News media literacy,perceptions of bias,and interpretation of news

Perceptions of bias

While the public tends to value accuracy and objectivity in the news, they perceive considerable bias in journalism and often distrust news media (Pew Research Center, 2017). In fact, 75 percent of Americans think that news sources are biased and tend to promote one political position over another (Pew Research Center, 2017).

However, perceptions of bias may occur on the part of news consumers, rather than solely as a by-product of news content. The HME suggests that personal involvement in an issue can generate perceptions of bias for neutral news stories, such that the same content can be decried as biased by partisans on differing sides of an issue (Gunther, 1988; Vallone et al., 1985). HME has been observed on a wide range of issues, topics, and audiences (Gunther, 1992; Perloff, 2015; Vallone et al., 1985), meaning that journalists are often confronted with a public seeing bias where little or none may exist.

The contemporary political and media environment may exacerbate biased perceptions of news. Scholars have long recognized that people prefer and seek out content that supports their beliefs, likely because they see agreeable information as more credible than material that challenges their beliefs (Edwards and Smith, 1996; Frey, 1986; Lord et al., 1979). The current media environment facilitates this selective exposure to politically congruent news, which may not only contributes to increasing levels of political polarization but also encourages greater reliance on source cues as individuals seek out news from sources that match their political beliefs (Garrett, 2009; Iyengar and Hahn, 2009).

These media choices have important implications for HME research. Stronger social identification with a group and greater involvement with an issue both increase the strength of HME (Hansen and Kim, 2011; Perloff, 2015), so greater political polarization heightens the potential for HME to occur. Scholars have also uncovered a relative HME, such that partisans who encounter biased news are willing to forgive news that favors their side and see it as relatively unbiased but overcompensate in punishing news that favors the other side by rating it as even more biased (Feldman, 2011; Gunther et al., 2012; Metzger et al., 2015). Frequent exposure to and expectations of partisan news may not only heighten relative HME for incongruently biased news, but also predispose individuals to perceive bias where none exists – in other words, classic HME. In short, people have biased perceptions of what constitutes news bias. And this occurs both for issue partisanship (Feldman, 2011; Gunther et al., 2012) and for political partisanship (Metzger et al., 2015; Perloff, 2015).

With the rise in news outlets offering a political viewpoint (Coe et al., 2008; Iyengar and Hahn, 2009), news source cues may often be sufficient to create perceptions of bias as the outlets themselves are viewed as politically partisan (Groeling, 2008; Pew Research Center, 2009). Such reliance on source cues is not new – credibility assessments often rely on peripheral cues about the source, such as reputation, expertise, and likeability or consistency with predispositions (Chaiken, 1980; Metzger et al., 2010). But in a polarized environment, the partisan perceptions of content and its source may be increasingly relied upon in making assessments of the content (Metzger et al., 2015; Pew Research Center, 2014). As a result, understanding how people apply NML skills and values to their news consumption and interpretation becomes even more important as they are confronted with news at a rapid pace and may be faced with making decisions about quality based on source or other cues (Kahne and Bowyer, 2017).

News media literacy

When considering the knowledge and skills people need to understand news messages and the media environment, scholars frequently draw from media literacy efforts. NML is an important subset of the broader field of media literacy, which emphasizes the development of knowledge, skills, and a personal sense of control about media choices (Ashley et al., 2013; Maksl et al., 2015; Potter, 2018).

NML, then, focuses on the necessary abilities relevant to becoming a critical news consumer. Researchers and educators describe the relationship between journalists, news production, consumers, and democracy as fundamental to NML (e.g. Ashley et al., 2013; Maksl et al., 2015; Potter, 2018; Vraga and Tully, 2015). To fully engage with the multifaceted role of news in American society, NML efforts must grapple with news production and consumption issues that are sometimes in tension. For example, NML education urges news consumers to be skeptical of the role of advertising and constraints on journalists, such as deadlines and limited resources on newsmaking, while still encouraging thoughtful engagement with news to become informed citizens (Maksl et al., 2015; Potter, 2018; Vraga and Tully, 2015, 2016). This reflects a challenge for NML efforts: the need to foster skeptical news consumers, who understand the goals behind news production, without creating undue cynicism that may hinder trust in any or all news sources (Craft et al., 2016; Mihailidis, 2008).

