Debates in communications studies have become concerned with the legitimacy of mass media—especially print journalism. This literature review takes a multi-dimensional approach to the struggle to obtain objectivity in communications. Firstly, Daniel Sutter’s (2004) News Media Incentives, Coverage of Government, and the Growth of Government and Daniel Sutter’s (2001) Can The Media Be So Liberal? The Economics of Media Bias present an economic view of the affects of media bias. Secondly, Robert A. Hackett’s (1984) Decline of a Paradigm? Bias and Objectivity in News Media Studies and Jim A. Kuypers’s (2002) Press Bias, Politics, and the Media Manipulation of Controversial Issues provide an overview regarding the social ramifications of media bias. Lastly, Druckman and Parkin (2005) The Impact of Media Bias How Editorial Slant Affects Voters deconstruct the results media bias can have in changing mass opinions. The central focus of this literature review is the assessment of media bias. Media bias can significantly alter the scope of the political spectrum.

What is Media Bias?

Media Bias at its Best

Sutter’s (2004) News Media Incentives, Coverage of Government, and the Growth of Government evaluates the business-minded influence of liberal bias in mass media. Sutter (2004) analyzes market share and its influence in profit maximization with respect to media coverage and objectivity (p. 552). Sutter (2004) accentuates that the methods used to gather information affect the result, or content of the issue. He examines “whether the news media or news-gathering techniques indirectly and perhaps inadvertently favor the growth of government” (Sutter, 2004, p. 550). Sutter (2004) states that media bias can be categorized into two different types of bias—direct bias and indirect bias. In his analysis of media bias, he proceeds that direct bias must be avoided by media due to the “[reduction of] the audience and revenues of news organizations” (Sutter, 2004, p. 550) which would then receive attention in contrast with indirect bias that occurs when very little attention is given to the potential manipulation of information that goes “unnoticed and unchecked” (Sutter, 2004, p. 550). Sutter (2004) evaluates the influence of government control over reporting accuracy.

Background of Media Bias

The research methods Sutter (2004) uses are strictly hard evidence of quantitative research and inquiry. Earlier in his critique of liberal bias, Sutter (2004) states that, “I am an economist by training, not a journalist, and thus I rely on secondary evidence concerning reporting, not personal observation” (p. 550). He uses a multitudinous array of surveys and polls to distinguish between government influence on mass media and biasness emanating from improper journalistic practises. His concern regards the expansion of mainstream media which he catalogues the development of issues from the 1970s up until 2004. Furthermore, with extensive quantitative analysis, Sutter (2004) notes the lack of government reporting and an increase in gratuitous information such as entertainment.

Sutter (2004) concludes that the media must employ significant efforts to gain the proper information for accurate reporting; however, that is not the case argues Sutter (2004). Futhermore, Sutter (2004) stresses that the media’s goal is to maximize their profits and will not jeopardize it to gain accurate information; the media will take whatever means to save profits by citing government sources due to their accessibility even at the cost of objectivity in media reportage.

Sutter’s (2001) Can The Media Be So Liberal? The Economics of Media Bias deconstructs the impact of monopoly, or conglomerate influence on several media outlets. Rather than analysing the effect of media bias, Sutter (2001) “[asks] what might generate and sustain a liberal news media” (p. 432). Sutter (2001) examines the pressures that hinder the survival of liberal bias in conglomerates. Sutter (2001) asks two questions that become the basis for his concern: “Is the source of bias on the demand (news consumer) or supply side of the news market? […] do profit-maximizing owners allow their reporters to indulge their liberal views at the organization’s expense?” (p. 432). He concludes that liberal bias severely influences profit-maximization “The news industry will almost certainly feature organizations catering to a range of political perspective” (Sutter, 2001, p. 433).

Sutter (2001) carefully outlines his critique through the use of content analysis. Sutter (2001) primarily analysed content on the basis of quantitative research breaking down the structure of conglomerate influence on liberal bias. His analysis included the synthesis of calculated percentages along with several surveys and polls. Sutter (2001) utilized any form of quantifiable information gathering to prove his case. For example, through his quantitative research, Sutter (2001) found that a significant majority of articles published by Washington journalists were 51% unedited.

