opinion in ways that can be detrimental to firms’ reputation or to their products.
However, scholarly interest in media as a part of the nonmarket environment of a firm is still
9 recent and limited. The broad objective of this thesis is to make a contribution to this nascent literature by looking at some potential biases – negative or positive – that might emerge in the media in some countries regarding firms, their products or the technology they use. As explained below, this will lead to two contributions for the management literature: (1) whether we can identify and explain the sources of these potential biases, and (2) how media bias can be part of a newspaper company’s strategy.
1.2 Influence of media on firm reputation
Journalists, when they write their articles, can choose to report on the activities of a firm and thus have an impact on the firm’s reputation (e.g. influence via advertising, sensationalism to generate interest, omitting facts and information which are unfavourable to the writer, etc.).
(Deephouse, 2000).
A company’s reputation is shaped not just by its direct business partners, customers, and suppliers, but also by external constituencies, which include not only the media, but also advocacy groups, influencers, regulators, and politicians (Diermeier (2011)). According to Bednar (2012), media shine a light on issues that would otherwise be less salient to firm constituents and implies that, in addition to reflecting firm actions, the media can also influence firm behavior. The contentious labour practices of Nike were revealed by the American media including The Minneapolis Star Tribune and Business week in the early 90s, which affected the public perception of the firm, and the company had to spend significant resources in both time and money to bring the situation to normalcy (de Verdier and Brady, 1998).
Media can thus speak either positively or negatively about firms, and as argued by Rohlinger (2002), a firm’s strategies and perceptions of media do have an influence on the success of the firm.
10 When a media reports a story in an ‘unfair’ manner, it is termed as biased reporting, as explained below. According to Mullainathan and Shleifer (2005), media outlets do not provide unadulterated information, but rather tell stories that hang together and have a point of view, what is referred to in the business as “the narrative imperative”. For example, using automatic keyboard-based searches, Puglisi and Snyder (2008) have studied the relative frequency with which close to 200 newspapers cover a set of 35 political scandals in the US, and find that newspapers endorsing Democratic (Republican) candidates tend to give relatively more coverage to scandals involving Republican (Democratic) politicians. Many scholars have examined the slant by newspapers, but most have focussed their effort on political stories. McCombs (2002) observes that following the original study of the agenda- setting influence of the news media, which was conducted in Chapel Hill to examine a month during the 1968 U.S. presidential election, more than 300 such media agenda-setting studies concerning newspaper slant to influence public opinion have been carried out. By examining the differences in the citation patterns across publications Dunham (2011) shows that the sources of the bias are reporter/editor preferences rather than the preferences of publishers or customers.
As will be shown in Chapter 2, there are many reasons why journalists decide to slant their news but what is of importance here is that they do not limit this slant only to politics. Since firm reputation can be affected by media coverage, as mentioned earlier, this slant can also be used by newspapers to affect firms. Even though this phenomenon has not been widely applied to corporate matters, similar reasons could exist for journalists to report on firms’
activities in ways that could go systematically in favour of or against the firm.
1.3 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.
1.4 Public anxieties against new technologies
There are many recorded cases of public anxiety when new technologies are launched. For example, there were concerns over risks of radiation leakage into the kitchen when the microwave oven was introduced in the USA (Hoban (2002)). The nuclear accident at Three Mile Island (TMI) in April 1979 saw a dramatic decrease in the percentage of people who had been in favor of or uncertain about continued construction of reactors, while the number opposed increased (Rankin W.L. et al., 1981). More such examples are given in Chapter 2 of this thesis.
This uncertainty and fear of new technologies offer an opportunity for the media to present the stories on such topics in the way they believe is most attractive for their readers, and which can be against the concerned firm and the technology. For example, Slovic (1987) argues that people’s deep anxieties about nuclear weapons are linked to the reality of extensive unfavorable media coverage. Thus, the reporting of news by the media when a new and uncertain technology is launched offers a good platform to study the dynamics of media bias.
14 1.5 Theoretical contribution of this research
As indicated earlier, this dissertation aims to build on a large literature in social sciences which has identified systematic biases in the reporting of news (Baker, 1994; Petrova, 2008;
Sutter, 2002).
