The latest cease-fire with Iran has given the Trump administration plenty of airtime to repeatedly claim victory in its war of choice, ahead of any signed agreement with an enemy regime that, despite weathering great losses of life and industry, remains largely unchanged in its character and in its leverage over oil supply.
The summation that the US has lost this war, according to the scorecard of the war’s claimed objectives, is trending — never mind the illegal course of the war, and its place in confirming our crisis of democracy under a corrupt regime. This opinion is typified in this May 21 Brookings Current podcast transcription, “Has the US Lost the Iran War?” including Robert Kagan, Michael E. O’Hanlon, and Melanie W. Sisson.
For Indivisible folks, none of this is breaking news. But we also know that the likes of Fox News and Newsmax are playing (and loudly) in our neighbors’ homes.
We might expect right-wing outlets to focus more on the material talking points, even if they factually report immediate losses in this war, rather than the facts that show it was illegal to begin with. And we know a lot of unedited and unchecked air time will go to MAGA’s Leader himself, continuing to rate his war as a “15 out of 10” in the simplest terms possible.
A fan of conservative media can as easily predict that liberal media will underplay any news that makes the administration look good (such as if, for example, Iran were to actually abandon its nuclear projects).
Is the adage about “two sides to every story” valid here? Is the progressive news audience just a mirror opposite of conservative news fans, with as much bias swaying their understanding of true events? Actually, according to Pew Research, Democrats typically turn to a much wider range of news sources than Republicans. It’s hard to view the political information divide as equal and opposite in this light.
What is your take? Are there news outlets you feel rise above manipulation of the news, even when it’s in the form of commentary? Do you see hope in bridging the information gap with right-wing news fans?
Peter Bergel
Salem Regional Indivisible, Indivisible One Million Rising, The PeaceWorker (Founder/Editor) / Salem
The first thing we all need to keep in mind as we ponder the reliability of the news we consume is that ALL news media are biased to some degree. Some ignore the facts to a startling degree, but most reveal their bias by being highly selective about what they choose to report and, when they report a story at all, they are also selective about what aspects of it to mention or emphasize. That is why those who seek to be well-informed need to draw their information from a variety of sources.
We should all take a few minutes to look at this site: https://app.adfontesmedia.com/chart/interactive. It graphs a wide variety of media sources in terms of their left-right bias and their reliability. In general, we see that the highest levels of reliability tend to associate with middle-of-the-road sources. On the left of the screen is a field into which you can enter a news source of your choice and see how it rates. It is interesting, for example, to compare the New York Times with the Fox News website. Progressives are prone to believe Fox News is all balderdash while strongly trusting the Times’ reliability. This site shows that (at least according to its research) the Times is only slightly more reliable than the Fox website and only slightly less biased (though in the opposite direction). This progressive belief may be the result of assuming that all Fox sources are the same. They are not. “Fox and Friends,” for example, is shown to be far less reliable and much more biased.
Some media sources on both sides of the spectrum have used the tactic of repeating their point of view as fact so often that consumers believe it to be fact and it becomes conventional wisdom. Avoiding that trap requires attention and research.
The only hope I see for “bridging the information gap with right-wing news fans” is for both sides to expose themselves to a variety of sources and arm themselves with a high degree of skepticism. However, as I have written before, I do not prioritize trying to convert people who believe otherwise than I do and are hardened in their views. Rather, I prioritize getting people who are already on our side of issues to take action.
Tim Bailey
COIN Leadership Team & Indivisible Cedar Mill / Portland
“Balanced”?
Peter’s graph (which has grown into a massive piece of work since I last looked at) is not too dissimilar from the “classic” image of justice–Lady Liberty, blindfolded, holding a balanced scale in one hand. The presumption in both cases imply equivalencies and that a centered position is fair and balanced (tongue in cheek). More disturbing is the binary nature, oversimplifying a world of gray areas. This is fallacious, disingenuous and harmful to our public discourse.
One’s ideologic position on the major (& minor) issues confronting our species and planet are not a binary – left/right. There are awarenesses that are gained by curiosity, exploration, research, testing…. and often unlearning.
The simple visual to replace the linear political spectrum is a ladder extending from a dip dark pit and we are looking up at the sunlight of what could be a beloved community above. But the ideologic world that we navigate is far more complicated (and currently feels more Escher than it actually is), is more accurately represented by this:
Where are you in the pit? No one is on a straight line.
Justin Lloyd Ludwig
Florence Indivisible, City Club of Florence, Florence Young Professionals, Florence ORganizes / Florence
It’s so hard to justify a war of choice, and yet certain news outlets continue to try to do so with the one in Iran. It’s widely viewed as a bad decision by the American public, according to recent polls; even more so after gas prices spiked.
