Today’s topic is a popular one.
You have probably read a lot about it, especially during the last decade when the power of social media has been growing exponentially.
I mention social media because, since they became a big part of our reality, they have allowed people to express their own opinions, which are not only formed by the traditional media.
This can be both good and bad, though.
Having the freedom to question the dominant narrative is vital in a democracy. But that freedom can also lead to fake news or conspiracy theories.
That’s why I wanted to write about this topic as a communications professional, offering insights based on research and scientific literature and not just my opinion – which is useless if not based on facts.
No one denies that the media has an undeniable influence on our lives. But do they live up to their responsibility or create a false sense of reality?
Let’s dive deeper.
Does the media report the truth?
The trigger for writing this piece was a graph I came across some months ago.
The graph, first published in 2016, shows what Americans actually die from, what they search on Google regarding those causes of death, and what the media reports.
As you can see below, the differences are eye-opening and show the complete discrepancy between reality and media coverage (at least regarding death causes).
To emphasize that, also consider that the two media organizations included in the study are the New York Times and the Guardian, two traditional, mainstream, and quality media organizations that have been around for centuries.
So, if even the reporting of quality media organizations is so disconnected from reality, you can imagine the overall level of media bias and distortion.
How do people perceive media coverage?
Individuals’ perceptions of media coverage vary widely, often influenced by their personal beliefs, experiences, and the political climate of their country.
Factual vs. opinion statements
A study by the Pew Research Center found that many Americans have difficulty distinguishing between factual and opinion statements in the news.
This indicates that the lines between objective reporting and opinionated content have blurred for many, leading to potential misconceptions about the nature of news stories.
Also, the study found that those with high political awareness, digital savviness, and trust in the news media are better able to identify facts from opinion news statements correctly.
Trust in the media
Despite the importance of the media in shaping public opinion and informing the masses, distrust remains high.
A recent Gallup poll found that Americans’ trust in the media remains near a record low, with only 34% expressing “a great deal” or “quite a lot” of trust in mass media. Also, historically, this is the first time those who show complete distrust in mass media are the majority in US society.
Perception of fair news coverage
A 2021 Digital News Report by the Reuters Institute examined how different groups perceive the fairness of news coverage.
The study found that party supporters are more likely to consider media coverage unfair, with right-wing voters, in particular, being more sensitive to that.
Regarding gender perceptions on news coverage, both men and women usually consider that they are covered fairly. However, that changes when we focus on GenZ, where women are more likely to believe that news media covers them unfairly.
In addition, not all racial groups—at least in the US—have the same perceptions since black and Hispanic Americans, unlike white Americans, don’t believe they are covered fairly.
Global perspective on media bias
Most people agree that the news media should be unbiased, primarily when covering political issues.
However, a Pew Research study conducted across 38 countries found that, while a median of 52% believe their news media is doing well at reporting the news accurately, 44% think the news media in their country is biased.
The news media scores significantly low, especially when it comes to political reporting. But even if we examine how accurately they report news in general, the picture is not much better.
The mechanism of media bias
Media bias usually refers to the deviation from neutral, objective journalism standards (intentional or unintentional), resulting in the presentation of news in a way that does not reflect reality and is not in line with the standards of journalism.
Media bias can manifest in various ways, such as through the selection of stories, the framing of issues, the tone or language used, and the choice of sources.
Let’s see a few of them:
Sensationalism
Sensationalism is a common tactic used by media outlets to capture attention. It involves using exciting or shocking stories and language at the expense of accuracy to provoke public interest or excitement.
Sensationalism can include catchy headlines and dramatic images, exaggerated events, and a focus on scandalous or controversial issues.
For example, plane crashes always make headlines, while car crashes, which kill many more people, rarely do. That’s why people end up having a distorted sense of reality. To illustrate, people rank tornadoes (which kill around 50 Americans a year) as a more common cause of death than asthma (killing over 4,000 Americans a year).
Scientifically, this is explained by the Availability heuristic, a cognitive bias that proves people estimate an event’s probability based on how easily it comes to mind.
Media outlets often try to “spice up” their stories to stand out in the race for viewers and clicks. This leads to a distorted perception of reality, as it amplifies certain events and issues and downplays others.
