The media is in a turbulent state and their response to this controversy will determine if America will ever trust them for news again. After this most recent election there has never been more uncertainty surrounding the press, and questions about whether they are biased or not. Based off the findings in this study, there is widespread conservative and liberal bias throughout the media. By requiring media outlets to include disclaimers in their articles and more publicized retractions, media partisanship in general will be greatly reduced. This political partisanship in the media that is being condoned by news outlets is dangerous because of the negative affects it has on our society, the distrust of important news stories, and its ability to drive a country farther apart than it has ever been before. 

It is extremely difficult to determine if there is a conservative or liberal bias in the media because of people’s interpretations. “Media Bias; Finding It, Fixing It” explains how if you are a liberal, you will tend to think the media is conservatively biased, and if you are a conservative, you will tend to think the media has a more liberal bias. This can skew surveys of whether people detect liberal or conservative media bias. For example, the “Media Bias; Finding It, Fixing it” source shows how “ABC’s news magazine Nightline with Ted Koppel raised eyebrows in 2005 when the show read off the name of every American soldier, including their photograph.” (Sloan) By triggering an emotional response from his audience, Koppel effectively altered the minds of people about the Iraq war. This can be considered liberal bias by conservatives because it destroys support for the Iraq war. On the other hand, liberals can justify this by saying it is just honest reporting of the war, and the American people have a right to know who has deceased in the war. Ratings drive the media and sometimes media outlets will have to display bias that their viewers would agree with just to retain their viewers. For example, “During the 2000 Republican Convention the station’s audience increased significantly, and the audience decreased when the Democratic convention aired.” (Sloan) This shows that Fox displays conservative bias in order to maintain their Republican, conservative audience. Since they know that a majority of their viewers will be watching during the Republican National Convention, Fox displayed conservative bias to please their viewers and speak highly of the Republican Candidates. Fox also knew that they would have very low rating for the Democratic National Convention, which is why they didn’t pay significant attention to the coverage of it. This is an example of news outlets reporting based off ratings, which is dangerous for the American People and also an easy way to justify bias. 

There are three major types of media bias that exist. The three types of bias are gatekeeping, coverage bias, and statement bias. (White) “The gate-keeper” explains how gatekeeping bias “is the process of writers and editors selecting from a body of potential stories that will be presented to the public, and also deselecting those stories of which mass audience will hear nothing.” (White) News outlets will select stories that benefit their political views or damage the opposing party’s views, and ignore stories that either support the other political party, or damages their political party of choice. Coverage bias discusses the physical amount of coverage each side of the topic receives. (White) Honest media coverage would give half the coverage to one political party, and the other half to the opposite political party. An example of when coverage biases manipulates news outlets are when a conservative based network, such as Fox, reported on republican legislature for 28 minutes and then only democratic legislation for 2 minutes. Most studies conducted discuss the partisan politics. Statement Bias is when members of the media can interject their own opinions into the text of the coverage of an issue. (White) Statement bias can be determined by a researcher labeling an article favorable or unfavorable, or positive or negative. All these types of major media bias are used by the major news outlets at unprecedented levels. 

One of the major issues in media coverage that prevents honest coverage is conflicts of interest by broadcasters and journalists. If a journalist has been voting Republican for their entire life and only pays attention to conservative news outlets, he or she can’t be expected to write an honest news story about democratic legislature in the senate or a victorious democratic candidate. For example, a conflict of interest can be found in an article titled “Donald Trump Wins the Presidency in Stunning Upset over Clinton.” (Karen Tumulty). Throughout the article, the author takes several jeers at Trump and almost seems in denial of Donald Trump’s victory. It is apparent that this article displays liberal bias because it is partisan selection or disorientation of information to support liberal policies. Previously, Karen Tumulty had been accused of “hysterical liberal bias” by the McCain campaign after she had falsely accused them of racism. Tumulty did not apologize for her mistake, instead she only replied by saying “I grew up in Texas. I know what this stuff looks like.” This behavior is unacceptable because the true story of election night was distorted to support her agenda; she should have changed the way she reported on matters after being accused of such bias. It is obvious that Tumulty is biased and should no longer report on political matters. Another example of a conflict of interest comes from the article “Trump’s Huge Election Night Changes U.S. Politics Forever.” (Podhoretz) In this article, the author John Podhoretz, defends Trump on several issues, and takes several shots at Clinton, giving reasons why she lost. Here, he displays conservative bias because it was a partisan selection of information that supported conservative policies. Podhoretz was a former speech writer for Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush. This most likely indicates that he has conservative views. It has almost become common knowledge that Podhoretz is a conservative by making comments such as “George W. Bush was the first great leader of the 21st century”. Having someone like John Podhoretz be a journalist at one of the major news outlets, the New York Post, is dangerous because he could report favorably on George W. Bush, the son of the man he wrote speeches for, and then unfavorably on someone such as Barack Obama, who he shares a different ideology than journalists and broadcasters who have previous political ties damage the integrity of the stories they produce. 