The focus of this thesis is on identifying the possible reasons for media bias against firms/technologies in the business environment. Two specific reasons are explored and thus answers are sought to these two questions. If institutions are the ‘rules of the game’ and determine the direction of economic and social activities in a society (North 1990, 1992), can institutions, which shape the norms and beliefs of consumers, influence media firms to adapt their offerings to these belief systems through media bias? Secondly, can media bias come from the media firms themselves, as part of a strategy to differentiate their news stories and in order to remain competitive in the marketplace?
The direction of this research is thus two-fold: 1) analyse the theoretical reasons behind the above two questions; and 2) to test the two reasons empirically in order to understand if the above scenarios may exist as part of the nonmarket environment of media firms.
Institutional economics, till recently, has been used essentially to explain the micro- phenomena of an organization. Lammers and Barbour (2006) say that organizational communication researchers should pay more attention to the institutional context of organizations. Both formal and informal institutions (legislative, administrative and regulatory agencies, private regulation, judicial, international, nongovernmental as defined by Baron (2006)) may thus play a role in shaping the news content of the media. An attempt to enhance this aspect of management science is an important contribution of this research.
15 The other key theoretical contribution of the research relates to improving the understanding of the strategic options of a firm with respect to the choice between flexibility and commitment of supply-side resources. Firms have a choice in making commitments of these resources, but will then have to face certain limitations regarding the possible loss of credibility as explained in Chapter 4 of this thesis. Using the data on GM foods coverage by European newspapers, this research identifies the strategic options available to different types of newspapers.
1.6 Empirical field: GM foods in Europe
In order to explore the two research questions above, data on the media coverage of GM foods in Europe is used in this research. While there have been many new technology launches in the recent past which have been seen by the consumer as ‘sensitive’ and
‘potentially dangerous’, the case of GM foods is quite special from consumer acceptance point of view. While this new type of foods has been relatively accepted by some societies, there has been a varied level of rejection of these foods by many other societies, and this variation is rather unique in the acceptance/rejection of new technologies by consumers.
In the case of Monsanto and its genetically-modified Roundup Ready soybean seeds, the FDA endorsement helped in the United States, but an organization with similar public trust did not exist in Europe (Diermeier (2011)) and the media was probably also active in increasing this risk perception in Europe. According to Hoban (2002), most of what consumers learn about any innovation comes through the filter of the mass media, which have a tendency to feature sensational news stories. The possible media bias against the launch of this new technology in Europe is explored in the current research, and it is used as the empirical base for analysis and interpretation of media bias in management research.
16 A content analysis was carried out covering 3991 articles on GM foods which appeared across 46 European (38) and non-European (8) newspapers in 17 different countries over a 6-year period (Jan 2005 - Dec 2010). As this research also examines the role of institutions in this bias, a multi-country sample was required. According to Vogel (2012), a majority of consumers in the USA do not perceive GM foods to be risky. Further, the American press has not covered the topic of GM foods extensively with the exception of a few "spikes" in coverage revolving around specific events (McInerney et al., 2004, Hebden et al., 2005).
Since the focus was on examining the negative bias of the media against GM foods, it was decided not to include the USA as one of the countries to be studied. This decision to leave out the USA from the analysis may be challenged since the USA is an important processed food producer. But it is important to note that the limited and overall positive/neutral press coverage and the general acceptance of GM foods during the period of this research were the reasons for excluding the USA.
1.7 Measurement of media bias
One of the main challenges, but also one of its contributions, of the work done in this dissertation is the clear identification and empirical measurement of media bias. So, how is this media bias measured in this study?
If the reader, at the end of reading a headline and/or the article in a particular newspaper, is left with a negative feeling about the subject matter, we call the headline and/or article 'negatively biased'. A similar definition is used for a 'positively biased' headline/article.
On the other hand, if the reader after reading the headline and/or the article is just left with the 'facts and figures' with no specific negative or positive feeling towards the subject matter, we call the article 'neutral' or 'unbiased'. This sentiment is based on ‘themes’ generated towards the beginning of the evaluation process as shown in Table 2.4 of Chapter 2, which guide the reader/evaluator in this research to decide on the positive, negative or neutral orientation of the headline and/or article in question.
17 The final decision on a headline and/or an article is ‘positively biased’, negatively biased’ or
‘neutral’ is an iterative and complex mental process, and is left to the reader/evaluator although the themes do play a large role in the identification of this bias. Studies using similar methodologies are discussed and analysed in Chapter 2. This sentiment or feeling of the reader is used in this research as the proxy or the measurement tool of the bias implanted by the media.