Most NML education highlights the challenges journalists face by contrasting journalists’ duties to be accurate and inclusive in their reporting with the constraints and pressures that journalists encounter in their jobs, including commercial pressures and competition for audiences’ attention (Kovach and Rosenstiel, 2007; Potter, 2018). These pressures intersect with news production processes to influence how news is created and consumed (Postman and Powers, 1992; Potter, 2018). NML education is concerned with conveying the ability of media to shape the public’s perceptions of reality – often by selecting which stories to cover or which aspects of those stories to emphasize (Ashley et al., 2013; Jeong et al., 2012; Rosenbaum et al., 2008).

At the same time, NML education emphasizes that bias, which is often attributed to news outlets or journalists, frequently arises when consumers allow their own beliefs to color their selection and interpretation of news, echoing findings from HME and selective exposure research (Garrett and Stroud, 2014; Gunther, 1992; Perloff, 2015). As a result, personal bias is ‘perhaps one of the most intractable barriers for news consumers to overcome’ (Klurfeld and Schneider, 2014: 12). However, nascent research suggests that exposure to NML messages can reduce partisan selective exposure, particularly among Republicans (Vraga and Tully, 2017).

Working to simultaneously recognize actual bias in news and overcome personal biases to seek out diverse sources of news and to evaluate them fairly, but critically, is essential to becoming news media literate. Potter (2018) nicely summarizes how to think about the dual face of bias and the difficulty in discerning how it operates in news:

Bias—like fabrication—is a willful distortion on the part of a journalist, but it is difficult for audiences to recognize when this is occurring. This highlights the distinction between actual bias (where a journalist willfully distorts a news story) and perceived bias (when audiences think that the story is slanted). (p. 193)

In addition, previous research has made the connection between NML and the HME. Research suggests that short- and long-term media literacy interventions can reduce hostile media perceptions for neutral news messages, among other positive outcomes, such as improving understanding of points of views in media messages (Hobbs and Frost, 2003; Jeong et al., 2012; Kamerer, 2013; Vraga and Tully, 2015).

With this in mind, this study explores news habits, perceptions of personal and news bias, and NML to elucidate how these areas intersect with news consumption and interpretation.

Perceptions of personal bias

All participants in this study recognized that their worldviews or viewpoints influenced their interpretation of news stories. One Republican participant believed his personal views ‘heavily influence’ his understanding of news and went on to say, ‘I mean, when I feel like I am getting information that confirms my viewpoint then you know it probably makes me want to go back – it makes me trust that publication more and you know, go back to them in the future’ (Interviewee 09). He also noted that other people do the same thing by continuously returning to news sources that confirm their views: ‘there are people who read those [publications] who are confirmed in their viewpoint, and then you know they keep going back to those because you know they’re – the writers there are confirming their beliefs’ (Interviewee 09). His response resonates with an understanding of the confirmation bias that underlies much selective exposure (Garrett and Stroud, 2014).

Several participants recognized that their views drive their news selection. One participant noted, ‘I mean I’m probably going to focus on stuff that I want to hear about, learn about, read about and not focus on things that I don’t find interesting’ (Interviewee 19). Another participant articulated how her worldviews influence news selection and interpretation, ‘I only read stuff that’s like pertinent to me’, and went on to conclude ‘if it doesn’t agree with me then I stop reading it’ (Interviewee 05), providing further evidence of selective exposure and avoidance (Garrett, 2009; Garrett and Stroud, 2014; Stroud, 2008). One participant, who was exposed to media literacy education in her high-school social studies class, nicely captured how personal viewpoints operate, noting that her views influence her understanding of stories ‘100% unfortunately. And, I think that’s the bottom line that even though you think you’re outgoing and unbiased, your life and your perceptions color everything you do’ (Interviewee 20).

