There have actually been some very interesting attempts at quantifying media bias over the years. (Rule #1: Every media outlet has a bias, it’s just a question of magnitude and direction.) The problem is that such research usually suffers from the very same problem -- bias. Edith Effron’s 1968 study The News Twisters purported to show U.S. television network news coverage was biased against presidential candidate Richard Nixon, ranging from 9-1 on ABC, 10-1 on NBC, and 16-1 on CBS. Scholarly replications of her research, however, shot gaping holes in her methodology. There was an interesting book published by UBC Press a few years ago titled Hidden Agendas. You can read my review of it at http://www.marcedge.com/hidden%20agendas.pdf Here’s a hint: Any time the authors cite Mein Kampf as a source, you probably have a pretty good indication of their bias. The Project for Excellence in Journalism did a nice study of media bias in the most recent U.S. presidential election that can be found at
http://www.journalism.org/node/13436 This is the type of research that needs to be done in Canada. The well-funded Canadian Media Research Consortium, using millions of dollars in so-called Public Benefits money provided under the auspices of the CRTC as the price tag of media takeovers, has been seemingly reluctant to do so. I was critical in Asper Nation of its attempt to lay public concern over media bias at the feet of journalists while absolving owners. I was interested to see its recent five-year update of that research, which at least added ownership concerns to the mix. Check that out at http://www.cmrcccrm.ca/documents/TheCredibilityGapMay08.pdf Next, perhaps they will start asking questions about the direction of perceived bias, as the PEJ did.

Very interesting perspective Deborah. I understand your frustration, and even though Marc has done a great job, it is difficult to quantify bias on a subject as esoteric and ambiguous as politics. Talking politics is like talking sports, opinions are mostly based on he said she said conjecture. You can't prove much in this forum, but there are other areas where media bias is much easier to identify, and I've been doing it for years.

I've addressed media bias in my book (Leverage Olympic Momentum) and blog (OlyBLOG.com) for almost five years respective of how local news media in Vancouver report 2010 Olympics information.

I occasionally use a strategy called "adopt-a-reporter." It's very simple. All I do is monitor a reporter, and when I see him or her publish half-truths, I reverse engineer their work and explain to readers how the reporter arrived at their conclusion, or I describe the overall message promoted, and usually why they left information out, which is often the most telling bias. Basically, I present the other side of the story in a clear well documented manner and leave it to the consumer to draw their own conclusions. News media rarely answers "why," and instead obsess on the who, what, when, and where parts. Why? Because answering "why" often makes it hard to hide bias. The day after 9-11 I wanted to know why, but Bush refused to answer and media played along. Once you know why, it's usually easier to figure out who.

In five years, not one local mainstream news media company or reporter has challenged my accusations of bias in their publications. However, they do occasionally and unexpectedly phone to make rude comments about my intellectual capacity. And when calling me an "idiot" doesn't get a rise they resort to intimidation by threatening to use the resources of their entire media company to undermine my credibility.

I wouldn't mind the threats at all if they used the resources of their company to prove me wrong, but to simply leverage their power in an effort to destroy my credibility is completely unethical. Some might argue my accusations have no merit and a news company should not address fluff for fear of giving it credance, but now that many of the predictions in my book came to fruition their intimidation and insults only serve to underscore their integrity.

If you are accused of unfair bias, either take the person to court and prove defamation, or defend yourself in your publication. If you do neither, consumers will assume you are guilty. BTW, everyone has some bias, so it is important to clearly state yours each time you wield it. The real question though is whether you use bias unfairly.

News must be reported in a timely manner, and not when it serves the economic purpose of the news media company.

Bias is also defined by what reporters DO NOT report, and by the tone, and WHEN they report the information.

It is not healthy or ethical for an advertiser to be a news media partner because it becomes too easy to surreptitiously wield influence. There must be separation, which is why voters want to know exactly who contributes to a candidate's election fund. Also, when a newspaper is paid by an Olympic organization using taxpayer funds, the news media company has an ethical responsibility to identify their bias on each relevant article they publish or air. If CTV, Visa, and Coca-Cola use the 5 Rings to identify their bias, all news media companies with a financial relationship should be required to do likewise.

Finally, if reporters are really sick of unfounded accusations, the next time you see real bias, call the offending REPORTER out in public in YOUR publication.

I realize it's hard to do, but if reporters quit looking the other way and take ownership and responsibility for your industry your reputation will improve immensely. You might even save a few jobs.

News consumers should not be told what they want to hear, but instead what they need to hear.

Just became aware of this site via the Levant-Miller dust-up. Am especially interested in how/where to set limits on freedom of expression. So, it looks like I'll be spending quite a bit of time here.

Regarding media bias, I'm curious to know the views of this site's denizens about Ann Coulter's book "Slander: Liberal Lies About the American Right". I know she's a polarizing (and polarized) figure. But many of her arguments -- backed up by statistics from LEXIS-NEXIS and elsewhere -- were convincing. Was she right? Were her research methods sound? Has anybody written a similar book addressing Canadian media political bias? Do the Canadian Journalism Project or our major media organizations routinely collect similar statistics -- like Coulter's and the CBC's statistics from the recent election coverage? Why would major media organizations bother? Was the CBC the only (major) media organization to incur that cost? What motivated them?

What about the interpretation of those statistics? The CBC report "defends" the negative Conservative coverage as typical for the incumbent governing party but no proof (previous election stat's) was presented in the interim report.

Finally, the report does not address advertising content nor the CBC's policies affecting balance there.

The post that Marc Edge refers to in his comment links to his own media critic blog. In his blog, he discusses the issue and also quotes a Globe and Mail column by Rick Salutin. Both Edge and Salutin back up their allegations of Conservative bias in mainstream media, and they do so coherently. They don't just SCREAM that there's bias in Canada's mainstream media: they carefully say why they think it's so, encouraging readers to think it through. In my books, that's the kind of media criticism that's useful, constructive, and welcome. IMO it's the screamers (about any topic, from any point of view) who stink up a room and prevent real debate.
Edge's blog post is here: http://canadianmediacritic.blogspot.com/2008/11/get-used-to-tory-governments.html

He asn't the only one to make the observation.

http://canadianmediacritic.blogspot.com/2008/11/get-used-to-tory-governments.html