Spin Wars – How a partisan media landscape is biasing Americans and exacerbating political divide in the U.S.

By Michael Abraham

Picture this. You’re flipping TV channels at night, trying to catch up on the events of the day. You land on a channel with two talking heads, discussing the previously ongoing impeachment proceedings of President Trump. When the commercial break arrives, you flip to the next channel and find two more – perhaps whiter, more chromosomally diverse – talking heads discussing the same topic. It takes you a moment, though, to realize that the topics are the same because this news station is framing the same stories in completely opposing ways.

Your palms grow clammy. The hairs on the back of your neck stand on end. With every goosebump the realization becomes clearer. You have entered the Twilight Zone.

Or, on the other hand, you might have just flipped from CNN or MSNBC to Fox News.

News organizations have had partisan leanings since the chisel met the tablet. That’s nothing new. However, with the introduction of cable news in the 1980’s and the accompanying 24-hour news cycle, networks were forced to fill more time than incoming national news provided. The result paved the way for programming based on political commentary and analysis both of which are significantly more susceptible to bias than traditional news reporting.

Thus, we find ourselves today in a media landscape that is virtually split down party lines. Ask anyone not living under a rock and they’ll tell you, in a variety of ways: Fox News is for conservatives and MSNBC or CNN, liberals. Add arguably the most polarizing president in American history into the mix and it seems that these networks are sprinting in opposite directions at times.

Data from Real Clear Politics suggests that, while outlets are generally talking about the same topics, their takes are quite different. Further, it shows “that there are very real systematic differences in the coverage we see across the media landscape and that there has been a genuine fracturing of the media since Donald Trump’s election. At the same time, that divide is still small, meaning that rather than entirely disjointed pictures, news outlets present different takes on the same shared universe of stories.”

This didn’t start with Trump, though. The schism began with the cable news network founders. Take media mogul Rupert Murdoch, for example. Murdoch sat at the helm of Fox Corporation for many years. Politico reported that during his leadership, then Fox parent company News Corp, contributed millions of dollars to GOP-aligned groups such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the Republican Governors Association.

If that wasn’t enough to make consumers and competitors question the network’s objectivity, Murdoch was also very outspoken in his support for Republican politicians and criticism of Democrats. In 2012, he came out in support of Mitt Romney, saying, “Of course I want him to win, save us from socialism, etc.” Several years later, in 2015, he tweeted: “Ben and Candy Carson terrific. What about a real black President who can properly address the racial divide?”

Even today, with Murdoch having passed control on to his son, conflicts of interest exist. How about the fact that former Republican House Speaker Paul Ryan sits on Fox Corporation’s Board of Directors?

A similar narrative can be told about Murdoch’s main rival, CNN founder Ted Turner, who was often outspoken about his support for Democratic initiatives and candidates. Although these figures have moved on, the culture they created survives and perhaps even grows. Current CNN chief Jeff Zucker reportedly previously hosted private events for both Obama and, more recently, Kamala Harris. He also hasn’t been secretive about his own political beliefs.

It is generally accepted that an organization’s culture trickles down from its leadership. As a young journalist, I find it odd that, while journalism preaches the importance of objectivity, ethics and avoiding conflicts of interest, the organizations that employ journalists throw caution to the wind regarding the same set of standards. If Pete Rose can’t bet on baseball, why can news executives be in bed with parties and candidates? There is an increasingly fine line drawn between what is and isn’t a conflict of interest for the media and it is becoming grayer by the day.

Accomplished journalist Katy Tur mentions in her book “Unbelievable: My Front Row Seat to the Craziest Campaign in American History,” that she doesn’t even vote so as to remain an unattached observer. Many high-profile journalists, even when their affiliations are obvious, avoid officially declaring a political party in order to maintain the illusion of a balanced opinion.

Nevertheless, each network’s TV line-ups, themselves, emphasize how partisan bias might exist and how echo chambers are created as a result. For example, Fox News features a nightly primetime program called “Tucker Carlson Tonight.” They describe the show as an “hour of spirited debate and powerful reporting.” Rather than focusing on the hard news, Fox allows Carlson to insert his own subjective views on the topics of the day. His opinions become conflated with actual facts and the entire primetime viewing audience is left to find the truth.

The same can be said for CNN’s “Cuomo Prime Time” or MSNBC’s “Hardball with Chris Matthews”. Because ratings drive success in television, the most popular personalities are able to put their own, sometimes hyperbolic, spin on the news. Therefore, the news that many Americans consume isn’t necessarily news at all; but, instead, the news as viewed through Tucker Carlson – or another show host’s – lenses. Have you ever tried on someone else’s glasses? Sometimes they distort the way you see things.

This has a significant effect on the way each networks’ audience views the state of the country. Months ago, as Newsweek pointed out, NBC and Wall Street Journal poll data found that 73% of Fox News viewers approve of Trump’s presidency. On the other hand, CNN and MSNBC viewers responded with approval ratings of 34% and 30% respectively.

Viewers consume the content generated by their parties’ unofficial news sources and continue to seek out information that aligns with the beliefs they’ve been fed. Repeat this process on a nightly basis and viewers become fat with their own confirmation bias. All the while, network executives continue the spin with one watchful eye on the ratings and the other on the party-supporting opinion buffet.

Or maybe we’re in the Twilight Zone.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *