Blindness to Media Bias

We tried to speak between lines of oration
You could only repeat what we told you
--The Who

Juan Williams posted an interesting comment yesterday on his Facebook page. He said that after viewing the recent Jon Stewart/Fox interview and discussing it on a radio show, "it's just so clear that people who listen to one side or the other have trouble seeing political slant on their own side."

His comment builds on a recent post to these pages. The phenomenon is not peculiar to Stewart, nor to others in the media, nor to people in general. Psychologists have long recognized that humans selectively pursue information that confirms/validates their personal points of view. This tendency is known as 'confirmation bias,' or 'selective reasoning.'

A constant back-and-forth is evident today among media channels--one that volleys claims of 'our media outlet is the source of balance and truth while theirs is the source of bias and dishonesty.' Williams' observation above, that all seem blind to their own political slants, is wholly consistent with the volley. We should expect this behavior to be particularly evident in politics, where strongly held emotional beliefs tend to manifest. Emotion impairs reason and facilitates bias.

A few months back, we proposed that the media industry can be viewed as a market for biased information. People draw on media sources such as TV, radio, printed pubs, and web sources for information. Theory suggests that we will search for outlets that provide information that fits our view of the world. Because supply follows demand, various media outlets should arise to serve segments of consumers and their information preferences. 

Once we locate suppliers that tailor information to our comfort zone, then we will likely remain with those providers rather than engage in further search. In fact, consuming information delivered by alternative outlets may make us physically uncomfortable. Because humans generally favor pleasure over pain when filling their needs, we will be predisposed to stick with outlets that deliver information that confirms our views.

Perhaps the most robust finding in psychology is that people are generally overconfident and rate their capacity for judgment highly. This leads to an interesting irony. Although we are prone to engage in unbalanced, biased thought, we're liable to view ourselves as unbiased, critical thinkers! As such, we are likely to accuse others of biased thinking while not seeing it in ourselves (Juan's point above). We are also likely to belittle the media sources of others while elevating our own.

The theorizing above assumes that there is differentiation among media providers. In an industry with monopolistic tendencies, there will be less choice of information sources. In such a case, bias in others may be less evident because all are consuming similar sources of information.

It has been suggested that we're seeing more biased media today. If such a claim has validity, perhaps it is due to a freer, more differentiated media market. Cable television, the internet, and other innovations have broadened the spectrum of choice available to media consumers. For example, Fox News offers a source of information framed in conservative tones that was not available on TV fifteen years ago. This brand of information has attracted a large audience, to the point where Fox is now a dominant media force.

The quick rise of Fox suggests large pent up demand for conservative programming that was previously underserved. (Precisely why that market was underserved for so long is an interesting issue that we'll consider in a future missive.) Now, a media product with a conservative bias provides more contrast against media products with a liberal bias.

Stated differently, it is easier to recognize the bias in others more readily today.

Previously I've noted my respect for Juan Williams and his candid demeanor and insight. Snaps again in his direction...