Perceptions of news bias

Although many participants recognized that their personal biases and worldviews influence news selection and interpretation, they did not believe that bias was purely in the eye of the beholder. Instead, many recognized the numerous ways that news bias operates and permeates news products (Potter, 2018).

Interview participants have complex views about news bias and who or what contributes to bias in stories. For some, bias was evidenced by word choice, tone, and terminology in the article (e.g. Interviewees 08, 09, 10, 13, 16, 18, and 19). Or, as one woman described it, a news story might ‘use weighted words with it, maybe more positive connotations for one side and more negative for the other’ (Interviewee 16). Others said they look for balance or telling all sides of the story (e.g. Interviewees 03, 06, 12, 17, and 21) to uncover bias. For example:

Well I don’t think you can always tell if a news story is biased. Sometimes if it’s obviously biased it seems to only tell one side of the story or cast an individual or an organization in just one certain light. I mean, almost always, there’s two sides to every story. (Interviewee 21)

Reading stories closely or comparing news stories about the same topic were mechanisms that participants mentioned to detect bias and attempt to overcome it. Close reading revealed potential bias. As one participant, who was exposed to media literacy in a quantitative reasoning course in college, described, ‘A lot of times there’s a subtlety in the verbiage like with the migrant/refugee. Often different sources have been using migrant and some have been using refugee and there’s a huge difference between the two words’ (Interviewee 08).

Although some participants described engaging in purposeful behaviors like comparing stories to address the news bias they encounter, most participants said they stop reading, ignore the stories, or get angry, but do not actively seek out additional news or information (e.g. Interviewees 06, 03, and 18), counter to suggestions from media literacy educators (Potter, 2018). When asked what she does when she encounters bias in stories, one woman noted: ‘Get mad … I would want to, for the most part, look into other sources but if it’s not that important to me I probably wouldn’t pursue that’ (Interviewee 03).

Another group said they rely on cues about the news outlet or journalist to detect bias (e.g. Interviewees 02, 05, 11, 16, and 22). For example, a 46-year-old political Independent said that the news outlet and journalists contribute to bias in stories:

Well, the source. Am I reading – am reading Fox – what am I reading first of all? Where is it coming from? I look at the writer of the article. If it’s an article about women and it’s a guy writing it, I’m going to be a little, I don’t know, I just, I look for little telltale signs like that. (Interviewee 11)

Another mentioned ‘considering the source’ as an important component in evaluating whether a news story is biased (Interviewee 16). Furthermore, a woman recognized that she is likely to approach articles with preconceived notions about the content based on the publication. When asked how she could tell if a news story was biased, she said, ‘depending on the outlet, I already know’ (Interviewee 22). Similarly, a Republican man said that when reading articles from MSNBC or Think Progress, he is ‘reading just to find out what a person on the very far left is saying about a topic. I don’t trust those sources as publications for unbiased reporting’ (Interviewee 09).

Fifteen participants mentioned journalists, editors, producers, news ownership, or organizations as responsible for bias in news. A woman who identified as a Democrat described news ownership and conglomeration as a reason for bias, while also describing how it is difficult to know who owns news organizations:

Networks like Fox are extremely biased to the Republican agenda and you can tell by the experts they bring in. Certain brands, it’s sometimes harder unless you research the owning company, but I think most of the companies are owned by like Disney or something, like ABC, so I think they’re all – like all the networks are owned by like three or four companies. (Interviewee 05)

Other participants mentioned money or advertising as a source of bias (e.g. Interviewees 01, 11, 12, 16, and 18):

Oh, follow the money. I think it’s very much how our media is funded, everything in this country right now, what we consider important, what we are given to consume in the media, our contemporary values are all fed to us by the big machine of money. (Interviewee 16)

Responses that mentioned structural and organizational constraints reflect an important understanding of media industries, which is essential to developing knowledge that contributes to NML (Craft et al., 2017; Kovach and Rosenstiel, 2007; Potter, 2018).

