Study: The press is failing America because of “massive media bias”
posted at 2:20 pm on January 23, 2008 by Bryan
Send to a Friend |
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
Unlike the obviously flawed study that the AP, CNN, NYT et al are flogging as if it’s unvarnished truth, this study wasn’t funded by a billionaire sugar daddy with an ax to grind. It was conducted by researchers at Virginia Tech. Its results were released in November 2006 to no fanfare.
Jim A. Kuypers, assistant professor of communication in the College of Liberal Arts and Human Sciences at Virginia Tech, reveals a disturbing world of media bias in his new book Bush’s War: Media Bias and Justifications for War in a Terrorist Age (Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc. 2006).
Convincingly and without resorting to partisan politics, Kuypers strongly illustrates in eight chapters “how the press failed America in its coverage on the War on Terror.” In each comparison, Kuypers “detected massive bias on the part of the press.” In fact, Kuypers calls the mainstream news media an “anti-democratic institution” in the conclusion.
“What has essentially happened since 9/11 has been that Bush has repeated the same themes, and framed those themes the same whenever discussing the War on Terror,” said Kuypers, who specializes in political communication and rhetoric. “Immediately following 9/11, the mainstream news media (represented by CBS, ABC, NBC, USA Today, New York Times, and Washington Post) did echo Bush, but within eight weeks it began to intentionally ignore certain information the president was sharing, and instead reframed the president’s themes or intentionally introduced new material to shift the focus.”
It’s not hard to anticipate the reactions to this. First, silence. We’ve seen that for over a year now. Second, critics will say “The press should challenge the administration.” True, but the press shouldn’t stray into propagating falsehoods in the name of challenging any administration. And it certainly shouldn’t frame all its stories through a consistently skewed lens.
But that’s what the researchers found:
This goes beyond reporting alternate points of view. “In short,” Kupyers explained, “if someone were relying only on the mainstream media for information, they would have no idea what the president actually said. It was as if the press were reporting on a different speech.”
The most obvious case of that that springs to mind is the infamous 16 words of the 2002 SOTU. President Bush stated clearly that “the British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa,” yet the press has consistently reported that Joseph Wilson’s trip to Niger refuted that. It didn’t. The British still stand by their intel on that. Wilson’s own CIA debriefing tended to back that up as well.
Here’s a Q&A with Kuypers on his 2006 study. While I don’t expect any of this to counter against years of “Bush LIED” nonsense, it’s nice to see that one academic took a look at the media’s systemic and ongoing failure to report the truth without bias.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Shazam!!
.
GT on January 23, 2008 at 2:25 PM
No sh!t, Sherlock.
Dr.Cwac.Cwac on January 23, 2008 at 2:27 PM
DUH.
MadisonConservative on January 23, 2008 at 2:27 PM
Wonder what the left will say when - and if - the argument gets past: “it’s the JOB of the press to fight the administration.”
Troika37 on January 23, 2008 at 2:28 PM
Heh. I wonder if he still works here at VT…. yep, still shows up as an assistant professor.
zerodamage on January 23, 2008 at 2:29 PM
…and in other news, the Pope is a Catholic.
rightside on January 23, 2008 at 2:30 PM
It’s not that. It’s the attitude that some journalism students are learning that they “need to change the world.” What they should be doing is reporting the news.
Dr.Cwac.Cwac on January 23, 2008 at 2:30 PM
I’m shocked, shocked that gambling is going on in this establishment….
NoFanofLibs on January 23, 2008 at 2:30 PM
Kuyper’s study must have been funded by Halliburton or Big Oil.
/
Mike Honcho on January 23, 2008 at 2:31 PM
The MSM’s de facto alliance with radical Islam is no surprise to sentient being.
Halley on January 23, 2008 at 2:32 PM
And how do we go about challenging the press when this stuff happens? They demand transparency from government and yet they are constantly leaking classified information, half-truths and outright lies based on an agenda not the newsworthiness of the material.
Dan Rather’s fakery of memos should have been a wake-up call. We got all the denials but virtually no reporting how these “memos” ended up at CBS when so many Kerry surrogates were involved in the process.
Likewise, we got the fake story from Joseph Wilson (complete with claims that he was sent by the VP) but zero investigation in how a cashiered career foreign service officer was deemed qualified to lead a fact-finding mission for the CIA. Lots of blanks to fill in how Valerie Plame and the rabid Bush-haters managed to orchestrate this whole farce.
