Revisit the list of news organizations in Chapter 1, and consider the ones on your own list. It’s relatively easy to figure out which ones have reporters who go into their communities — be they small towns or the entire world — to report what’s happening there. But there is something else about that list of news sources that needs to be considered.

Which of those news organizations blurs the lines between opinion and news rather than having separate news and opinion departments? If you said Fox News and MSNBC, you’d be correct.

Let’s be clear. The First Amendment to the Constitution allows for a wide range of approaches to media. There is a problem, though, if a viewer of Fox or MSNBC can’t discern between actual facts, selective facts or, worst of all, manipulation of facts.

Consider this headline and story

New York Times publisher
vows to ‘rededicate’
paper to reporting honestly

On social media, this story prompted comments such as, “I’ll believe it when I read it” and “Busted!” The headline alone sure sounds like a mea culpa from The New York Times’ publisher. But consider this critically. Wearing the hat of a skeptic, what might you question about it?

One that quickly comes to mind is, why would The Times’ publisher say something so damning about his own newspaper? Wouldn’t it be a bigger story that the publisher of the most influential newspaper in America has thrown all of his employees under the bus? If so, it seems other publications besides Fox News would be reporting on it. And finally, the most important question of all is, what did the publisher actually say?

Here’s an excerpt from then-publisher Arthur Sulzberger Jr.’s note to readers, the basis for the Fox News story:

“. . . we aim to rededicate ourselves to the fundamental mission of Times journalism.”

A quick check of the publisher’s actual letter reveals Fox misrepresented what the letter said. Sulzberger clearly promised the paper would continue to report fairly — which he says the paper did throughout the 2016 presidential campaign. He wasn’t admitting some past dishonesty as Fox implied.

Here is New York Times Publisher Arthur Sulzberger Jr.’s letter in full.

The message here is, if a viewer is watching a source like Fox News that promotes a specific agenda and something doesn’t sound quite right, the viewer should check out the original source—and then draw independent conclusions about the facts.

But what reader will go to the trouble to fact-check misleading stories that on the surface might appear to be factual? It’s asking a lot of news audience members to stop and question the subtle distortions of misleading news stories, especially considering readers sometimes swallow news that’s not just distorted but actually fake.

Nevertheless, it’s in the best interest of audiences to be skeptical of things that don’t seem plausible on the surface. And, thankfully, there are watchdog and fact-checking sites that help do that. So, when something seems off, try looking at one of these:

• FactCheck.Org
  From the Annenberg Center. This site checks the accuracy of statements, including advertisements, from politicians, pundits and special-interest groups.
• Fact-check-NC
  From The News & Observer, the site aims to “combat misinformation” in North Carolina.
• Politifact.com
  Run by the St. Petersburg Times, the site’s “Truth-o-meter” helps separate “fact from fiction” in political statements from races around the country.
• Project Vote Smart
  This organization checks voting records, background and public statements of candidates nationwide.
• ProPublica
  ProPublica is an independent, nonprofit newsroom that produces investigative journalism in the public interest.
• Fact Checker (Washington Post)
  This column focuses on the accuracy of statements by political figures “regarding issues of great importance, be they national, international or local.”
• Snopes.com
  A fact-checking site for “urban legends, folklore, myths, rumors and misinformation.”

What’s the Difference?

Wait a minute. If The New York Times and Wall Street Journal have opinions and Fox News and MSNBC have a bias, how are those things different? Don’t those words mean the same thing?

Webster’s New World Collegiate Dictionary, which is the dictionary journalists go to if guidance isn’t found in the Associated Press Stylebook, says opinion is “a belief not based on absolute certainty or positive knowledge but on what seems true, valid or probable to one’s own mind.” Webster’s lists “judgment” followed by “belief” as synonyms for opinion.

Webster’s first definition of bias concerns the cut of fabric. You’ve probably heard of something being cut on a bias if you frequent fabric stores or read fashion magazines. But the second definition of bias is “a mental leaning or inclination” as well as “partiality.” The dictionary says the primary synonym for bias is “prejudice.”

Understanding these nuances is an important step toward media literacy. The definitions applied to journalism look like this:

Opinion: An opinion column, editorial or analysis in journalism exists to offer a perspective and help readers make a judgment about a given issue. Within an opinion section, there usually exists a range of beliefs written by people from different walks of life. Even within a single editorial, like those discussed in Chapter 2, editors with a variety of perspectives have typically come together to develop and synthesize one single take on an issue.

These pieces are intended to offer readers information that can help them develop their own opinions on a given subject.

At their most extreme, opinions in journalism are written to create a public change of attitude about a topic, issue or person. A famous example is the coverage of former Klansman David Duke by the New Orleans Times-Picayune when Duke ran for Louisiana governor in 1991.

The paper assigned dozens of journalists to cover Duke’s campaign and ran a series of now-famous editorials, beginning with one called “The Choice of Our Lives.”

“This was a major move — to be taking such a profound moral position against bigotry, against racism,” Keith Woods, a former Times-Picayune editor, said on the podcast “Slow Burn.” “We are not going to pretend that we’re covering an ordinary thing.”