The above overall framework of media bias in the business environment is used throughout this thesis, and without taking away the importance of other forces that influence media bias, this thesis focusses on two specific actors – the media firms and the institutions.
In principle, the sentiment that a reader may be left with after reading an article may differ from the bias of an article. For example, an article written about the modification in patterns of blood flow in the brain as a result of cell phone use would not necessarily be a biased story (not an unfair representation of the facts) since this is based on serious research.
However, since the overall scientific consensus on GMO research appears to be largely favourable, we assume that sentiment and bias are highly correlated in the special case of GMOs.23
1.8 Structure of the thesis
This thesis is composed of three main chapters. Each chapter can be seen as exploring one specific aspect of the relationships between firms and media bias. Chapter 2 is an examination of the literature to focus on the importance of media bias for business strategy, and provides the descriptive statistics of a content analysis of European newspaper articles on GM foods.
This analysis will be the first building block of our empirical identification of media bias. In effect, if the content analysis allows a clear identification of positive or negative spins in the news regarding GM foods, showing that there is a systematic bias in the articles is a more challenging task. In order to meet this challenge, we design a method that will be at the origin
2 http://www.forbes.com/sites/jonentine/2013/08/29/are-gmos-safe-global-independent-science-organizations-
weigh-in/
3 http://www.psmag.com/navigation/health-and-behavior/scientific-debate-gm-foods-theyre-safe-66711/
18 of Chapter 3 and in which we will use the international nature of our sample. Chapter 3 provides an analysis of institutional factors as a possible driver of media bias, and uses this analysis to make a stronger claim about the existence of a media bias regarding the coverage of GM foods. The intuition here is that if the negative spin identified in Chapter 2 was not bias, then this negative spin would be randomly distributed across newspapers and countries. On the other hand, if the negative spin is driven by institutional factors, then it becomes close to what has been identified by previous literature on media biases as a political phenomenon. Chapter 3 indeed shows that institutional factors matter. Chapter 4 builds on this and provides an examination of how negative spin might be driven by newspapers’ characteristics, suggesting that media bias might indeed be related to these newspapers’ business strategy. It is hoped that these analyses will contribute to improving the understanding of media bias by the manager and thus enable the manager to better integrate this nonmarket factor into the overall business strategy of the firm.
1.9 References
Baker B. (1994). How to Identify, Expose and Correct Liberal Media Bias. Media Research Center. First Edition, 1994.
Baron D.P. (2005). Competing for the Public Through the News Media. Journal of Economics & Management Strategy. Vol. 14, No.2, Summer 2005, p 339-376.
Baron D.P. (2006). Business and its Environment 5th Edition. Pearson Education Inc., Saddle River, New Jersey, USA
Besley T., Pratt A. (2001). Handcuffs for the Grabbing Hand? Media Capture and Government Accountability. London School of Economics and Political Science, London.
Bonardi J.P., (2004). Global and political strategies in deregulated industries: The asymmetric behaviors of former monopolies. Strategic Management Journal. Vol. 25, 2004, p 101-120.
Bonardi J.P., Keim G.D., (2005). Corporate political strategies for widely salient issues.
Academy of Management Review. Vol. 30, No. 3, 2005, p 555-576.
de Verdier A-K., Brady D. (1998). Nike: Managing the nonmarket environment. Stanford Graduate School of Business, Case number: S-IB-14B Rev.A, 1998.
Deephouse D.L. (2000). Media Reputation as a Strategic Resource: An Integration of Mass Communication and Resource-Based Theories. Journal of Management. Vol. 26, No.6, 2000, p 1091-1112.
Diermeier D. (2011). Reputation Rules: Strategies for Building Your Company’s Most Valuable asset. Published by McGraw Hill, 2011. ISBN 9780071763745.
Dunham W.R. (2011). Framing the Right Suspects: Measuring Media Bias. April 8, 2011.
Available at SSRN:http://ssrn.com/abstract=1805897 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1805897.
19 Dyck A., Zingales L. (2004). Private benefits of control: an international comparison. Journal of Finance, American Finance Association. Vol.59, No.2, 2004, p 537-600.
Dyck A., Volchkova N., Zingales L. (2006). The Corporate Governance Role of the Media:
Evidence from Russia. NBER Working paper series. Working Paper 12525. National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA. September 2006.
de Figueiredo J.M., Tiller E.H. (2001). The structure and conduct of lobbying: An empirical analysis of corporate lobbying at the Federal Communications Commission. Journal of Economics and Management Strategy. Vol. 10, 2001, p 91-122.