Again, how does one hold the media responsible for their bias? Some of this is self-correcting as circulation rates are in a tailspin but that isn’t enough.
highhopes on January 23, 2008 at 2:33 PM
I absolutely accept this as a valid reason. Journalism has experienced a fundamental shift from reporting to advocacy over the past twenty or so years.
Troika37 on January 23, 2008 at 2:34 PM
I’m gonna hold my breath until this study is reported by the mainstram media….holding….holding…holdin….holdi,
hold…hol…ho…h…glumpf…thud (sound of body falling to floor after passing out)
sdd on January 23, 2008 at 2:34 PM
Well golly gosh darn and okeley dokely.
Wasn’t THIS news a total surprise….?
(Not.)
The mainstream media? BIASED??? It just CAN’T BE….I always thought they were SOOOO trustworthy and were totally objective!
(Not.)
Shirotayama on January 23, 2008 at 2:35 PM
Very appropriate on a day when this Soros-funded propaganda is all over the MSM. The trouble is most Americans soak up this propaganda. I know the alternative media, like HotAir, is doing a great job providing a counterbalance to the MSM, but the dominant press still has a lot of power over thought in this country and around the world. We have a long way to go.
liberty on January 23, 2008 at 2:38 PM
Unless it’s a Democrat in the Oval Office; then it’s the press’ job to help America understand the President’s policies.
Frozen Tex on January 23, 2008 at 2:39 PM
Or, if you read Hillary’s health care reform task force documents, to be willing quislings and stooges.
BKennedy on January 23, 2008 at 2:42 PM
Their motto.. Mediocrity or Bust!
All Hail the Mediocracy. ..click..
normsrevenge on January 23, 2008 at 2:43 PM
To quote Stan from South Park: “Really?!?!”
Torch on January 23, 2008 at 2:47 PM
meh
Shawn92101 on January 23, 2008 at 2:49 PM
That any college allowed one of its professors to publish this is remarkable in itself, considering all the moonbattery that goes on in some places.
Bigfoot on January 23, 2008 at 2:50 PM
Waiting for the shock to hit me…
.
.
.
.
still waiting…..
.
.
AHH, there…it…is…….? No wait…
Sorry, no shock here.
ej_pez on January 23, 2008 at 2:51 PM
I second the motion.
landlines on January 23, 2008 at 2:51 PM
Our media? An “anti-democratic institution”?
But,aren’t they the fourth branch of government?
NellE on January 23, 2008 at 2:53 PM
Does anyone have the statistics on how many American journalists interned at Pravda before finding jobs with the MSM?
my2cents on January 23, 2008 at 2:54 PM
you couldn’t pay me enough to let that be my sugar daddy. ewww.
its vintage duh on January 23, 2008 at 2:55 PM
As a trained linguist, I can help you with this. “Pravda” means Columbia School of Journalism in English. Please let me know if you need any other assistance.
JiangxiDad on January 23, 2008 at 2:56 PM
Oh how I wish that truth, true things, and truth-like substances made a difference in liberal “thought”.
Grafted on January 23, 2008 at 2:59 PM
But, but…Bush lied and, and..people died.
Rick on January 23, 2008 at 3:00 PM
The real question is, what can be done about it?
TheBigOldDog on January 23, 2008 at 3:02 PM
WeLL kNoCk Me OvER WiTh A fEaTheR!
mattyj86 on January 23, 2008 at 3:02 PM
It’s finally happened. The National Enquirer is more reliable than the MSM.
/very little sarc
FishFearMe on January 23, 2008 at 3:07 PM
Takes a little bit of wind out of the sails of those who claim Bush is a terrible communicator. Maybe what the press learned from Reagan is that they have to make it impossible for the President to communicate with the people. Otherwise, the people might agree with the President. Can’t have that if he’s a Republican, now can we?
TX Mom on January 23, 2008 at 3:09 PM
Come on people. There are truths, and there are higher truths.
Sure Bush might say one thing, but it is far more important that the people hear another. And who better to decide that than the fourth estate?
Keljeck on January 23, 2008 at 3:10 PM
That is an excellent point. I never really understood why in this day and age the WH didn’t go over the heads of the MSM by using a blog or website of their own to disseminate info.
What’s up with those dinosaur press conferences??
JiangxiDad on January 23, 2008 at 3:11 PM
Simple. The function of tv, radio and newspaper is to sell a product. That product is us. We are sold to advertisers every day in the form of ratings. The news, shows, music are all just bait to lure us in. Stop being the product for media that won’t tell the truth.