Coverage bias
Coverage bias occurs when media outlets consistently emphasize negative news about a specific party, ideology, or group while downplaying or ignoring positive aspects.
This selective reporting concerns the amount of news coverage devoted to a specific issue and can be driven by various factors, such as editorial decisions, organizational pressures, or even commercial interests.
The result is a skewed representation that can distort public perception.
For instance, if a media outlet persistently highlights the controversies surrounding a political figure but seldom reports on their accomplishments or positive initiatives, it falls into coverage bias.
Over time, such biased coverage can shape public opinion, often painting an incomplete or one-sided picture of the subject in question.
Gatekeeping bias
Gatekeeping bias (also known as selectivity or selection bias) is the deliberate choice to feature specific stories while neglecting others.
This can be based on ideological grounds, personal beliefs, or even the perceived interests of the target audience.
So, a media organization might prioritize stories that align with its editorial stance and ideology, sidelining opposing viewpoints.
Here, the media’s focus might be on specific political actors, giving prominence to those whose policy issues align with the outlet’s preferences. At the same time, those with differing views might find their voices diminished or excluded.
For example, if a media outlet consistently covers violent crimes but ignores positive community events, it could create the impression that the world is more dangerous than it actually is. Similarly, a news outlet focusing on celebrity gossip while neglecting critical global issues could lead to a misinformed and apathetic public.
Such selective reporting can influence the public’s understanding of events, issues, or individuals, leading to a narrow or biased worldview.
False balance
False balance occurs when the media presents an issue as being more balanced between opposing viewpoints than the evidence supports.
This often happens in an attempt to appear neutral or unbiased.
For instance, if the vast majority of scientists agree on a particular issue (like climate change), but a news segment presents both the majority view and the minority view as equally valid or gives them equal publicity, it’s creating a false balance.
False balance can be particularly problematic because it can mislead the public into thinking there’s more disagreement or controversy about an issue than there actually is.
It manifests the media’s sometimes misguided pursuit of “objectivity” by giving both sides of an issue equal weight, even when the evidence heavily favors one side.
How to distinguish media coverage from reality
In an era where information is abundant (while its authenticity is often questionable), developing skills to discern media representation from actual events is crucial.
Here are a few tips to help you distinguish media coverage from reality:
1. Critical thinking
Engage with the news actively, diving deeper than just the headlines. Challenge a news story’s basic premises and consider the motivations behind its presentation.
Every media outlet operates within a set of influences, such as advertisers, political affiliations, or societal trends. Recognizing these motivations can explain why specific stories are highlighted while others are downplayed.
Always remember: the real world often operates in shades of gray, so question absolutes and seek context.
2. Fact-checking
While fact-checking websites are invaluable, developing your own fact-checking instincts is essential.
Cross-reference stories with multiple sources. If a particular detail is only mentioned in one place and nowhere else, it’s worth digging deeper.
And always be wary of absolute statements in the news. They usually don’t reflect reality.
3. Diversifying your news sources
Mass media are not our primary source of news consumption nowadays. In the age of digital algorithms, it’s easy to get trapped in an echo chamber where you only hear views similar to yours.
So, seek reputable news sources from different regions, political leanings, and mediums.
A story in an international newspaper might have a different angle than one in a local publication. By diversifying, you’re getting different opinions and a fuller picture.
4. Engaging in open discussions
Another effective way to discern media coverage from reality is to engage in discussions with diverse groups of people.
Whether it’s family, friends, colleagues, or online communities, discussing current events can provide multiple perspectives you might not have considered.
It’s not about agreeing with everyone but understanding the different ways people interpret and react to the same piece of news.
These discussions can highlight biases, uncover overlooked details, and even challenge your own preconceptions.
Conclusion
The media plays a crucial role in our lives by informing us and shaping how we see the world. But, as we saw, that doesn’t mean it’s reliable.
Media biases are all around us on a daily basis.
And we are bombarded with information that, as you now know, creates a false sense of reality.
That doesn’t mean the news is useless or that you should stop following it altogether.
It’s more of a reminder that we must constantly question what we consume and be more deliberate with how we consume it.
Let’s not also forget that reality is what’s happening in our lives, not only on a screen.
So maybe it’s better to give some more attention to that.