Gelbach S., Sonin K. (2009). Government Control of the Media. Working paper, July 2009.
Gentzkow M., Shapiro J.M. (2006) Media Bias and Reputation. Journal of Political Economy.
Vol. 114, No. 2, 2006, p 280-316.
Grier K.B., Munger M.C., Roberts B.E. (1994). The determinants of industry political activity 1978-1986. American Political Science Review. Vol. 88, 1994, p 891-903.
Herman E.S., Chomsky N. (1988) Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media. New York: Pantheon Books, 1988.
Hillman A.J., Hitt M. (1999). Corporate political strategy formulation: A model of approach, participation and strategy decisions. Academy of Management Review. Vol. 24, No.4, October 1999, p 825-842.
Hoban T.J. (2002). American consumers’ awareness and biotechnology. Ithaca: National Agricultural Biotechnology Council. 2002.
Hoban T.J., Kendall P.A. (1993). Consumer attitudes about food biotechnology. Raleigh, NC:
North Carolina Cooperative Extension Service. 1993.
Holburn G.L.F, Vanden Bergh R.G. (2002). Policy and process: A game-theoretic framework for the design of nonmarket strategy. Advances in Strategic Management, Vol. 19, 2002, p 33-66.
Holburn G.L.F, Vanden Bergh R.G. (2004). Influencing agencies through pivotal political institutions. Journal of Law, Economics and Organization, Vol. 20, 2004, p 458-483.
Holsti O.R. (1969). Content Analysis for the Social Sciences and Humanities. Reading, MA:
Addison-Wesley. 1969.
Lammers J.C., Barbour J.B. (2006). An institutional theory of organizational communication.
Communication Theory, Vol. 16, 2006, p 356-377.
Lenway S., Rehbein K. (1991). Leaders, followers and free-riders: An empirical test of variation in corporate political involvement. Academy of Management Journal. Vol. 34, 1991, p 893-905.
McCombs M.E. (2002). The Agenda-Setting Role of the Mass Media in Shaping of Public Opinion. Paper presented at Mass Media Economics 2002 Conference, London School of Economics: http://sticerd.lse.ac.uk/dps/extra/McCombs.pdf
McInerney C., Bird N., Nucci M. (2004). The Flow of Scientific Knowledge From Lab to the Lay Public: the Case of Genetically Modified Food. Science Communication, 26, 75-106.
2004.
Mullainathan S., Shleifer A. (2002). Media Bias. Working paper 9295. National Bureau of Economic Research. Cambridge, MA. October 2002, p 1-26.
Mullainathan S., Shleifer A. (2005). The Market for News. The American Economic Review.
Vol. 95, No.4, September 2005, p 1031-1053
Nyhan B. (2012). Does the US Media Have a Liberal Bias? Perspectives on Politics,10, p 767-771 doi:10.1017/S1537592712001405.
20 Puglisi R., Snyder J.M. (2008). Media Coverage of Political Scandals. Mimeto, MIT. 2008.
Rankin W.L. et al. (1981). Nuclear Power and the Public: An Update of Collected Survey Research on Nuclear Power. Seattle, Washington, Battelle Human Affairs Research Centres, December 1981.
Reuter J., Zitzewitz E. (2003). Do Ads Influence Editors? Advertising and Bias in the Financial Media. Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vol. 121, No. 1, p 197-227.
Rohlinger D.A. (2002). Framing the Abortion Debate: Organizational Resources, Media Strategies, and Movement-Countermovement Dynamics. The Sociological Quarterly. Volume 43, No.4, Autumn 2002, p 479-507.
Schuler D. (1996). Corporate political strategy and foreign competition: The case of the steel industry. Academy of Management Journal. Vol. 39, 1996, p 720-737.
Schuler D. Rehbein K., Cramer R. (2002). Pursuing strategic advantage through political means. Academy of Management Journal. Vol. 45, 2002, p 659-672.
Sutter D. (2002). Advertising and Political Bias in the Media: The Market for Criticism of the Market Economy. American Journal of Economics and Sociology. Vol. 61, No.3, July 2002, p 725-745.
Vogel D. (2012). The Politics of Precaution: Regulating Health, Safety and Environmental Risks in Europe and the United States. Princeton University Press. 2012.
