Media Bias USA

Fake News and Echo chambers

Television remains a key source of news, but the Internet and social media are quickly changing how we receive information. In 2011, the news of Osama bin Laden's capture and death first broke on Twitter. By 2016, two-thirds of Facebook users, which amounts to nearly 44 percent of Americans, accessed some news via the platform. This raised concerns when it was discovered that many false news stories circulated on Facebook and other social media during the 2016 presidential election. For instance, a fabricated story claiming Pope Francis endorsed Donald Trump garnered over 960,000 interactions, while another false story about Hillary Clinton selling weapons to ISIS received a similar response. Although both stories were untrue, they may have swayed some voters. The events of 2016 are not isolated; social media is now a significant news source, even competing with television. Almost twice as many adults get their news online compared to those who read print newspapers. Additionally, mobile phones and tablets are taking over from desktops and laptops for online news, suggesting further changes ahead. The media landscape is evolving significantly each year.

Framing and Agenda setting

Framing describes how the media presents a story, influencing public perception by highlighting certain aspects while downplaying others. For instance, if you're unsure about whether the U.S. should boost oil and gas production, a news report focusing on job creation could sway you to support it. Conversely, a report emphasizing environmental damage might lead you to oppose the expansion. This selective framing—balancing job benefits against environmental risks—plays a significant role in shaping opinions.

Framing is a crucial media effect, affecting how individuals understand issues and their attitudes. While it can change opinions, the impact is often moderate since most media outlets strive for balance by presenting multiple viewpoints. In the oil drilling example, both job creation and environmental concerns are usually discussed, diminishing the overall effect of either frame.

However, framing can have stronger effects in cases where the media leans toward one side. For example, since 9/11, the media has heavily covered the anti-terrorism efforts, particularly balancing security needs with civil liberties. This was particularly evident in 2013 when Edward Snowden leaked information about the National Security Agency's extensive surveillance programs. A comprehensive analysis of media coverage shows that how these programs are framed tends to increase support for government surveillance. Many reports focus on the programs' successes in enhancing safety, while fewer highlight violations of civil liberties. This leads to greater public backing for surveillance measures than might otherwise exist.

Nevertheless, this influence has its limits. Following Snowden’s disclosures and the public response, Congress passed the USA Freedom Act in 2015, which reduced the collection of phone records. Public opinion on this issue has also changed over time, showing that media is just one factor affecting beliefs. While framing does have an impact, as discussed throughout the chapter, it is not the sole force at play.

Similarly, media framing can diminish support for public assistance programs. Reports often spotlight waste and fraud, focusing on individuals who misuse these services. Although such abuses are less common than suggested by media coverage, reporting them creates the perception that they are widespread. This aligns with the media's role as a watchdog but can lead to an exaggerated belief in the extent of problems within public assistance systems.

These examples are meant to highlight that legitimate security threats exist that can warrant surveillance, as well as the potential for abuse in public assistance programs. Some level of monitoring is indeed necessary for protection against terrorism, and there are instances of fraud in public assistance. However, the issue arises when media coverage presents only a partial view, favoring one perspective over another. It’s crucial to understand both sides to make well-informed decisions. For example, when considering the implications of increased drilling, we should evaluate both the economic benefits and environmental risks. Similarly, when consuming news on various subjects, it is essential to critically assess not just what information is shared but also what may be omitted.

Some people believe that mass media can control public opinion, making individuals focus on issues that aren’t truly significant. While this can occur, it is not very common. More often, the media highlights issues based on significant events happening in the world. For instance, when authorities thwart a terrorist attack, media coverage increases, leading to heightened public concern about terrorism. Similarly, during California's severe drought in recent years, media attention on the issue rose, prompting voters to view it as more critical. Thus, while media does influence the public agenda, this influence is shaped by real-world events.

Some readers interpret concepts like agenda-setting as suggesting that media holds undue power over the public, implying that if the media labels issue X as important, the public will follow suit. However, this perspective is overly simplistic. In reality, the general public makes more nuanced judgments, deducing that if a topic receives media coverage, it must hold significance, prompting them to consider it important. This highlights that agenda-setting reflects active engagement with the news rather than passive acceptance.

In addition to shaping the political agenda, media also affects how the public evaluates political leaders, a process known as priming. Priming builds on the idea of agenda-setting. When the media emphasizes an issue, viewers view it as significant. Consequently, they are likely to prioritize that issue when assessing political figures. For example, when considering President Trump’s performance, individuals are likely to focus on current news topics. If there’s been recent media coverage about a struggling economy, they may weigh his actions regarding the economy more heavily. If terrorism dominates the news, evaluations will likely shift toward his handling of that issue. This illustrates priming; as the media highlights certain topics, citizens use these to judge their leaders.

A strong example of priming occurred during George W. Bush’s presidency. Before September 11, approval ratings for Bush were closely linked to his handling of the economy. However, after the attacks—and the resulting increased media focus on terrorism—public assessments of his performance in that area became more significant. Likewise, following the 2008 financial crisis, public opinion on the president became more closely related to his economic management.

Just as with agenda-setting, the concept of priming does not imply that voters are easily misled by the media. Instead, viewers interpret media coverage as an indicator of an issue’s importance and base their political evaluations on that. In fact, it is often more informed viewers who are influenced by priming effects. These viewers understand how to apply information from media reports in their assessments of politicians.