The coverage of the Bush and Obama administrations are an easy way to show media biases. A lot of people feel that several of the major media outlets were very harsh on Bush throughout his presidency. An example of biased coverage was when Hurricane Katrina devastated the state of Louisiana. Bush was currently on vacation when the disaster struck, and cut it short so he could visit the Gulf Coast to survey the destination. By the time George W. Bush could visit the site it was 3 days after Katrina hit, and these were some of the headlines in the media at the time, “A compassionate Bush was absent right after Katrina, The 7 worst moments of George W. Bush’s presidency, Kanye West rips Bush at Telethon, What if They Were White? Katrina thrusts race and poverty onto national stage: Bush and Congress under pressure to act.” (Concha) These headlines took away from the tragedy that occurred and turned the story into a racial matter. In a time when the media coverage should have been reporting the events that occurred and encouraging the public to provide help to the people of Louisiana, they lashed out at President Bush for being racist. In August 2016, several storms hit Louisiana creating the biggest national disaster to strike the United States since Hurricane Katrina. At least 13 people died, more than 85,000 people applied for federal disaster aid, 30,000 people needed to be rescued, and 40,000 displaced. After hearing news of the devastation, President Obama continued his vacation that included fundraising for Hillary Clinton. (Concha) The media’s response to this was mostly silence. Only one newspaper, The Advocate in Baton Rouge, called for Obama to end his vacation. The media’s coverage of these two President’s in similar situation is indisputable. 

Towards the end of the 2012 campaign, the media coverage received by President Obama was very positive. “Between Oct. 29 and Nov. 5, 29 percent of stories about Obama were positive, compared to 19 negative, while only 16 percent of Romney’s stories were positive, compared to 33 negative. It was Obama’s best week of media coverage since the Democratic National Convention, and only the second time in the cycle positive stories outnumbered negative ones for the president.” (Easley) Twenty-Nine percent of positive stories compared to 19 is a huge difference, especially in the days leading up to the election. This time period is when most voters are deciding who to vote for, and the media is trying to shape their opinion. Throughout the election, Romney’s negative stories outpaced Obama by 2 to 1. (Easley) This is just unacceptable and shows complete partiality. The media wanted President Obama to win reelection so they released a large amount of positive news articles about him and negative news articles about Romney leading up to the election. Another example of how the media reports differently when a certain party is in power is the media coverage of the 2014 midterm elections. The media’s “Big 3” ABC, CBS, and NBC, have only run 26 stories about the upcoming elections compared to 159 in 2006. In 2014, Republicans did very well in the midterm elections, compared to in 2006 when Democrats did very well in these elections. These 3 media outlets have been known to have a liberal bias, which could be why they were so resilient to give media coverage when Republicans were going to do well, instead giving more coverage when the Democrats were going to do well. There is no doubt that certain administrations receive different media coverage, and when certain parties do well they receive vastly different coverage. 

Although media coverage of the Obama and Bush administration was putrid, the most recent election cycle was the most horrific display of media bias the world has ever seen. The way the media covered Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton was unprofessional and changed people’s perception of the media forever. Because of this gross political bias, many media outlets apologized for how wrong they were about the election. At CBS, political correspondent and managing director of politics, Will Rahn, said “It shouldn’t come as a surprise to anyone that, with a few exceptions, we were all tacitly or explicitly #WithHer, which has led to a certain anguish in the face of Donald Trump’s victory. More than that and more importantly, we also missed the story, after having spent months mocking the people who had a better sense of what was going on. This is all symptomatic of modern journalism’s great moral and intellectual failing: its unbearable smugness. Had Hillary Clinton won, there’d be a winking ‘we did it’ feeling in the press, a sense that we were brave and called Trump a liar and saved the republic.” (Kant) This echoes many what many of the American public thought: The media constantly bashed Trump and protected Hillary Clinton throughout the election cycle. The most frightening thing that happened here was that the media missed the story. People were shouting and screaming for change, but the reporters continued to side with Hillary Clinton, and refused to entertain the idea that Donald Trump could be President. Another example of the media coverage in the most recent election, “The broadcast evening news programs on ABC, NBC and CBS covered allegations against Trump by several women who claim he sexually assaulted them for more than 23 minutes combined on Thursday night.” (Concha) The same time these allegations came out about Trump, a story about WikiLeaks came out that showed several damaging things that Clinton’s campaign chair, John Podesta did. This story got a combined 1 minute and 7 seconds. The ratio of negative coverage of Trump vs. Clinton was 23:1. (Concha) In the newspaper, the New York Times had 11 negative stories on Trump, including one in the sports section, but zero on Clinton and WikiLeaks. (Concha) This gross political bias is unprecedented and makes little sense. Both stories are very harmful to the candidates, but only one received a majority of the coverage. 

