Media Bias

If you follow journalism, you've likely heard that two big media personalities were dropped today: Tucker Carlson (Foxnews) and Don Lemon (CNN). This is a good time to talk about bias in the media, looking at it through the lens of these two high-profile departures.

Bias means prejudice for or against something or someone. Bias distorts how we look at everything and often impacts where we go for information. We all have bias—more on that below—so it is important to understand. The news is a good place to begin.

Popular News Sites

Where do Americans get their news? The Press Gazette (a UK company) recently showed data from 'similarweb' about the most popular news websites; here is a screenshot of that ranking:

I will look at the top three American sites and top foreign site (BBC) in this post.

Bias in News Sites

At least two companies produce media bias charts, showing the spectrum of news sources with their respective biases. Of course, the company producing the charts are themselves biased; nevertheless, they are transparent about their methods and consult sources from all over the spectrum. It is not perfect, but a starting point. 

Ad Fontes produces an "interactive media bias chart" that they keep updated. I used some filters (you can see them on the left) to make it easier to read and focus on websites:

The New York Times hard to see (it is buried under CNN); so is BBC (buried under CBS News). From the chart, it shows these three as "skews left" and Foxnews as "skews/hard right." 

Allsides also produces a media bias chart:

It shows BBC in the center, with NYT/CNN on the skews left and Foxnews on the hard right.

From these, it is clear that CNN and Foxnews are left and right, respectively, on the spectrum. So how did each of these outlets cover the Tucker Carlson and Don Lemon stories, respectively? Since the websites are dynamic, I display screen shots below, but I also provide hyperlinks where possible.

New York Times

The NYT headlines make it sound like both Tucker and Don were fired from their respective companies, though it used softer language with Tucker. Note, however, that its headline for Don included how Don felt about it; it did not give Tucker's reaction. Tucker's was featured more prominently. (I would include links to the articles themselves if I had a NYT subscription.)

CNN

CNN made Lemon's departure sound mutual ("part ways"), and was focused on Carlson's departure with stronger language (though it did not say "fired", leaving ambiguity about that). They also made Tucker's the largest headline. The article itself says little more, though it speculates he was fired. It then goes on to argue that Tucker had used his platform to 'spew' his right-wing views and portrays him in a largely negative light.

Lemon's article on CNN admits he was ousted, and then focuses on Lemon's reaction to it. Later in the article, it provides the reason why, but caveats that he was sorry and about to take training.

Foxnews

Foxnews had both Tucker and Don's article under the main headline, with Carlson's appearing first. His article provides no information on whether he was fired or left voluntarily, and it says nothing about why. Lemon's article, on the other hand, goes into a lot of detail about the fighting between him and CNN, and what Lemon did that led to his ouster.

BBC

BBC's headline for Carlson makes it sounds like he chose to walk away (the article presents stats about Tucker's popularity and highlights). The headline for Lemon doesn't mention his name and focuses on his reaction to being fired (the article focuses on the contentiousness between him and CNN, and his acts leading to his ouster).

Reflections

From these brief snippets, the bias is pretty evident, though at times conflicting/confusing. The host networks (CNN/Foxnews) were rather kind to their own and harsher to their competitor's. It is telling that CNN's top headline was Carlson's firing. (Those two networks report a good deal on each other.) For the NYT and BBC, I see mixed biases. In some ways, they are kinder to Carlson (it's not even clear that he was fired), but in others, they focus on Lemon's reaction vs. the event itself.

From the headlines alone, it is clear that each source wants you to think or feel a certain way. These are reinforced by the articles. In a few cases, they stuck to the facts, but in others, they highlighted positive or negative aspects of these two personalities while ignoring or downplaying the opposite.

Why does this matter? As my grandmother used to say, consider the source. While impossible to escape all bias—the person I trust the least is the one who claims to be unbiased—being aware of the bias (in the media or yourself or anyone else) is the first step. It also shows why it is important to read different sources and consider different perspectives. The truth is out there . . . but it is hard to find sometimes.