Although attracting audiences was implicit in some comments, only one person mentioned audience demands and news organization’s responses to audiences as the main cause of bias in news, noting that news organizations are ‘trying to cater to their audience and many people want the biased story. If you’re very conservative, you want to read a conservative newspaper – you want to feel like your news also agrees with you’ (Interviewee 08). Her interpretation of news bias reflects an understanding of our fragmented partisan news environment and audiences’ tendency to seek out content that matches their beliefs (Garrett, 2009; Garrett and Stroud, 2014).

Bias in stories

To better understand how perceptions of bias influence news interpretations and to see how participants apply NML skills in practice, participants read and responded to two news stories about a drought in California. Results suggest that participants saw bias in the news stories emerge in three ways. First, political bias in the form of liberal versus conservative bias was the most discussed type of bias and was often connected to the source cues of Fox or NYT (e.g. Interviewees 05, 06, 09, and 12). Second, participants described bias in relation to how climate change was discussed or ignored in relation to the drought (e.g. Interviewees 06 and 09). Third, they saw bias in the tone and intended purpose of the article, particularly regarding emotional appeal in the Fox story versus a scientific orientation in the NYT story (e.g. Interviewees 08, 10, 11, 13, and 19). Yet, few participants explicitly tied their evaluations of story bias to their own predispositions, despite reflecting on these biases previously.

Many participants used source cues as shortcuts for assessing political bias (Coe et al., 2008; Iyengar and Hahn, 2009). This political bias was sometimes connected to serving the news organizations’ audience who expect to see content that leans a certain way. One participant, a 34-year-old Republican man, who described Fox as dramatic earlier in the interview, described the stories as ‘pretty standard liberal versus conservative media’ and went on to say:

I mean they were both completely biased. … The whole purpose was to provoke the insight and the almost the camaraderie of its viewership. You know, Fox knows that not too many Democrats are going to be reading their thing so they voice this subtle, humble propaganda, you know… Meanwhile, The New York Times, the Democratic source is citing that we are depleting, we are killing ourselves, and the government is here to help protect us and keep us from ultimate annihilation. (Interviewee 06)

His analysis suggests that he sees bias in these stories as purposeful and useful to the news organizations as it serves audience expectations, an important insight relevant to NML (Maksl et al., 2015; Potter, 2018).

Other participants had a similar assessment of partisan political bias serving organizational goals suggesting a broader understanding of news media industries, an important component of NML (Maksl et al., 2015). For example, an Independent leaning Democrat assessed the stories as ‘fairly biased’ and described Fox as a ‘very conservative outlet – who they interview you know, average citizens, because that’s who their target audience is you know – you’re the trusted news source. So, they go to a 40year-old disabled vet – that’s gonna appeal to conservatives’ (Interviewee 12). He described the NYT story as liberal and also noted that it had shortcomings in its sourcing, particularly not providing enough details about the scientific sources or evidence in the story (Interviewee 12).

For others, source cues colored their expectations of the stories with little critical evaluation beyond suggesting that each outlet has a partisan perspective. As one Republican participant noted, ‘because I knew the sources, I think it was pretty easy’ (Interviewee 06). Another Democrat participant described the Fox story as ‘ridiculous’ and went on to say, ‘Fox News was blatantly trying to play up the vet and family man thing from the farm and make it seem down to earth … just basically what you would expect from Fox News, I guess’ (Interviewee 05). Others made similar comments about the NYT article. As one Republican participant described it:

Once I read The New York Times and then the first words said ‘global warming caused by human emissions,’ so I pretty much knew. I knew pretty quickly knew where this was headed based on those two things, based on what publication it was and you know the first 5-6 words in the piece. (Interviewee 09)