A lot attention has been given to the polls during the most recent election cycle. Even these polls can become a victim of bias. In May 2016, The Washington Post and ABC News that showed Trump leading Clinton 46% to 44%. To alter the results of this poll, they then asked a hypothetical question that if Romney was running as an independent candidate who would you vote for? (Concha) The Post and ABC knew this would split the Republican vote which would in turn lower Trump’s percentage to put him behind Clinton. This question should have never even been asked, considering Romney hadn’t announced any intention of running for president. These polls were one reason everyone was so shocked that Trump won. Leading up to the election, almost every poll had Clinton winning, thanks to partisanship. The media bias wasn’t only against Trump; it was against Hillary Clinton too. Clinton’s “family foundation to make an illegal $25,000 donation to a political campaign — expressly barred by law — to the campaign of a Democratic Florida attorney general. And that the AG, who was investigating Clinton for consumer fraud, dropped the investigation shortly after receiving the illegal $25,000 donation from the Clinton Foundation, and then endorsed Clinton’s presidential candidacy and was given a special spot speaking to the Democratic National Convention.” (Davis) Donald Trump did this exact same thing with the Florida Republican attorney general. The difference in media mentions the between the two is jaw dropping. From September 1-4, the Clinton story was reported about 680 times compared to the 20 times the Trump story was mentioned. (Davis) The media went out of its way to portray Hillary as a corrupt figure. Another example of the media being biased against Clinton was when FBI director James Comey made headlines by re opening the investigation into Clinton’s emails. Nine days later, Comey said there was no new evidence and that their conclusion remained unchanged. Because the media made such a big deal about this without waiting for the results, Clinton’s lead over Trump was cut in half, international financial markets plunged, the FBI became divided, and the Democrats chances of claiming a congressional majority was undermined. (Benen) The media is a very powerful tool, and most of the time it is used wrongly for personal gain and to benefit or hurt a certain entity. During this election, media coverage was so bad, that less than 30% of the American people think they are receiving strictly facts from the media. 

Some people believe that media bias is a myth. These people believe that all information provided to them through the media is unaltered and all factual. One article says that all media outlets “adhere to in house ethics and keep politicians at arm’s length” (Paulson). This article blames the bad reputation of the media on constant attacks by politicians on media stories that they don’t agree with. It also explains that news rooms are understaffed and some mistakes are made because journalists work in haste to meet deadlines. These are both very valid points. The articles main claim that “most traditional news media strive daily to report about their communities without regard to political affiliation or special interests” (Paulson) disagrees with my thesis. I would refute this claim by citing evidence given in the actual article. The article states that according to the Pew Research Center “60% of Americans believe the news organizations are politically biased, and only 29% of Americans believe the news media get the facts right” (Paulson). How can someone say that the media isn’t biased when they just gave evidence that less than 30% of the American population think they are reporting strictly facts? I would also refute this claim by providing evidence of how many high ranking journalists have worked very closely with top Republican and Democratic politicians, which debunks the author’s claim that the media keeps politicians at arm’s length.

Media Bias has caused people to lose all trust in the media. Because of this, there must be a solution to fix this problem that is affecting how Americans get their news. No solution can solve all media bias, because as I have already stated people perceive media bias in dozens of different ways. A solution that would help greatly reduce political media bias is that if you have any previous political connections such as being a speech writer for a President or affiliations with a campaign, you must recuse yourself from the story if it has to do with politics or publish a disclaimer that you have this previous political experience and it could have affected how you wrote the piece. This solution will be modeled after what stock analysts have to include at the bottom of the articles they write about stocks, detailing who they are and any connections that they have with the material being written. For example, a stock analyst has to disclose that the opinion in this article does not reflect the opinion of the company they work for, and if they have any possible connections about the material that is being written such as owning shares of Apple and then writing a positive article about them. For example, if a journalist worked with the Obama administration they would have to disclose that if they were writing an article about him. Also, before an article is published an independent voter must read over the article or watch the broadcast to detect and possible media bias. This person must be an independent registered voter who has complete impartiality in this situation. If this person doesn’t detect any partisanship, then the outlet can publish the story. Also, if a journalist makes a mistake because of bias, he or she must put out a retraction that will be on the front page of this editorial, suspended 10 days without pay, and must include that they had to put out a retraction because of an erroneous story in their disclaimer for the next 5 articles they write about politics. Another practice that would improve the ethics of journalism would be, for news outlets to provide a class on the dangers of media bias and how to prevent it. The vetting for political bias should be most serious in the month leading up to a Presidential Elections to ensure the media does not play a role in who wins.  

After these measures take place, there will no longer be conservative newspapers, or liberal media outlets. Everything will be reported as the news, as it should be. People will not have to worry about if the story they are reading is written by a liberal or conservative author who might have included information that would fit with their own ideology. This solution should help bring integrity back to journalism, eliminate political bias, help regain the trust of the American people, and hopefully lessen the divide amongst Americans. 
