Skip to main content

Can You Recognize Media Bias?

Bias often doesn't manifest itself through bald-faced lying. That is much too easy to counter and much too costly to the source's credibility.  Often it is carefully injected into media through loaded language and incomplete reporting of important details. A prime example of this is an AP report published by Snopes.com, entitled "Attorney General Launches 'Religious Liberty Task Force'" 

Here are some of the highlights:

The article claims that Session's statement, "nuns were being forced to buy contraceptives" is "not fully accurate," but it leaves that accusation hanging, with no supporting evidence or argument. We're supposed to believe that it's not accurate for the mere fact that the AP says it isn't. So, really, the writer is just voicing an unsubstantiated emotional opinion on Session's terminology.

At one point it describes Christian belief as "religious dogma." Show me a case where this term is anything but derogatory and antagonistic. It's a clear and shameless attempt to ensure that readers will, through a default emotional reaction, pick sides against sincerely held Christian belief.

The article states that Sessions "praised a Colorado baker who refused to make a cake for a same-sex couple." This statement is technically accurate, much like if I were to tell you that "Agent Orange is an effective herbicide developed and used by the US government." That statement is completely accurate, but it is also misleading because it is vague and leaves some very important details out. You probably want to know before you start spraying Agent Orange on the cracks in your driveway that it is has been banned due to the millions of deaths and vast numbers of terrible diseases for which it is responsible. The wording in this AP article is vague enough that it withstands any accusation of error while allowing the reader's emotional biases to determine (especially if they are otherwise uninformed about the case) their understanding of the facts. Yes, Jack Phillips refused to decorate a cake for a same-sex couple in this specific instance. But, not because they were a same-sex couple. He had served them in the past. He refused to decorate (though he would have sold them the cake to decorate themselves) a cake that communicated a message (celebrating a gay wedding) to which he objected. It's the same reason that he doesn't make "Happy Halloween" cakes.  Now, you may not like his views, but reason compels us to see the distinction between what the AP article is trying to imply (that Phillips doesn't serve gay people) and reality (he simply doesn't create cakes for messages that go against his belief system.)

The above are clear signs of bias from a news organization that is supposed to be one of the most unbiased in the nation, yet any freshman English student would lose marks for turning in this sort of biased writing.

The last two observations might not be undeniably clear, but I still think they are worth considering.

First is the final paragraph of the article which includes the observation that Sessions is "a Methodist and a former Senator from Alabama." Why include where he is from and his denominational affiliation? They have little to do with the actual content of the story. I think it's to connect the dots in the reader's minds between the culture's built-in stereotype of southern Bible-thumping "bitter-clingers," and advocating for religious liberty.

Finally, if you look at the piece in its entirety, it uses "rights" only in reference to LGBT issues and to voice the opinion that Christians are emphasizing their own rights over non-Christian religions. The entire rest of the article refers to religious freedom, beliefs, convictions, and liberty, but never "rights." These are subtle distinctions to be sure, but the term "right" has in our culture an absolute quality that makes it effective to juxtapose "religious convictions" against "LGBT rights." That word choice presupposes who should have priority. One article might not do much to sway someone's thinking, but over time, and hundreds of instances, I believe it has an effect.

The point of this little exercise isn't to hate on "fake news." It's certainly not to suggest, as many have done, that we should flush Snopes and the AP and go find news that is biased the other direction in our favor. We simply need to be able to clearly identify instances of how media attempts to sway our opinion by manipulating emotions rather than providing sound supporting arguments. It is vitally important that we cultivate our ability to recognize these attempts and make sure that we can counter emotional manipulation with concrete, well-reasoned, factual thinking.

Popular posts from this blog

Why Don't I Talk More About Revelation?

There is a reason that I don't spend a lot of time talking about the Book of Revelation. Because, for whatever reason, people will thrust aside or trample scores of clear, concise, and unmistakable Biblical principles and passages, scrambling to pin down some obscure interpretation of Revelation.

Revelation is God's word. We should treat it as such, by reading and attempting to understand it. However, end times discussions themselves tend to have a lot in common with politics. Once the topic comes up, it steamrolls everything else, people start spouting more unsubstantiated opinions than can be counted, and no one really learns anything of real value.

We could put it this way. There are 31,102 verses in the entire Bible. There are 404 verses in Revelation. That means that Revelation makes up a little over 1% of the Bible.

Clearly, it would be reaching too far to suggest that a dogmatic formula for connecting the size of a book and the time a Christians spends in it. However, i…

You're Not as Right as You Think You Are

What does it mean to be so convinced that your opinion, judgment, or intuition is right that you can't conceive of any intelligent person disagreeing?

It means that you lack epistemic humility - regular humility's rarely discussed, mostly abandoned, stepbrother.

Epistemic humility is difficult because it comes with this simple acknowledgment: "I could be wrong." For many, that is an unbearable thought, especially when it relates to the ideas that are near and dear to our hearts. It brings psychological and emotional pain, even to the point of triggering the physiological "fight or flight" instinct designed for life and death situations.

Humans want to believe that we have an accurate and complete perception of how the world works. When that desire for certainty meets the uncertainty of our own fallibility, we are left with a vacuum that we are tempted to fill with dogmatism.

Dogmatism pushes us to devalue others for the sake of elevating our own feelings of…

Wrong Arguments on the Right Side

“I strongly object to wrong arguments on the right side. I think I object to them more than to the wrong arguments on the wrong side.”  - G. K. ChestertonIn an observation that surprises no one who is paying attention, it turns out that today's Evangelical Christianity not only tolerates many wrong arguments, but often embraces and celebrates them. Yet, the one who dares to point them out risks the intense enmenty of members of the Evangelical/Conservative tribe. I will save you the particulars of the incident that most recently and painfully reemphasized this truth in my own life, but it is a problem that threatens to undermine the integrity of any ideology or movement. 
As Christians, we should select our arguments with the discriminating taste of a fine chef choosing ingredients for her signature dish. We don't choose ones that are "probably okay" or "good enough." We ought to choose only the best and reject the others, while abandoning any previously h…