Sutter (2001) maintains that the method of news gathering dramatically effects content of a published work. Media partisanship hinders fairness: “Fairness in reporting always allows government officials to be quoted and thus to provide their spin on events” (Sutter, 2001, p. 449). Sutter (2001) critiques that for liberal bias to survive there must be careful consideration about the content of the article (p. 449).

Consequences of Media Bias

The central concern of Hackett’s (1984) Decline of a Paradigm? Bias and Objectivity in News Media Studies analysis lies in the deconstructing process of mass media and its relationship to political inquiry and the critique of media bias. Hackett’s (1984) essay deconstructs three key assumptions which are:

1) the news can and ought to be objective, balanced and a reflection of social reality; 2) the political attitudes of journalists or editorial decision-makers are a major determinant of news bias; 3) bias in news content can be detected with existing reading methods; 4) the most important form of bias is partisanship (p. 229).

Firstly, Hackkett (1984) reviews journalistic ethics and compares it to past methodological inquiries to present exploitations of mass media concluding that: “In journalistic practice, the goals of balance and accuracy (non-distortion) may not always be compatible,” (p. 230). Secondly, he notes the undeniable influence of 1) political partnership, 2) advertisers, and 3) editorial decision-makers (Hackett, 1984, p. 229). Following his second assumption, his third analysis regards the detection procedures necessary to avoid bias inferences in media.

Hackett’s (1984) research methods are extensive, however not exhaustive, partly due to his reliance on textual evidence. He proposes that content analysis is “usually quantitative” (241). After suggesting the content analysis method of message decoding, Hackett (1984) compliments it with their obvious disadvantage while stating its relevance to media such as television and some aspects of literature. Following content analysis, Hackett (1984) suggests that researchers must view material on the basis of semiotic deconstruction. Hackett (1984) explicitly notes that, “the message intended may not be the message received” (p. 243). Hackett (1984) says that qualitative methods be used and repeatedly de-coded and re-coded.

Hackett (1984) concludes that a quantitative approach to media analysis is helpful, however a qualitative approach such content analysis and semiotic deconstructions help to pin-point media bias in politics.

Kuypers’s (2002) ) Press Bias, Politics, and the Media Manipulation of Controversial Issues analyzes media bias in politics. Throughout the article, Kuypers (2001) tracks the history of media ethics from its past ethical grounds to a more conscious agenda-setting, goal-oriented manipulative behaviour. In his thesis, Kuypers (2002) states, “I believe the press exhibits an easy willingness to advance its own ideals concerning appropriate public policy” (p. 202). He believes that the entire purpose of mass media is to utilize frames through the use of “certain keywords, metaphors, concepts, and symbols” (p. 199) which work together to establish the relevancy of one issue over another.

Framing and Media Bias

Framing occurs when the media emphasizes one political viewpoint over another that subsequently promotes an agenda-setting biased media coverage (Kuypers, 2002, p. 199). Moving forward, Kuypers’s (2002) analyses an ideologically reinforced liberal bias, although stresses: “What is of concern here is not that the bias is liberal, but that such a bias is so extensively present throughout the institution” (p. 203). Kuypers (2002) emphasizes the difficulty of objectivity and condemns agenda-set bias outlooks on controversial issues. Kuypers’s (2002) encompass both quantitative and qualitative sourcing. Through the uses six historical case studies plus endless diagrams and compiled statistics from polls, surveys, interviews, and government sourcing to further put forward his emphasis on frames developed by media. Kuypers’s (2002) case studies were meticulous in their deconstruction of the values placed by the named individuals above how the media subsequently relied to it through rhetoric, bias, and misleading ideas. Following up on the case studies, Kuypers (2002) utilizes surveys and polls to draw public opinion into supporting his ideas. Kuypers (2002) found that press coverage ran under the cloak of a definite agenda whereby the media manipulated its own people on controversial issues.