21 2. MEDIA BIAS OUTSIDE OF POLITICS: A STUDY ON THE REPORTING OF
GM FOODS IN EUROPE
ABSTRACT
There are at least two streams of literature that suggest that the media tend to bias negatively against firms and technologies. The first area includes studies on the role of stakeholders and activists, which show that activists seek to garner consensus against firms by using media as a key tool. The second stream involves a variety of studies on media bias which demonstrate that media generally bias against firms and events due to numerous supply and demand side factors as explained by Mullainathan and Shleifer (2005). When the media tend to bias large public debates, such as the acceptance of genetically-modified foods, this can lead to biased public opinions, which in turn will affect the firms involved in those technologies. This research sets out to study whether there has been any such bias in their news about genetically modified foods in Europe, and if so whether the bias has been positive or negative. The real contribution of this paper is the setting-up of a methodology to study media bias based on the identification of negative coverage of new technologies in press articles. Descriptive statistics of a detailed content analysis carried out on 3991 articles on genetically modified foods across 46 newspapers in 17 countries (nearly all being European) are presented to show the existence of negative media bias when new technologies are launched.
22 2.1 Introduction
The objective of this paper is to answer the following question: how has the media bias in Europe against the launch of GM foods evolved over time and is there a difference in media coverage across countries in Europe on this subject? From the limited number of studies which have examined the relationship between firm reputation and media (Wartick (1992), Deephouse (2000), Dyck et al. (2006), Gentzkow and Shapiro (2008), Bonardi and Keim (2005) and Fang and Peress (2009)), it is evident that media can play a strong role in defining and ruining the reputation of a firm. A manager thus has to understand the dynamics of media bias while designing the strategy of the firm. This is also supported by numerous studies in media bias which identify how the media has played a role in communicating corporate news not necessarily in a neutral manner.
This chapter has been structured as follows: I begin by explaining the overall consumer apprehensions about new technologies and place the reactions of European consumers to the launch of GM foods in this context. A literature review on the coverage of media bias on GM foods is presented, which is followed by an examination of media bias studies in the US which has been mainly about political bias by the media. The role of media bias in business strategy is then highlighted, and finally, the methodology and the results of a content analysis on media bias in Europe are presented.
2.2 Background on genetically modified (GM) foods in Europe
Genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are organisms, such as plants and animals, whose genetic characteristics are being modified artificially in order to give them a new property.
Food and feed which contain or consist of such GMOs, or are produced from GMOs, are called genetically modified (GM) food or feed and are currently available across the world.4 The United States remained by far the largest adopter of biotech seeds, with 165 million acres (66.8 million hectares) planted to GMO crops in 2010, up 4 percent from 2009.
Globally, farmers last year planted 433 million acres (175 million hectares) of genetically
4 http://ec.europa.eu/food/food/biotechnology/index_en.htm
23 modified (GMO) corn, soybeans, cotton and other crops. U.S.-based Monsanto and DuPont are world leaders in development of crops genetically altered to help farmers fight weeds, bugs and diseases. According to Clive James, Chairman of the International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-Biotech Applications, Europe largely remains a steady foe of biotech crops, though there are signs some European countries are softening, and "Europe is not lost but is by far the most difficult region to call in terms of future development”.5
Genetically modified foods have been approved for sale in the USA since over two decades and have also been more or less accepted by the general public, although there have been some recent but limited increase in the negative feelings towards this technology. Findings by Zhang et al. (2004) suggest that for the majority of American and Chinese consumers while their overall knowledge of GM food is low, their attitudes toward the technology are generally supportive.
But the situation is different in Europe. While a large and increasing percentage of Europeans think that biotechnology should be used for medical purposes, only 27 percent of survey participants believe that the technology behind GM foods should be encouraged (source: Eurobarometer 2010). Scientists often claim that the media has played a significant role in shaping the European consumer’s attitude against GM foods. This in turn has a strong impact on the manner in which food and food ingredient producers respond to such a real/perceived bias.
An historic perspective of GM foods is given in an article in the newspaper, USA Today, which argues for the increased use of the technology across the world. 6 Through their study on Japanese consumers, Ohtsubo and Yamada (2007) show that the Japanese consumers are generally against GM foods and consider them to be more hazardous than do the British.
