As you’ll recall from Chapters 1 and 2, our own thoughts, opinions, and experiences influence the messages we send as well as the way we interpret the messages we receive. These communication biases are also at work when it comes to mass media. Most scholars agree that media sources—both news and entertainment—express some degree of bias in their viewpoints and in their content. News coverage of a presidential campaign, for example, can be quite different, depending on the political leanings of the network or news organization doing the reporting as well as the personal ideologies of individual reporters, editors, and producers.

In the latter half of the twentieth century, news organizations across the mass media generally expressed commitment to the goal of objectivity—that is, they were primarily concerned with facts and uninfluenced by personal or political bias, prejudice, or interpretation. Although embraced as a laudable goal, both consumers and journalists over the years have questioned whether this goal has been (or even can be) met (Duffy, Thorson, & Vultee, 2009; Figdor, 2010). In any case, today’s media are increasingly embracing more partisan news in order to compete in a crowded marketplace (Groeling, 2013; Iyengar & Hahn, 2009). Cable news networks tend to narrowcast to one viewpoint or another in search of higher ratings, and online news sources represent a wide range of ideologically partial reporting—from the Breitbart series of Web sites on the right to the Huffington Post on the left. Thus the variety of ideologies represented by media today makes it difficult to pin any particular bias on “mainstream” media as a whole.

That does not mean, however, that bias is unimportant. Studies suggest that when presented with coverage of a given issue, partisans of both parties perceive the news to be biased against their own side, especially when they feel a strong personal connection to the issue (Matthes, 2013) or to their party identity (Hartmann & Tanis, 2013). In a nutshell, that means we tend to see those with whom we agree as less biased than those with whom we disagree.

Critics on the right and the left agree that bias in the media is also a function of the economics and constraints of the news-gathering process itself (Farnsworth & Lichter, 2010). The 24/7 news cycle with multiple technological outlets to fill may lead to overreliance on easy sources—particularly spokespersons for government or interest groups. Journalists must also simplify complex issues and put them into a context that audiences understand (Scheufele & Tewksbury, 2007). Framing refers to the way issues in the news get presented in order to relate to audiences’ existing schemas (Scheufele & Iyengar, 2012). For example, during election campaigns, the news often frames each candidate’s actions as though they were maneuvers in a “horse race” (for example, “Will this new revelation pull the candidate ahead? What will the opposition do to try to stay in the lead?”). Such framing is important because public impressions of candidates and campaign events may become a function of who is ahead or behind in the “race,” rather than an evaluation of each candidate’s detailed positions on issues.