Duke lost the election.

Bias occurs when news organizations present content that promotes one perspective, idea or political viewpoint at the expense of others. In stark contrast to opinion sections of mainstream news organizations, these sources often minimize or ignore other judgments or beliefs; they are consistently prejudiced against them. They have no interest in readers or viewers making up their own minds. The term “dittohead” for devotees of the late conservative talk radio show host Rush Limbaugh illustrates this. Limbaugh would express an opinion to his 15 million-plus listeners, many of whom would then call in and respond, “Ditto.” Dissenting opinions weren’t tolerated.

So, bias promotes one view over all others. Biased news organizations often uniformly parrot one political party. In extreme cases, the media outlet gets entangled in the political policies—and sometimes deceptions—of that party. For example, Fox News host Sean Hannity insisted widespread election fraud led to President Donald Trump losing the 2020 election.

“We saw blatant election-law violations in state after state,” he said on his program without presenting evidence or other sides of this claim. Joe Biden had won the election by 7 million votes. Another Fox News host, Jeanne Pirro, said Jan. 6, 2021, the day Congress would certify Biden as the winner, was a moment for Americans to “stand up and fight for freedom.”

On Jan. 6 of that year, a violent mob stormed the United States Capitol.

Fox News’ role in the Jan. 6 attack

In late 2021, a Congressional investigation into the Jan. 6 attack led to the release of emails from several Fox News hosts to then-Trump Chief of Staff Mark Meadows. The emails, sent on Jan. 6, were from Sean Hannity, Brian Kilmeade and Laura Ingraham. All of the emails asked Meadows to urge Trump to stop the attack. Republican Rep. Liz Cheney read emails out loud to committee members investigating the Jan. 6 attacks.

According to Cheney, reading from documents provided to the committee by Meadows himself, Hannity wrote, “Can he make a statement? Ask people to leave the Capitol.”

On the same day the emails were sent, those Fox News hosts went on TV and downplayed the attack suggesting Trump opponents, rather than Trump supporters, had led it. No matter how Fox News covered the attack, media actors giving advice to government officials is journalistically unethical. Ann Marie Lipinski of the Nieman Foundation for Journalism at Harvard University explained why in several interviews, including in this quote from the Seattle Times:

“For there to be an ongoing, live violent riot playing out at the Capitol during which anchors are communicating their preferences about what the president should do with the president’s staff is inappropriate in the least, and highly unethical.”

And still, after the emails were made public almost a year after the attack, Fox News failed to acknowledge them. The emails received extensive coverage on and after Dec. 13, 2021 in hundreds of media outlets. But Hannity interviewed Meadows right after the emails were released and didn’t bring them up. This is also an ethical breach. It shows the host placing political considerations ahead of news values. Fox News did not inform its viewers about the emails in this particular interview despite their newsworthiness.

It’s also important to note how the narrative around Jan. 6 shifted first on the day itself and in the days and weeks that followed. In the moment that the attack was happening, the event was almost universally condemned, including by the Fox News hosts who sent the emails.

On Jan, 7, even Trump made statements condemning the attack:

“To those who engaged in the acts of violence and destruction, you do not represent our country. And to those who broke the law, you will pay.”

But after that, the White House narrative shifted and so did the talking points on Fox News. Ingraham went on air and blamed non-existent leftist groups she called “antifa” for the riots. After the suggestion that antifa had attacked the Capitol was shown to be false by reporting and video taken by the attackers themselves, Fox began describing the violence as overblown. From there, Fox coverage continued to evolve, most notably by host Tucker Carlson who claimed federal agents had instigated the attack to ensnare Trump supporters and strip them of their rights.

There is no evidence to support any of the Fox narratives. It instead illustrates that Fox News hosts are political advisers acting as opinion journalists. Journalistic ethics is breached when journalists do this and made worse because Fox does not acknowledge it. Fox presents its hosts as journalists, but they are not functioning journalistically in these cases. They are functioning as Republican Party operatives.

The hosts are promoting only one party’s interests and using false and misleading information to do so. Not only does this promote false information, but it gives cover to those who perpetrated the attacks. According to NPR investigative reporter Tom Dreisbach, “I talk to people who were at the riot, who have admitted to breaching the Capitol of their own will. And after the Tucker Carlson series aired on Fox, on Fox Nation, they started questioning their own experience not based on what they saw or did that day themselves, but based on what they saw on TV.”

So, instead of presenting truths so viewers can draw informed conclusions about the attacks and what should happen as a result of them, Fox News is ignoring facts and falsely changing the narrative. This is in no way a function of journalism.

There’s one last important point to remember about biased news sources. The model described above and most notably exemplified by Fox News is not taught in journalism schools. The Fox News/Rush Limbaugh/Sean Hannity models were conceived and created primarily with profit motives in mind.

How to Respond to Bias

There are a number of ways media consumers can respond, react to and manage biased information. Section II of this textbook offers tools for journalists to stand apart and offer information that is accurate in form as well as content. This often involves presenting multiple sides of issues and stories. Section III offers tools for citizens and consumers of information to evaluate and process information.