The article examining folk theories of news bias by Seth C. Lewis from University of Oregon, Nick Mathews University of Missouri, and Jon Benedik A. Bunquin from University of Philippines was based on interviews with 52 U.S. news consumers. The analysis was guided by the concept of “folk theories”.

Bias in news and journalism is perceived as being the primary factor driving concerns and problems with journalism, especially when it comes to credibility. Complaints are ubiquitous, and the authors here argue that scholars need a better understanding on how consumers perceive bias. 

52 U.S. news consumers were interviewed for this study, with the sample skewing younger and more formally educated than the U.S. average. When it comes to political leaning from 1 (very conservative) to 7 (very liberal), the average was 4,29, a slight but not dramatic skew toward more liberal. 61,5% identified as non-Hispanic white and 55,8% as women. 

According to the findings, the realm of perception was one argument: that the media are fundamentally biased because they are made up of biased humans. Thus accepting bias is inevitable, and the participants believe that the best journalism only diminishes bias, rather than eliminating it. 

The realm of editorial processes means that the media deliberately choose what to say or leave out. For one female participant, bias meant “intentionally leaving out important things that give you the whole picture. They’re not giving us the whole picture.” Others echoed the sentiment, suggesting it was about presenting only one side of the story. They believed that people with similar beliefs flock to news organizations, and that there is pressure to conform. 

Lastly, there was the realm of motivations: the media are ultimately driven to make money. Many believed that journalists have an agenda ideologically, but even more widespread was the belief that financial incentives shaped the outlets. Thus, the media were driven to exploit the audience’s emotions, especially fear. 

Sensationalizing was also a perceived tactic, and one argued that news is different from other TV.  Many believed that news organizations were not trying to be helpful, but were more concerned with ratings. Bias was then seen as not so much inherent to humans, but more driven by agendas and corporate interests. 

In conclusion, the study uncovered three domains of bias, and the findings resonated with previous research, but differed from the hostile media phenomenon, which suggested that only discordant (e.g. liberal sources for conservatives or vice versa) were viewed as being biased. Instead, many viewed the media as universally biased.

The study contributed to the literature on media bias by being audience-centric, and was a sterling example of qualitative social science, allowing the participants to bring up the concepts without top-down imposition.

The article “Folk Theories of News Bias: How Audiences Perceive, Interpret, and Experience It” by Seth C. Lewis,  Nick Mathews, and Jon Benedik A. Bunquin is in Journalism Studies. (Free abstract). 

Picture: from Novo Hamburgo, Brazil by Pinho

License Unsplash.