Despite the resonance of source cues in these interpretations, only two participants recognized that the ‘Fox’ story was a reprint from the AP. Notably, these participants (Interviewees 09 and 11) did not use the language of political partisanship to describe the Fox story, suggesting that seeing beyond the sources allowed them to engage in more critical analysis that is central to developing NML skills (Potter, 2018). One participant went so far as to say, ‘I’m going to call this other one the Associated Press piece because, although you have Foxnews.com at the top, this is actually an AP piece so you know there’s probably many other outlets in addition to Fox News that ran the story’ (Interviewee 09). His analysis shows an understanding of how wire services work and led him to analyze the story through a different lens describing the Fox story as a human interest story focused on portraying local families. The other participant had a similar assessment of the piece: ‘This felt like a human interest story – the Fox news – it read like a sob story’ (Interviewee 11). He later went on to call it an AP story and noted that Fox ‘just picked this up’. Neither participant had previous media literacy training, but both were able to discern the subtle ‘Associated Press’ byline and used this cue in their analysis. Both participants noted that although it wasn’t a story from Fox, it still fit their agenda and audience, again suggesting a deeper understanding of news structures (Maksl et al., 2015).

For some participants, lack of discussion of global warming in the Fox story was seen as purposefully avoiding the issue because it doesn’t align with conservative views. As one self-described ‘very liberal’ man noted:

It’s an important issue but it was more human based.. … There wasn’t one scientist mentioned in here. Just a county worker. The Times was very heavy science based. I think they said global warming 20 times in there, and it wasn’t about the people at all. Almost, seemed like half of it was about global warming and the dangers of it and not just necessarily for California. (Interviewee 11)

He went on to describe the Fox story as, ‘it wasn’t misleading as much as it was not informing’. For him, the Fox story missed the more important story about climate change with its focus on daily life during the drought.

While some viewed the Fox story as avoiding the ‘real’ issue and implications of the drought, others thought that the Fox story did a better job than the NYT story because it showed how the drought affects people. For example, one participant, a 56-year-old woman who identified as an Independent leaning Democrat, believed that the Fox story did a better job presenting the story of the drought and noted how it aligned with her own predispositions:

The Fox news probably did use the better sources because they’ve thrown in the human element of how this issue, water, affects everyday people. But, and so that really speaks to my own bias, because trying to help people and address human problems are the things I am most interested in. (Interviewee 20)

Although, she stated that she believes global warming is an important issue, in this case, she found the NYT focus to be too detached to give the full story. She was one of few participants to make a direct connection to her personal views as a guide for evaluating the stories, making an important connection between the two kinds of bias that influence news interpretations (Klurfeld and Schneider, 2014).

Beyond differing political biases, participants described the two stories as different in terms of tone and appeal. Many participants described the Fox story as a human interest story, designed to appeal to emotions, explaining why it lacked official sources or discussions of science. On the contrary, they perceived the NYT story to be more well-sourced and scientifically focused. When comparing the pieces, descriptions such as ‘emotional’ versus ‘analysis’ (Interviewee 10) or ‘human side’ of the story versus ‘more environmentally and politically oriented’ (Interviewee 13) emerged. A self-described politically independent woman from D.C. who previously said news was very important to her and that she reads the NYT daily, compared the articles noting that the ‘Fox news article is a lot more emotional and just trying to get you to connect with the people the drought is affecting whereas the NYT is more analytical about it’ (Interviewee 08).

Some participants said that comparing the stories made them realize the multiple ways the drought could be covered and that both stories had value because of their different approaches further supporting suggestions from media literacy educators to consume and compare diverse sources of news (Potter, 2018). The difference in how the stories addressed climate change was a major point of comparison that participants used to make sense of how they covered the drought. For example, as one woman from D.C. noted:

… if had read either of these separately I would not have thought really much – I wouldn’t have thought oh this one’s biased or this one’s biased. I would have accepted it as the Fox News – oh it’s a sad story. Or this New York Times, oh this is a really serious problem. (Interviewee 21)

Her analysis highlights the value in reading more diverse sources to get a fuller understanding of an issue, even as most participants said that was not often something they regularly did as part of their own news habits.