Druckman and Parkin’s (2005) The Impact of Media Bias How Editorial Slant Affects Voters discuss how media bias in editorial content can potentially influence voting decisions. Central to their concern are the ramifications this would have on the democratic principles of free choice (Druckman & Parkin, 2005, p. 1030). Druckman and Parkin (2005):

expect that relative editorial slant influences voters. Newspaper coverage constitutes a primary source of information for voters during Senate campaigns. There is therefore good reason to expect that the type of coverage will impact voters’ candidate perceptions and, ultimately, their vote choices. (p. 1032)

In their analysis of the media bias, they categorize their organization in three steps: 1) whether editorial slant is important, 2) deconstructing media bas “literature by studying relative slant” (Druckman & Parkin, 2005, p. 1031), and 3) the influence of editorial slant on voters (Druckman & Parkin, 2005, p. 1031-1032). Druckman & Parkin (2005) critique the development assess the accuracy of individual voting on particular issues.

Druckman and Parkin (2005) use an astounding tactic to test their critique of editorial slant and its affect on voters. Firstly, before their entire study begins, they analyze the population by deconstructing, through questionairres and surveys their: age, sex, martial status, education, level of interest in politics, annual income, political identification (i.e. republican, independent or democrat). After gathering an exit poll, Druckman and Parkin (2005) initiate “[a] team of content analyzers [to analyze] two papers everyday from September 13th (the day after the primary election) through November 7th (Election Day), resulting in an analysis of 112 newspapers” (p. 1036). Essentially, Druckman and Parkin (2005) note that “Our coders coded each article for a number of characteristics including length, position, soundbites, and overall focus or frame” (p. 1036). After tabulating their statistics: “Coders also analyzed the content of each story by coding each paragraph as covering any of 28 issues (e.g., defense, social security), 11 candidate personal/image characteristics (e.g., leadership, integrity, empathy), and/or 13 strategic elements (e.g., poll results, ads, fundraising), noting, in each case, the candidate focus” (Druckman & Parkin, 2005, p. 1037). Furthermore, Druckman and Parkin (2005) state that “we focus on a single campaign in a single market with two competing, editorially distinct newspapers. Combining comprehensive content analyses of the papers with an Election Day exit poll, we assess slant and its effects on voters” (p. 1031). Druckman and Parkin (2005) clearly conducted a comprehensive analysis of the current issue they are trying to put forward which significantly provided them praise for their contribution.

From their analysis, Druckman and Parkin (2005) conclude that “We [found] concrete evidence that relative editorial slant can influence voters” (p. 1047). The affect of editorial slanting significantly alters the message invoked in various newspapers (Druckman & Parkin, 2005, p. 1047).

Through a careful assessment of the aforementioned sources, the source which utilized the most effective research methods would have to be Druckman and Parkin (2005) for several reasons. Firstly, before going into the study, they performed an exit poll to quantify the preferances or political spectrums associated by their two comparison groups—The Star Tribute and St. Paul Pioneer Press in their coverage of the 2000 Minnesota Senate Campaign. Secondly, they gathered a team of content analyzers for the purpose of deconstructing newspaper affiliations. They were distinguished and creative in their methods of quantifying public opinion, thereby strengthening their critique that relative editorial slant, or media bias, significantly alters the result of any campaign.

Sutter (2004) and Sutter (2001) were limited in his discussion because his research methods were proper, however lacking in insight. Due to his singular deconstruction of media bias through an economic lens, Sutter basically eliminated an entire category of qualitative evidence. Furthermore, Sutter (2001) used very outdated sources to prove his case. Considering his lack of present sourcing, his decision to look for sources of twenty to thirty years of age emphasized his lack of evidence because of how he connected to the present—the past is definitely not the same as the present.

Kuypers (2002) uses commendable research methods. Kuypers (2002) deconstructed six case studies through a comparative method of how the message was represented and how the media altered its message. As far as any critic would describe Kuypers’s work, this is a significant contribution to the debate of objectivity.

Hackett’s (1984) analysis of media bias was outdated, although the concepts of objectivity and the ways in which media bias develops were not. He dismisses anything quantitative and primarily concerns his critique with qualitative evidence, which is not preferable especially for those who seek hard evidence.

Moving forward, with these sources as evidence of the dangerous ramifications media bias can have, Druckman and Parkin (2005) were correct in their analysis of what it would mean to democracy if media bias went on its path.