According to Marks and Kalaitzandonakes (2001), many factors have been hypothesized to drive the negative reception of GM foods in Europe, among others, a refusal of consumers to accept any risk in the face of little perceived direct benefit, an alleged lack of trust in food
5 http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/02/22/biotech-crops-idUSN2027919320110222
6 http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/2010-03-17-Biotech17_cv_N.htm
24 regulatory agencies in Europe and elsewhere, the unfortunate coincidence of the commercialization of GM foods with the BSE ("mad cow") crisis, a perception that scientists are unreliable in managing the consequences of new technologies, protectionist interests on the part of European governments to prohibit trade in genetically modified (GM) crops, an unyielding attitude by the USA towards labelling and the consumers' "right to know;", anti- American sentiment and sensationalistic and biased coverage by the mass media.
They go on to conclude that while the media has often been accused of sensationalism and bias in reporting of events pertaining to agrobiotechnology, their findings confirm such bias in so far as coverage has emphasized different frames (biosafety and food safety) at different points in time, depending on unfolding events and scientific and risk management controversies.
Vogel (2012) says that during the last half century, citizens in Europe and the United States have frequently perceived, and policy makers have often responded differently to, many similar consumer and environmental risks - in some cases temporarily and in other cases over an extended period of time, and quotes GM foods as one of the areas of difference between Europe and the USA.
In order to understand public opinions on various issues, the Public Opinion Analysis sector of the European Commission has been monitoring the evolution of public opinion in the Member States since 1973. The main objective of these surveys is to help the preparation of texts, decision-making and the evaluation of its work. These surveys and studies address major topics concerning European citizenship - enlargement, social situation, health, culture, information technology, environment, the Euro, defence, etc. Each survey consists of approximately 1000 face-to-face interviews per Member State (except Germany: 1500, Luxembourg: 600, United Kingdom 1300 including 300 in Northern Ireland). These surveys are conducted between 2 and 5 times per year, with reports published twice yearly.
The measurement of public opinion on biotechnology is a part of the overall survey, although this particular aspect has not been measured systematically every year. Thus,
25 Eurobarometer 73.1, based on representative samples from 32 European countries and conducted in February 2010, is the latest and only the seventh in a series of surveys of public perceptions of the Life Sciences and Biotechnology. The series started in 1991 with Eurobarometer 35.1 (INRA 1991) in the twelve Member States of the European Community.
It was followed by the second in 1993, Eurobarometer 39.1 (INRA 1993). In 1996, the third in the series, Eurobarometer 46.1(INRA 1997) covered the fifteen Member States of the expanded European Union. The fourth in the series, Eurobarometer 52.1 (INRA 2000) was conducted in 1999, the fifth (Eurobarometer 58.0) in 2002 (Gaskell et al., 2003) and the sixth (Eurobarometer 63.1) in 2005 (TNS 2005). The new survey in 2010 covers the current 27 Member States of the European Union plus Croatia, Iceland, Norway, Switzerland and Turkey.
The survey questionnaire for the 2010 study includes key trend questions, designed to assess the stability or change in aspects of public perceptions over the last ten years or more. The Eurobarometer on Biotechnology and the Life Sciences is claimed to provide a representation of public voices to policy makers, representatives of industry, journalists, civil society groups, scientists and social scientists – and even to the public themselves. In order to avoid biasing the reader by the interpretation of the report, the basic data is also included in the annexes to this report.
The report is divided into three sections. The first provides an analytic description of Europeans' perceptions of biotechnology in 2010, with, where possible, comparable data from previous surveys to illustrate trends. This is followed by two annexes, containing the questionnaire and a codebook of basic descriptive statistics for each question by country, with a technical note including details of survey sampling and weighting. The results across the 32 countries are presented together with Europe-wide summaries for the 27 EU Member States (as of 2010), with samples weighted to reflect their relative population sizes.
Table 2.1 gives the Eurobarometer data concerning the acceptance of GM foods by Europeans over the last 15 years, but unfortunately, the data set is incomplete.
