The Biased Media

I recently had Vietnamese food with my friend J., and this is what he said on the topic of the mainstream media: “I know, there are dangers to treating all of the mainstream media as a monolith, but in some respects it is useful to treat it as a monolith. The mainstream media presents one centre-right to right-wing viewpoint”. Then I came home and read Scott Alexander complain that the mainstream media is biased to the left and is not even trying for balance. Since I also just read that msnbc hired George Will and the New York Times started a “say something nice about Trump” corner, hired Bret Stephens and Erick, Son of Erick, I am not particularly sympathetic to Alexander’s claim. I am, however, interested in how is it that both these claims seem so evident to the people who made them.

Of course, on one level this is what you would predict: The internet makes everyone think their side is perpetually losing and everything is terrible. And J. is politically to my left (he is a Communist, I think), and Scott Alexander is politically to my right. So of course they would position the biases they see this way. But I think there is more to it than that J. is to my left and Scott Alexander to my right.

You could also say that J. is more interested in the media’s presentation of economic issues, whereas Scott Alexander is more interested in the media’s presentation of cultural issues. The mainstream media is farther left culturally than it is economically. But again, I think there is also something else going on.

And the something else is this: there are two competing notions of “idea-space” being considered. J. is talking about something like the “theoretically available idea-space”: there are many possible ways to organize the economy, but the media is talking within the narrow confines of one method! Scott Alexander is talking about “currently popular idea-space”: 46 % of people voted for Trump, yet way less than 46% of the media is pro-Trump. J. would probably agree with something like this political compass meme where the message is “there is no difference between Democrats and Republicans”, whereas to Scott Alexander, the two are opposite poles – “red tribe and blue tribe“.

So when we say we want the media to be balanced, which version of idea-space should we be talking about? Both approaches have potential pitfalls. The problem with “potential idea-space” is that some ideas are just really bad and don’t really deserve media time. And anyway, the edges of idea-space are often not well defined. We quickly get into the ridiculous (the theoretical midpoint between killing all the dolphins and killing none of the dolphins is killing half the dolphins). The danger of “currently popular idea-space” is that the media can then easily be manipulated to pretend there are two sides to every story, even if one side is obviously correct. If this is done by deliberate extremism, this is called “shifting the Overton window”. Otherwise, it simply entails the media reflecting the biases of the populace, rather than teaching them anything new. This is also how we get a US media that was for roughly one year incredibly interested in e-mail server management (although it must be admitted that the media also had near-constant Trump coverage to the point where it would be tuned out by anyone).

For my part, I think that the range of opinions presented in mainstream media is indeed much too narrow. But I have no idea how to develop good criteria for where that range should be, and what should be included.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in media, politics, shit we have no idea about. Bookmark the permalink.

3 Responses to The Biased Media

  1. enebeneres says:

    I guess it is the first time I hear the opinion that the mainstream media is “biased to the right”, On the other hand, I do not understand how a person could be a communist nowadays. I guess for such person everything is very far “on the right”.

    • zolltan says:

      This is hard to respond to without falling for the same issue that I talked about in the post, which is “biased right compared to what?”. And also of course without defining what media you are talking about.

      But taking the “popular opinion” definition of balance, I think the media is biased to the right of popular opinion, for example, in terms of how big a problem inequality is, or the amount of economic redistribution that should be done. I think it is also strongly biased in favour of military engagement compared to popular opinion.

      Or you can say that taking he New York Times, which I think you will agree is further left than a mainstream television network like CNN, out of about a dozen writers, has no one on their opinion page “to the left” of Hillary Clinton, which is clearly at odds with the American public.

      In general it’s weird that you’ve not heard anyone claim the media is biased right. I know you read a bunch of political Chomsky as well as his linguistic stuff. Have you read “Manufacturing Consent”? I think the idea is that the media is very biased into a specific viewpoint. It’s neither entirely to the left nor entirely to the right of either “popular opinion” or “things for which we have good objective evidence” nor of “what I personally think is true”. But there are specific ways it deviates from all of those.

      As for Communists, I also find it difficult to imagine being a Communist. Some smart Communists I have talked to say something like this: “living through a peasant revolt was probably unpleasant, but the existence of peasant revolts likely made living conditions in the middle ages much better. Similarly, the existence and viability of a far left alternative is important to stop the Thatcher-like claim that ‘There is No Alternative’ which can be used to destroy the rights of the poor”. This kind of makes it sound to me like they’re not really Communists, but they say that they are. As for J., I’m not sure he is a Communist, but if I can summarize his thinking, it’s this: we are living in a mostly post-scarcity world. He points out that, for example, in Vancouver, there are many more empty dwellings than homeless people. This will only be increasingly the case as automation takes over. We no longer need to think of the world in terms of “rewards” for “hard work”. And once you stop that, the justification for the current economic system goes away.

  2. I agree with you that the range of opinions in the media is too narrow. In some circles (like the rationalist one) the Overton window is pretty large, which is good. But if ideas like Communism, which have been discredited (in practice) multiple times are to be included, I think it’s important to both make that explicit, and explain how this time it’s going to be different.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s