Catseye on January 23, 2008 at 3:11 PM
So how long till the MSM denounces this guys’ book, a couple of hours, minutes maybe. On the other hand, they don’t dare give this professor any publicity, lest the truth get out.
countywolf on January 23, 2008 at 3:11 PM
Whattabaht Universal Health Care? Change.
benrand on January 23, 2008 at 3:12 PM
I just saw a bear defecate in a dense arboreal zone.
I couldn’t believe my eyes.
LimeyGeek on January 23, 2008 at 3:12 PM
well knock me over with a feather
SECOND LOOK AT THE FEATHER
Mojack420 on January 23, 2008 at 3:13 PM
Oh, c’mon…
If you believe this, then you’ve got to believe there’s no such thing as man-made global warming.
Wait a minute… I don’t believe global in man made global warming!
singlemalt_18 on January 23, 2008 at 3:14 PM
The deceptions will continue until the worst deceivers are punished.
Kralizec on January 23, 2008 at 3:18 PM
oh no he didn’t
Buttercup on January 23, 2008 at 3:18 PM
Little Artie Sulzberger, owner of the New York Times, has been at the forefront of the “hate America crowd” for years. Millions of New Yorker have lived and breathed the brainwashing by the paper for generations. The tentacles of the NYT have reached every part of the MSM and will ultimately destroy the fabric on which this nation was founded. Can it be stopped……. probably not.
volsense on January 23, 2008 at 3:20 PM
There’s always the funny pages, except for doonesbury and boondocks.
Kini on January 23, 2008 at 3:24 PM
In the good old days, liars and slanderers were forced to wear a “gossip’s bridle” to disgrace them for their wicked tongues.
Bring back the institution of public humiliation!
LimeyGeek on January 23, 2008 at 3:26 PM
He’s running out of money. The profits and stock price have collapsed and the PREFERRED SULZBERGER DIVIDEND is threatened. This is the last Sulzberger generation that can milk the Times.
Unlike the WaPo, which is in somewhat better shape because it makes its profit from Kaplan Test Taking services, the Times has no profitable businesses. It’s best asset is the real estate it occupies. The question is, will they be stopped in time.
JiangxiDad on January 23, 2008 at 3:27 PM
Well…journalists are overworked and underpaid. They haven’t got time to do research, and the inner-city newspapers are the worst. Journalists wouldn’t write things so haphazardly if they earned a living wage. They need minimum wage legislation. Those evil corporations have to be held to a higher standard.
Bacchus on January 23, 2008 at 3:27 PM
Krikey! (Just wanted to try it.)
JiangxiDad on January 23, 2008 at 3:28 PM
Yes, this study’s conclusions are a surprise to no one who reads past a 3rd grade level. Beyond the bias, however, is something far more troubling about the modern American media: they have no problem — absolutely no problem — with movements to silence by government order those with whom they disagree. They aren’t just anti-democratic, they are anti-free speech. With Republicans in the White House and/or controlling Congress, today’s main stream media actually functions as a Third World opposition media. When they get a democrat in the White House along with Congressional majority, they will happily join, support, and propagandize for all state-sponsored efforts to silence any political opposition. Moreover, they will publish press releases — not news — from the dems in control and the country will suffer. There’s no stoppin’ ‘em, though. No stoppin’ ‘em at all.
Rational Thought on January 23, 2008 at 3:28 PM
No scathing reviews on Amazon…yet. Me thinks that they will do their (the MSM) best to sweep this book under the rug.
The average “Joe” will never even hear about this book.
ej_pez on January 23, 2008 at 3:29 PM
I don’t understand why journalism isn’t outsourced to India. In fact, they have a Times. Just add a Hate America section and they could compete quite nicely here.
JiangxiDad on January 23, 2008 at 3:29 PM
Technology used in the service of evil.
To the barricades…Holy Crap.
JiangxiDad on January 23, 2008 at 3:32 PM
What is even more interesting is that the Clintons are (to a certain extent) starting to find out what it’s like to be on the MSM’s hit list. Obama is the media darling now, and the Clintons might as well be Republicans (as far as the MSM is concerned).
Rick on January 23, 2008 at 3:36 PM
Nah, it was BIG TOBACCO.
Seriously though. This will never see the light of day. It will be ignored just like the Hillary healthcare documents recently obtained by Judicial Watch.