26 Table 2.1. Trends in support for GM food
% respondents who agree or totally agree that GM food should be encouraged
Country 1996 1999 2002 2005 2010
United Kingdom Ireland
Portugal Spain Denmark Netherlands Norway Finland Belgium Sweden Italy Austria Germany Switzerland Luxembourg France Greece
Czech Republic Slovakia
Malta Hungary Poland Estonia Slovenia Latvia Lithuania Cyprus Iceland Romania Bulgaria Croatia Turkey
52 57 63 66 33 59 37 65 57 35 51 22 47 34 44 43 49
37 45 47 58 33 53 30 57 40 33 42 26 42 29 28 21
46 57 56 61 35 52 56 39 41 35 33 40 26 28 26
35 43 56 53 31 27 38 28 24 42 24 22 16 23 14 57 38 51 29 28 25 23 19 42 19
44 37 37 35 32 30 30 30 28 28 24 23 22 20 19 16 10 41 38 32 32 30 28 21 14 11 10 39 16 13 13 7
Source: Europeans and Biotechnology in 2010, European Commission
The highlights of the Eurobarometer analysis are: biotechnology gets a thumbs up in general, but GM foods is the only aspect of biotechnology that is not acceptable to the majority of Europeans, all countries score less than 50% on GM foods acceptance, with the UK being the highest at 44%, while in a few countries, it is up, the trend is largely ‘down’ (people dislike even more), and nearly all the recently joined countries have a very low score, possibly since they are more used to eating ‘fresh’ food as compared to the northern Europeans who
27 consume more ‘processed’ food. Finally, even in Norway, a country where Greenpeace is relatively weak due to its anti-whaling campaign (Stromsnes, Selle, Grendstad, 2006), the acceptance of GM foods has been low and stable.
Since the Eurobarometer index is not published regularly, it could not be included in the empirical analysis in this research.
The dynamics of the GM foods market in Europe and the possible interactions of the key stakeholders are shown in Figure 2.1.
Figure 2.1. Dynamics and Stakeholder Interactions of the Fear/Uncertainty of GM Foods in Europe
2.3 New technologies and consumer reactions
The reluctance of consumers to accept new technologies, particularly those that are deemed to be ‘risky’ is already discussed in the introduction chapter. Romantic and influential poets such as William Wordsworth and William Blake helped spread technophobia since they felt that new technologies were encroaching into the placid lives of people and destroying their
Media wish to take advantage of this resource
Government looks to find a
compromise
Food and food ingredient companies need to re- examine their
strategies
Other stakeholders’
reactions Consumer
uncertainty/fear of GM foods
leading to consumer negative bias as
a resource
Resource can offer opportunities (who can benefit from it?) and constraints (punishing deviants)
28 traditional ways of life. Although Napoleon helped invent and later popularized canned food within his army, people were generally against that form of food conservation at that time since they felt that they would become ill if they consume such food.7 Farmers and villagers in 1900 were up in arms against the governments to try and ban automobiles since they were convinced that the upper-class motorists were out there to strike them down even as they walk to their fields.8 Possible radiation effect from mobile telephone towers is discussed as a major health risk even today.9 The press can play a strong role in fanning such fears.1011 A 2010 study by researchers at the University of Bath found that lower levels of pre-natal testosterone exposure were related to anxieties concerning the use of new technologies.
A good example of such technophobia in Europe in the recent years is the rejection of genetically-modified foods by a majority of the population as can be seen from the Eurobarometer scores, even though it has been accepted in most parts of the world, including in the USA. To keep in pace with the opinions of the European population and to understand public opinions on various issues, the Public Opinion Analysis sector of the European Commission has been monitoring the evolution of public opinion in the Member States since 1973. One of the many measurements of this Eurobarometer programme concerns the trends in the public opinion of genetic modification both as a technology and more specifically for its use in food production. The detailed description of this Eurobarometer scale is given in Table 2.1, but it suffice to say here that all countries studied under this programme scored less than 50% in their acceptance of GM foods, and the trend over the years is generally down. Further, a recent British Science Association study shows that public support for GM foods has come down from 46% in 2002 to only 27% now. It is interesting to note that Monsanto, the company that introduced the cultivation of GM seeds in Europe in 1998 (MON810, a Bt expressing maize), has withdrawn all its pending European
7 http://www.foodreference.com/html/artcanninghistory.html
8 http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/467412.html
9 http://www.lef.org/magazine/mag2007/aug2007_report_cellphone_radiation_01.htm
10 http://www.lemonde.fr/technologies/chat/2009/04/03/antennes-relais-wi-fi-quels-sont-les-
dangers_1176416_651865.html
11 http://www.hindustantimes.com/entertainment/wellness/is-mobile-phone-tower-radiation-a-health-
hazard/article1-889268.aspx
29 applications on GM corn, sugar beet and soya beans in July 2013, leading the Daily Mail in the UK to publish its headline as ‘Frankenstein Food Firm Quits Europe’.
Thus, the media bias against GM foods is unique as a bias against new technologies, since the extent to which the media has been active against this new technology in Europe is very different than in the USA and many other parts of the world.
