We all have biases, but we can minimize or even overcome them by being aware of them. Bias exists on a spectrum from unconscious (implicit and cultural) assumptions to explicit and deliberately manipulative ideologies. When projected by the media, these can trigger our biases toward seeking confirmatory information and mental rigidity, instead of fostering mental flexibility and growth. As a professional, I prefer humanitarian, inclusive, compassionate, and democratic ways of framing issues, as well as reason-based, thoughtful inquiries and investigations. It is an emotional effort to engage with stimuli that do not favor, expand, and build upon these biases, and many of us are doing significant emotional work these days.
Like many Americans, I frequently feel frustrated by what I see in the news. Only 34% of Americans trust the media to report the news "fully, accurately, and fairly," according to a 2022 Gallup poll, down from around 70% in the early 1970s. Trust is particularly low among Republicans and Independents, but it’s unclear whether this reflects their own cultural biases, the perspectives of the media they consume, or a genuine liberal bias in the media. Young people trust social media almost as much as traditional media, according to Pew.
Many of us distrust the mainstream press, and that may partly be because we feel they are biased. By identifying potential journalistic biases, we can demand that they improve and choose sources that better inform us and hopefully help us counter our own biases to enhance the building blocks of mental and social health: perception, empathy, and connectedness. Given my preferences mentioned above, I think the worst biases are those that work against these building blocks, fostering anti-intellectualism, narcissism, and division—propaganda, delusion, and hate. Notably, some political candidates favor propaganda, delusion, and hate too, often for the same reasons the media does.
Here are examples of common biases (with some overlap between categories):
Story Selection: Only certain facts and stories are chosen to support the desired narrative, while counterfactuals and alternative stories are downplayed or ignored. For example, the polarized extremes are often highlighted at the expense of the broad middle ground. Studies have shown there is broad agreement on issues like immigration reform and gun regulation, but this doesn’t get the attention it deserves.
Attention Economy: The media needs our eyeballs and clicks. Sober reporting on policy proposals, achievements, and failures might be seen as dry and boring; editorial teams might try to engage us on an emotional level.
Media as the Fourth Estate: Instead of limiting their role to informing the public and holding power accountable, media can be seen as trying to maximize their influence.
Visual Bias: Photos and images are chosen to enhance a part of the story.
Feigning "Neutrality": Sometimes two views are presented without scrutiny, or critical issues are avoided altogether in service of the value of "neutrality." What might be different if the focus was on fairness, comprehensiveness, and asking tough questions to strengthen the public's reasoning capacity and respect for substance?
Spin, Slant, and Lies: Facts are twisted and skewed to support a narrative; unverified claims and opinions are promoted as truth.
Appeal to Emotions Instead of Reason: For instance, focus on triggering anxieties, fears, and the "survival instincts" of readers, without balancing emotions with logic to develop a "rational mind." This also can include defamatory attacks and flawed logic. Certain words are used to prime reactions ("refugees" versus "undocumented migrants").
Cultural Bias: Research by Perina and Wai reveals that most writers and editors at the New York Times and Wall Street Journal graduated from top-tier schools with high SAT and ACT scores. The authors suggested that this meant these individuals were "cognitively elite" and not just "socially elite." It’s possible and even likely that culture, shared backgrounds, experiences, identities, relationships, assumptions, values, and interests could motivate and inform these journalists rather than presumed "cognitive ability" alone. There’s also an implicit bias that a certain kind of cognition, reflected in test scores, signifies a higher capacity to think about issues.
Institutional Bias: Noam Chomsky famously discussed how mainstream media shapes public opinion, particularly in support of social goals like war and wealth, in his theory of "manufacture of consent. Thus, institutional biases can skew attention and influence populations toward these social goals, either consciously or unconsciously, and limit discussion on countering arguments.
Editorial Clairvoyance: Journalists might speculate on motivations, but they are not trained to make character analyses and informed predictions about future behavior; they rarely involve experts. Is this due to a feedback loop of mental health stigma and thus mental health expertise? Or journalists might be influenced by the American Psychological Association's rule against giving professional opinions on public figures. Also, as mentioned above, the media may want to amplify its authority at the expense of mental health expertise.