Nothing to see here. MoveOn now.
BacaDog on January 23, 2008 at 3:39 PM
That’s why the only important thing is the sound bite or the headline. Upthread, someone mentioned the change in journalism 20 years ago. I remember seeing the change occur and being appalled then. The body of the story said something completely different from the headline. When the media went unchallenged, they knew what they were doing worked. As we became more and more attuned to commercialism, courses in marketing/advertising comingled with journalism courses. Now it’s become even worse because PoliSci turned into Political Activism 101. And it’s all taught by mostly leftist professors.
Bias is nothing new, but the deliberate use of lies/half-truths by the media has certainly been ramped up a notch. I thought the Internet would help solve those problems because people all over the world could share info immediately and we could find the truth in there someplace, but sometimes it seems that the Internet has done more damage than good, with people choosing sides, rather than truth.
Somehow we must get past this.
Connie on January 23, 2008 at 3:43 PM
I’m really frustrated with the news media.
terryannonline on January 23, 2008 at 3:49 PM
The media has succeeded in dumbing down most of the American population. One two-minute sound bite, and they’re hooked. It must be true, because Wolf Blitzer and Jack Cafferty said so. An American Idol mentality will ultimately be our downfall on the war on terror. Mr. Soros, we surrender! Who’s on American Idol next?
Travis1 on January 23, 2008 at 3:59 PM
Blame the media?? Must be taking the Ron Paul, Fred Thompson stategy. Boo freakin hoo.
menoname on January 23, 2008 at 4:00 PM
Because the majority of the nation still gets its news from the MSM in the form of TV or newspaper. I’m one of the only people I know who’s major source of news is blogs. I’m going to have to start reading the WH speeches for myself, though. Heaven forbid if I have to start wading through the Congressional Record. I just don’t have that kind of time! That’s what Allah and Bryan are for - to wade through the nonsense and give me the Cliff Notes version with their excellent analysis.
TX Mom on January 23, 2008 at 4:02 PM
I have one question. Why did we need a study on the obvious?
Wade on January 23, 2008 at 4:05 PM
The sun rose in the East today, here in San Diego.
On communication/lack therof the Bush 43 Admin. has been/is wanting. They’re the ones to blame. The media is not that relevant, but they are allowed to party, any which way, and assumptions of all kinds are allowed to stand. That they are biased is just a given, nothing new. No study needed for that.
Media - 1
Bush 43 Admin - 0
Entelechy on January 23, 2008 at 4:06 PM
The study is from 2006? How long did it take the MSM to put a hit piece out on Kuypers?
Brass Pair on January 23, 2008 at 4:12 PM
My sentiments exactly when I first read this headline.
What next???
A $50 million study that find the sky is blue and that grass is green?
Planet Boulder on January 23, 2008 at 4:15 PM
This is the MEDIA! They keep a few hit pieces on file for just such an occasion. All they have to do is fill in a few details like the name of the victim and send out a lofty condemnation that anybody would question the ethics of journalists and how such “irresponsible work” sends a chill wind through the entire media community. A few veiled allegations that Kuypers kicks puppies and speeds up when the light is turning red and PRESTO! Hit piece in a box!!!!
highhopes on January 23, 2008 at 4:21 PM
The reason this has become so pronounced in the past five years is because of the direct competition with the Web for readers. Gannet, Tribune and NewsMedia Corp own the lionshare of metro newspapers. They tried to ride the shifting tide by incorporating “community journalism” or “civic journalism” into their hard news reporting paradigms.
They were sooooooooooo dreadfully slow on the uptake of technological shifts that they were scrambling to save themselves.
Last year I was in a staff meeting for a mid-size metro. It was like a funeral. The only people told not to worry about their jobs were the obit writers.
Another organization used to pay for me and scores of other journalists to fly out to their facility annually for dinner and professional development. They can’t afford to do so now. The last event they held, there were still reporters struggling with learning to use digital cameras and who had never read a blog.
Your average newspaper operates on a HUGE profit margin. If the industry made serious efforts to CHANGE their attitudes and business models most would survive. As it stands, most are only willing to minimally chip away at their profits while they die slowly.
The hemorrhaging terminal. Print classifieds are dying thanks to craigslist, kijiji, emilys list, etc. Only the most innovative will survive.
I would love to see more actual reporting and news gathering in the blogosphere. I don’t know of many bloggers who generate their own quotes, file their own foia requests, or subject interviews. Many bloggers are as capable as the journalists with whom I’ve worked in the past.