A study in March 1999 commissioned by the International Food Information Council showed that 77% of Americans would be likely to buy products that had been genetically engineered to resist insect damage, resulting in less use of pesticides. In the April 2000 Texas A&M survey, two out of three (65%) agreed that "GM food will bring benefits to a lot of people."
The January 2001 Mellman-POS survey found that 65% of Americans favor "scientific research into genetic modification of food." A 2006 Pew Research Initiative survey (Organic and Non-GMO Report 2007) regarding US consumer awareness and understanding of biotech foods reported that 45 percent of Americans felt more comfortable about the safety of biotech food products, compared with only 29 percent who thought they were unsafe. Of interest was the finding that Americans were willing to change their opinions once provided with additional information about biotech food products being produced or manufactured using biotechnology. Although there has been a recent increase in the concern against GM foods in the USA, the situation during the study period of 2005-2010 was very different than it was in Europe.
According to McInerney et al. (2004) and Hebden et al. (2005), the American press has not covered this topic extensively with the exception of a few "spikes" in coverage revolving around specific events. These scholars state that the European press has covered the biotechnology issues rather extensively, and this has had an effect on public awareness, opinion and policy, driving European consumers to be both cognizant of the technology and wary of it.
30 Hence it was decided to exclude the US in the content analysis of articles on GM foods in this research although the US represents the majority of studies in the nonmarket area.
2.4 Understanding media bias
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 and use of sources.12 Media bias is difficult to measure, and even the supposedly first research paper on media bias (Efron, 1971) was fraught with controversies regarding the validity of the research and the lack of objectivity in the study.
According to Mullainathan and Shleifer (2005), media bias can come from the supply side, and can reflect the preferences of journalists, editors or owners, and alternatively, it can come from the demand side, and reflect the news providers’ profit-maximizing choice to cater to the preferences of the consumers. But since the research in this area is recent, no one can claim to have a complete understanding of this phenomenon. Baron (2005) discusses many studies which measure the impact of news media on public politics – these include an evaluation by Erfle and McMillan (1990) which shows that oil companies restrained their price increases to forestall a public reaction and possible new regulation, another study by Stromberg (2004a) showing that as US radio audience increased in the 1930s, more relief funds were allocated to countries with more listeners, while Besley and Burgess (2002) show that media provides information about government performance to the electorate, and this induces the government to be responsive to the interests of the public. It is thus important to note that the key stakeholders such as the managers in the private sector and politicians have to take cognizance of the possible impact of media bias on the consumers and need to be well prepared to handle such situations.
Some of the earlier studies have analysed 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
12 www.umich.edu
31 audience (Baron (2005), Mullainathan and Shleifer (2005) and Gentzkow and Shapiro (2006)), and the interplay between journalists and sources (Dyck and Zingales, 2004)).
2.5 Newspapers and the use of political bias in the US
Most of the studies on media bias cover the political scenario in the USA and how the media have reported the related issues over time. These studies are important since they established media bias as an independent management research field.
The role of media bias in politics has been analysed extensively over the years by many scholars, mostly focusing on the United States. In fact, there is even a website which has been established to expose the bias by conservative media groups in the US.13 Fairness &
Accuracy In Reporting, Inc. (FAIR) is a registered NGO in the USA which claims to scrutinize media practices that marginalize public interest, minority and dissenting viewpoints. But an examination of their blog page confirms that the organization is essentially focussed on media bias related to politics than anything else.
There are contradicting views on the nature of the bias with some studies claiming liberal bias while others conclude that newspapers in the USA have a conservative bias. On the whole, most scholars have preferred to stop their analyses here with very little extension of this concept into the sphere of business strategy. Through an interesting quantitative measure of ideological bias in a formal content analysis of Time and Newsweek, Adkins Covert and Wasburn (2007) show that there is little support for those claiming significant media bias in either ideological direction (‘left’ or ‘right’) amongst these mainstream publications. Petrova (2008) says that although the media can promote the accountability of elected politicians, they can also provide a vehicle for manipulating public opinion, even when voters understand that the media can be biased.
Lott and Hassett (2004) and Groseclose and Milyo (2005), Berryhill (1994), Goldberg (2002), Lichter, Rothman, and Lichter (1986) and Rusher (1988), among many others, show that a strong liberal bias exists in the US newspapers.
13 www.mediamatters.org