And while an immediate ceasefire would certainly be welcome, what we especially need is a return to strong checks and balances in our government; one that strengthens our constitutional systems.
For months Congress has flirted with vote to authorize or stop the war with Iran. Last week, they were again prevented from doing so when House Republicans abruptly canceled a vote on a war powers resolution directing President Trump to withdraw U.S. forces from Iran unless he wins their approval.
The vote was cancelled when it became clear that it would succeed. Let that sink in. Too many republicans agreed with democrats to stop the war.
That’s the power of a U.S. House Speaker; to only allow the votes you want to hold, and count them before you let anything on the floor proceed. It’s interesting to see how media spins that.
Unfortunately, sometimes the only way to see how unbiased news can be is by consuming more of it. In the aggregate, you begin to notice differences. Most of us don’t have the time to do that.
As a former journalism student and newspaper reporter, I can’t help but see bias in the news. It’s present in both conservative and liberal news outlets, but I find it especially cringeworthy when I see it aired on “my side.” Yes, I’m a longtime NYT reader who’s perennially disappointed.
Sure, it’s easy to expect Fox News to be slanted, egregiously so at times, but when more trusted sources begin to show bias it’s so much harder to watch. And sometimes the bias isn’t in what’s said, but what’s left unsaid. Progressives deserve better. Everyone does.
I personally find the news outlet “Democracy Now!” to be one of the most transparent sources for unbiased journalism. They cover domestic and international stories, broadcasting each weekday on local radio and YouTube. Co-host Amy Goodman was recently featured on Jon Stewart’s podcast, where he praised her for her dedication to unbiased journalism.
Bobby Sample
Dunes City Indivisible, COIN Comms Team / Florence
One of my favorite TV series ever was the far too short-lived One Mississippi, Tig Notaro’s semi-autobiographical traumedy set in the south. In one episode, she chats with locals who wish her a happy “Great Americans Day” on Martin Luther King Day. They explain that their town renamed the holiday because it’s on the same day as Robert E. Lee’s birthday. “I don’t even know how to respond to that,” says Tig. “I think it’s right they honor both sides,” one of them says. Tig responds, “You mean good and evil?”
False equivalency — much as Tim said — is the right description for most “news bias” charts and conversations about a fair balance of (so-called) liberal and conservative voices in news and media. I’d say false labeling is an equally apt phrase. There’s a hell of a difference between news coverage and commentary, but you’ll get no distinction between the two on the Interactive Media Bias Chart. This chart’s function of at least grading for us what is misleading, never mind the “wing,” would make it a terrific reference if it weren’t for that bizarre omission.
I try to check online news in text (i.e. newspaper replacements) for facts — or so I hope — about what’s going on, while exploring biases is the whole point of seeking out commentary and debates — for which I turn to commentary programs and podcasts. Often those commentaries provide more in-depth context about a news story, especially driven by bias — for example, a typical Rachel Maddow report. I’d want to know if her facts are wrong, but I don’t need to be told whether her speculations, predictions, and comparisons are “misleading.”
I don’t even know when “the news” is on anymore, on my favorite liberal-leaning networks. One of our problems, of course, may be that most other people don’t know when “the news” is on anymore either. (I mean, beyond local news.) Our choice of national news, perhaps, depends a great deal on our media and Internet literacy. These subjects belong in every school curriculum alongside basic economics and the three Rs.
Terrie Martin
Oregon District 2 Indivisible, COIN Leadership Team / Medford
Disclaimer: old journalist/journalism instructor here.
First, I agree with Bobby’s observation that there is a difference between a newspaper’s editorial board and its reporting staff, so I don’t pay too much attention to those charts. There is also a difference between a bunch of pundits lined up to talk about their opinions and a reporter, on the ground, telling us what they see. We need to do a better job of educating our kids to know that difference.
Second, a reminder that there is no such thing as objectivity. Every story has a bias in that the reporter chose to do that story, they chose to interview those sources, they chose to use those facts and quotes, and they chose to lead with what they feel is most important. What journalists CAN be is honest, accurate, fair, and complete. Each one of those goals has its own obstacles, and the best reporters are those who report a story fully even though what they found didn’t line up with their expectations. So, despite everyone’s disappointment in The New York Times and The Washington Post, there are still some brilliant reporters on staff that are doing great work.
So, they are both still on my favorite source list along with NPR, PBS, The New Yorker, Politico, Reuters, BBC and AP. By checking two or three of these about a single news item, I feel like I can get the complete story.
How can we get our friends in the red zone to do that? I don’t think we can. But I have had some success in listening to what they think is “fact,” and saying, “Wow, I haven’t heard that. can you send me a link?” Then I respond with a few other links that may shed more light. I try to keep the discussion civil and I remind them that i just want to understand this better. It usually works.
Add your voice to the comments below! If you would like to contribute to future installments of Our Voices, let us know.