MM is among the best. HotAir is at the apex of new school news delivery.
no self-edit…. must eat lunch.
The Race Card on January 23, 2008 at 4:31 PM
2006? 2006? 2006?
2008-2006 = 2 years lag time.
Did everybody hear yet that Saddam was executed? Oh. Okay.
whitetop on January 23, 2008 at 4:32 PM
“all debate is over”
Al Gore
koypop on January 23, 2008 at 4:41 PM
This article apllies to HA as well.
Americans are faced with an unresponsive and unaccountable one party political system, and an establshment propaganda machine posing as the free press. We always knew the left was corrupt, but now it’s spread to the right. Well, maybe it’s always been on the right, the difference now is it’s been exposed. What did it? Two words: Mike Huckabee. Let me tell you, there are a group of republican elite who made their proverbial bed by wanting a “values” candidate, and now that they have it, they are freaking out. Their solution? They launched a well-coordinated effort to completely eliminate Huckabee.
Take Rush’s “from out of nowhere” smear campaign against Huckabee for example. they told you told Rush got his info from an “anonymous source”. Uh huh. Suuure. When someone quotes an anonymous source, immediately ask yourself, “What is their motive?”. That was a set up. A hit-piece on Huckabee. Here listen to this. By the way, this is NOT me in the video.
Rush’s Hit-Piece on Huckabee
(stick with it, audio of Rush)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tu-ZSSaZELM
Think about it. Rush believes those of us who listen to him can’t make up our own minds. He asks you to make deeper analysis of Huckabee, but has NOT done the same with other candidates. Same goes for Coulter who doesn’t know what to do about Huckabee without insulting the religious base she’s taken advantage of for years. The list goes on. Practice what you preach folks, because no matter how many times some “conservative” wins based on your checklist, the country goes much further left over the course of time. I have lost so much faith in conservatism in the past month because of the demonization of Huckabee. It is very disappointing. If Mike has done anything this election year he has provided us with a good look at their true colors.
apacalyps on January 23, 2008 at 5:00 PM
This has taken me by surprise. How can this be. I mean it’s in print and all?
Hening on January 23, 2008 at 5:03 PM
Now, now. Didn’t Bryan just recently post something where he commented on how great Huckabee was as a spokesman for conservative social values? I can’t find that post now, but let’s not go dumping on HA. I agree with many of Huckabee’s social conservative points, and as a Christian I find his willingness to speak about prayer and the truthfulness of the Bible in public. But that doesn’t mean that he’s a political conservative. When a man is running for President of the US, I want him to be a political conservative. Social conservative is also nice, but I’m not electing an elder. I’m voting for a man to lead the nation, not the church. The church already has a leader.
I didn’t believe in the “vast right-wing conspiracy” when Hillary was talking about it. I don’t believe in it when you talk about it either.
TX Mom on January 23, 2008 at 5:33 PM
So much for the “first draft of history.”
tom on January 23, 2008 at 6:20 PM
Are you seriously trying to claim that Rush is now part of the main stream media?
Of course you are.
But do you seriously think you’re fooling anyone?
Face it. Huckabee decided Rush was part of the “elite” at the exact moment Rush criticized his politics.
tom on January 23, 2008 at 6:37 PM
I have that book. It’s very good.
JohnJ on January 23, 2008 at 7:38 PM
Actually, that’s not true. The data shows that Americans are - on average - smarter because of the way the news is presented. The thesis is that because the news is dumbed down, more Americans watch it, resulting in a higher average level of awareness of issues. Were the news not dumbed down, only those of us interested would watch, leaving the average unaffected.
Troika37 on January 23, 2008 at 8:15 PM
Think I’ll have this framed.
shooter on January 23, 2008 at 8:28 PM
The only thing worse than the media bias itself is the army of Libtards that suckle at the media’s teets.
Montana on January 24, 2008 at 12:35 AM
That’s why we’re all here at Hot Air instead of watching cBS.
Mojave Mark on January 24, 2008 at 1:24 AM
Dog bites man.
(And Bush blamed for the dogbite.)
Tzetzes on January 24, 2008 at 2:44 AM
Make that 2003.
Seixon on January 24, 2008 at 4:00 AM
This is one of the most important issues of our times.
When the press decides to take sides and ignore facts they should be confronted; but how?
tgillian on January 24, 2008 at 7:27 AM