Interesting study on why people are hostile towards the news and believe the news is biased.

[Hamlette]

This study, conducted in the 1980s, helps to explain a lot of the heat and light that gets produced by those commenting on media bias across the political spectrum, including the remarkably vitriolic outpourings often seen in the comment sections of newspaper websites and across the internet.

hese groups watched the same news and came to opposite conclusions as to which way it was biased. And each side thought it was biased against their side.

snip

The study demonstrates what the authors call the 'hostile media phenomenon': people's tendency to view news coverage about which they hold strong beliefs as biased against their own position.

There were two mechanisms at work here:

1. The truth is black and white: partisans generally thought that the truth about the Arab-Israeli debate was black and white. Any hint of shades of grey in the news reports was interpreted by partisans as bias towards the other side. In other words: any balanced report will seem biased to partisan viewers.
2. The news report was too grey: as well as thinking the Arab-Israeli issue was either black or white, partisans also perceived that the specific news report they watched was too grey.

Put simply: when we care about an issue, we tend not to notice all the points we agree with, and focus on the ones we don't.

http://www.spring.org.uk/2010/02/why-the-media-seems-biased-when-you-care-about-the-issue.php

[sendero]

1. This is obviously the case..

... but it is also very possible to note inacuracies and what I call "bias of omission" where important details are left out of the report, details that change the entire tenor of the situation.

Fact is, our MSM is broken, and it's not just about left-right, it's on a much more basic level.

[ThomWV]

2. +1

[bemildred]

3. Maybe objectivity is just bullshit.

The news is biased, and people make biased judgements about the news, so there is no objective source of information, and we ought to grow up and stop expecting that. We could learn to appreciate well-expressed and well-reasoned points of view instead. Maybe that would serve us better than all these biased sources pretending to be objective and fact-based.

[KonaKane]

4. Free market based media is a proven failure.

That view is sure to win me tons of friends from CAPITALIST magazine, but there it is anyway.

[JonLP24]

5. I'm not sure what to make of this

but in many cases the news isn't truthful. I recall watching the morning news waiting to work the anchorman doing the National & World News segment mentioned that critics of climate change in DC built an igloo naming it "Al Gore's home" and pointing towards the record snowfall that disproves it(paraphrasing). Which led to a round of laughter at the job site. There was no mention of the other side of the argument or facts like 1 storm in 1 area doesn't change what is going on overall across the globe. Also it would have made sense to point out we just got done with the warmest decade and 2nd warmest year ever.

I'm sure both sides may find the same news report biased but the omissions bother me. I'm thinking if they would have included the factual information instead of what critics are saying than maybe their wouldn't of been a round of laughter by most people of where I was at.

[lob1]

6. How about when they flat-assed lie to us, or fail to report on a story at all?

[surrealAmerican]

7. This may well have been true at the time ...

... this study was conducted. In the US now, we are facing a far less-nuanced and more biased media.

[EFerrari]

8. Yep. In the 80s, that was still in progress.

And the frame is interesting. If you "believe" something is true, by definition you don't know whether it is or not. The categories "believe" and "know" aren't the same.