Product Code Database
Political bias refers to the bias or manipulation of information to favor a particular political position, party, or candidate. Closely associated with a media bias, it often describes how journalists, television programs, or news organizations party political figures or policy issues.
Bias emerges in a political context when individuals engage in an inability or an unwillingness to understand a politically opposing point of view. Such bias in individuals may have its roots in their Trait theory and thinking styles; it is unclear whether individuals at particular positions along the political spectrum are more biased than any other individuals.
Political bias exists beyond simple presentation and understanding of view-points favouring a particular political leader or party, but transcends into the readings and interactions undertaken daily among individuals. The prevalence of political bias has a lasting impact with proven effects on voter behaviour and consequent political outcomes.
With an understanding of political bias comes the acknowledgment of its violation of expected political neutrality, and with that the creation of political bias.
Coverage bias: When political parties address topics and issues to different extents. This makes certain issues seem more prevalent and presents ideas as more important or necessary. In a political atmosphere, this applies to the presentation of policies and the issues they address, along with the actual coverage by media and politicians. Issue salience is another term for this phenomenon, in which the frequency and focus given to specific topics affect how important the public believes them to be. For instance, even though statistics indicate otherwise, the public may view immigration or crime as more urgent if a party continuously emphasizes these topics. By setting the political agenda, this strategic focus can influence undecided voters in addition to mobilizing committed voters. By prioritizing coverage of issues brought to light by powerful political figures, media outlets frequently promote these narratives, producing a feedback loop that highlights certain topics while excluding others. Because partisan priorities are given priority over thorough discussion, political discourse becomes distorted and can influence democratic decision-making.
Confirmation bias: A cognitive bias favours and seeks information that affirms pre-existing beliefs and opinions. When set in a political atmosphere, individuals with like-minded political beliefs will seek and affirm their opinions, discounting contradictory information. A recent meta-analysis attempted to compare levels of confirmation bias among liberals and conservatives in the United States and found that both groups were roughly equally biased. The idea that one side of the political spectrum is more biased is called into question by this research. It implies that cognitive biases are not exclusive to any one ideology but rather are a universal feature of human reasoning. The implications are important because they show how hard it is to overcome ideological differences and how crucial it is to promote critical thinking and an open mind to other points of view in political conversation. The study also emphasizes how motivated thinking influences political attitudes. People actively evaluate and interpret information to support their preexisting opinions rather than simply taking it in. As people get more set in their ways and less open to hearing different points of view, this dynamic adds to the polarization seen in modern politics.
False consensus bias: Exists when the normalisation of an individual's opinions, beliefs and values are believed to be common. This bias exists in a group setting where the collective group opinion is attributed to the wider population, with little to no inter group challenges. This is the basis of political party formation and engages in the ongoing attempt to normalise these views within the wider population with little recognition of different beliefs outside the party. According to research, such biases can cause political polarization as people and groups solidify their opinions and start to see opposing views as less valid. Social media platforms can produce echo chambers where users are largely exposed to content supporting their preexisting views, contributing to this polarization and increasing the false consensus effect. According to studies, people who are exposed to social media news feeds that are favorably biased tend to believe that there is more public support for their views than there actually is, which strengthens their beliefs and may even push them toward more extreme stances. In addition, the false consensus bias may influence political elites' assessments of public opinion, which can affect democratic processes. According to a study, political elites' judgments were shown to be 20 to 25 percentage points off. This suggests that these misperceptions can result in policies that do not fully reflect the electorate's genuine preferences, compromising democratic accountability and responsiveness.
: When stories focus on what can potentially occur with speculative phrasing such as "may", "what if", and "could" rather than focusing on the evidence of what has and/or definitely will occur. When a piece is not specifically labelled as an opinion and analysis article, it can lead to further speculative bias. This occurs in a political context, particularly introducing policies, or addressing opposing policies. This bias allows parties to make their policies more appealing and appear to address issues more directly, by speculating positive and negative outcomes. Without enough information, such speculation frequently presents stories in ways that provoke emotions or exaggerate the perceived importance or effectiveness of a proposed policy. This gradually decreases public confidence in journalism, particularly when predicted outcomes fail to pass. Additionally, by emphasizing speculative scenarios over confirmed facts, speculative content might unintentionally be used as a platform for political propaganda or manipulation, influencing public opinion. When algorithms on social media and news collection sites highlight speculative information because it is emotionally charged or dramatic and tends to generate higher engagement, this problem gets more complicated. Such stories, particularly when read by audiences who might not be able to distinguish between reporting and opinion, confuse journalism with speculation in the lack of clear labeling and open sourcing.
Gatekeeping bias: This type of bias exists through the use of ideological selection, deselection and/or omission of stories based on individualised opinions. This is similarly related to agenda bias, primarily when focusing on politicians and how they choose to cover and present preferred policy discussions and issues.
Partisan bias: Exists in the media when reporters serve and create the leaning of a particular political party. When journalists intentionally or unintentionally show material in a way that prioritizes one political ideology or party over another, they are engaging in bias and affecting the public's perception of political events and individuals. Story selection, framing, tone, and the frequency of criticism or support of specific parties or people are all examples of partisan bias. Fox News, for example, has a history of favoring Republican opinions while disparaging Democratic leaders, especially during election seasons. Furthermore, significant partisan bias in reporting was discovered by empirical research that examined over 800,000 news stories from major U.S. broadcasters. Other networks, such as ABC, CBS, and NBC, were shown to have a slight liberal bias, however, their slant varied according to the political administration in power, whereas Fox News showed a strong conservative bias. According to a Gallup study, 62% of Americans think the media favors one political party, with Republicans majority stating that the media favors Democrats. This divide is reflected in the public's opinion.
There is distinctive political bias in social media where the algorithm that structures user content facilitates confirmation bias. This involves presenting political information dependent on common searches and users' focus, further re-affirming political bias and reducing exposure to politically neutral content.
Determining the difference between content and source bias is a significant focus of determining the role of political bias in search engines. This focus looks directly at the actual content of the information present and whether it is purposefully selective in the information presented, or rather whether the source of information is projecting personalised opinions relative to their political opinions.
An example of quantification of political bias in the media is Propaganda model, a concept introduced by Edward S. Herman and Noam Chomsky. It is a political economy model, looking at the "manufacturing" of political policies through the manipulation of mass media. This model further looked at the capital funding of media outlets and their ownership, which often relates to political ties.
Political bias in the media is also discussed, showing how social leaders discuss political issues. To determine the existence of political bias, agenda determination is used. Agenda determination is designed to provide an understanding of the agenda behind the presentation of political issues and attempt to determine political bias that is present.
Within a 2002 study by Jim A. Kuypers: Press Bias and Politics: How the Media Frame Controversial Issues, he looks at the omission of left leaning points of view from the mainstream print press. Kuypers determined politicians would receive positive press coverage only when covering and delivering topics that aligned with press-supported beliefs. This meant the press was engaging in bias within the media through their coverage and selection/release of political information, which was challenging the neutral conveyance of political messages.
David Baron similarly presents a game-theoretic model of media behaviour, suggesting that mass media outlets only hire journalists whose writing is aligned with their political positions. This engages false consensus bias, as beliefs are determined to be common due to being surrounded by aligned views. This effectively heightens political bias within media representation of information, and creates false narratives about the nations' political climate.
|
|
