Media Bias Seems Greater When You Care About The Issue

Media bias seems greater when you hold stronger beliefs about the subject, psychological research finds.

media bias

Media bias seems greater when you hold stronger beliefs about the subject, psychological research finds.

Media bias is a bias among journalists and news producers that affects which news stories they report and how they choose to report them.

Some of the most common ways in which media bias occurs are:

  • Mainstream bias: the bias to report the same stories other outlets are reporting.
  • Corporate bias: reporting stories that please the owners of media.
  • Statement bias: when coverage is biased either for or against particular issues or actors (for example, political coverage).

There are many more types of media bias.

Media bias certainly exists in the media: in fact it would be a miracle if it were permanently and perfectly balanced, that isn’t what this article is about.

Instead, this is about how you and I perceive the presence or absence of bias in the media.

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.

Media bias and the Beirut massacre

Robert P. Vallone and colleagues from Stanford University invited 144 Stanford undergrads who held a variety of views on the continuing Arab-Israeli conflict to watch some of the news coverage of the Beirut massacre (Vallone et al., 1985).

The Beirut massacre was the killing of between 328 and 3,500 Palestinian and Lebanese civilians by Lebanese militia forces in September 1982.

At the time the story received huge media coverage around the world with much speculation about whether Israeli forces had allowed it to happen (a subsequent commission held the Israeli government indirectly responsible).

Some of the participants recruited for the study were moderate in their initial views, others were specifically recruited from both the pro-Arab and pro-Israeli student associations.

Each was asked for their views about the conflict, its history and where their sympathies lay.

Here’s what they found:

  • 68 were pro-Israeli,
  • 27 were pro-Arab,
  • 49 had mixed feelings.

All the participants then watched a series of news segments taken from US networks (NBC, ABC and CBS).

Afterwards they were asked to rate whether overall it was for or against Israel.

They used a scale of 1 (heavy pro-Arab bias) to 9 (heavy pro-Israel bias) where a rating of 5 was fair and impartial.

The results

Here are the average ratings for the news coverage from each group:

  • Pro-Israeli: 2.9 (perceived a marked pro-Arab bias)
  • Neutral: 3.8 (perceived a slight pro-Arab bias)
  • Pro-Arab: 6.7 (perceived a marked pro-Israeli bias)

As you can see the pro-Israeli participants thought the news reports were biased against Israel while the pro-Arab participants thought the news reports were biased against Arabs.

This is impressive because everyone was watching exactly the same news reports.

Even more surprising was that each thought that when someone neutral saw the coverage, it would persuade them to side with the opposite position.

Notice that those who claimed to be neutral thought the coverage had a slight pro-Arab bias.

This could be a hint of actual media bias or could be just an unacknowledged bias in those initially declaring themselves neutral.

Causes of the hostile media bias phenomenon

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.

Admitting media bias

Whether the news actually is biased in one particular outlet about an issue that you care about can be very hard to quantify.

What we can say from this study is that people who care about a particular issue will tend to find media bias everywhere, whether or not it really exists.

Not only that but they are unlikely to admit this fact to themselves since this study, amongst others, also shows how remarkably resistant we are to admitting to our own biases, even when they are categorically demonstrated to us.


Author: Jeremy Dean

Psychologist, Jeremy Dean, PhD is the founder and author of PsyBlog. He holds a doctorate in psychology from University College London and two other advanced degrees in psychology. He has been writing about scientific research on PsyBlog since 2004. He is also the author of the book "Making Habits, Breaking Habits" (Da Capo, 2013) and several ebooks.

Get free email updates

Join the free PsyBlog mailing list. No spam, ever.