Many news media outlets are biased and have a political leaning (usually left/right i.e. liberal/conservative). This may not necessarily be a bad thing and it is difficult to be completely neutral as journalists also have their own opinions. However, being too extreme can be harmful as it may skew readers’ views towards an undesirable side. Biased media outlets tend to cherry-pick things that support their political ideology to report.
Fortunately, there are sites that you can use to check the accuracy and biasness of media outlets. Some good ones that I use are Media Bias/Fact Check and Climate Feedback. Check out this interactive chart of various media outlets arranged according to how biased and accurate they are.
In this post, I will attempt to compare articles about climate change from 3 news outlets to illustrate media bias.
- CNN, based in the US, rated as “Left Biased”
The articles are mostly written from the liberal perspective and express opposition towards Donald Trump. Although most of their articles use reliable sources and I share similar views with most of the articles (I’m also very much against Donald Trump), it has reported false/inaccurate information a few times and often uses loaded language. Scientists analyzed a CNN article titled “Greenland’s ice sheet has melted to a point of no return, according to new study” and it was found to be “exaggerating”. The study does not provide any data that suggests that the Greenland ice sheet will be completely lost as claimed by the article. - Arizona Daily Independent, based in the US, rated as “Right Biased”
Upon scrolling through their environment section, most of the articles are of positive events and there are no articles on current environmental issues such as melting ice sheets and wildfires. This is an example of cherry-picking. There are also multiple articles denying the anthropogenic influence on climate change and other scientific evidence such as this article. It also uses a lot of loaded language, for example, in the article I just mentioned, the author wrote that people who are fighting against climate change are “brainwashed” and “Carbon dioxide emissions is the fake boogeyman.”. - The Conversation, based in Australia, rated as “Least Biased”
It reports a wide range of environment-related news. There is a mixture of “slightly-right” and “slightly-left” articles. There are also articles that are balanced between both sides. One example is this article which presents the views of both the left and right towards renewable energy. This is in contrast with Arizona Daily Independent’s article which strongly opposes renewable energy.
There are also many renowned organizations/agencies that are reliable media sources as they report scientific data and evidence in a neutral way. Some examples include NASA and National Geographic.
From my observations, biased news sources tend to use loaded language, have sensational headlines and their articles are generally one-sided.
But why are biased news outlets a concern? Well… stay tuned to my next post to find out!
adnazhari99 October 18, 2020
Hi Si Ying!
This is a great blog post! I was wondering about your thoughts on government controlled media, how bias are they? I feel that left bias and right bias is mostly attributed to Western nations such as US and UK. What are your thoughts on Singapore media as well? Would you consider them more left, right or neutral? I personally would not know how to classify them but I would classify Singapore’s media as very government-controlled.
Regards Azhari
Si Ying October 20, 2020 — Post Author
Hi Azhari!
Thank you for stopping by! I agree that the left and right bias is mostly prevalent in Western media, and I don’t think the left and right wing concept really applies to Singapore’s political scene. Since Singapore’s media is largely controlled by the government, I would say they are biased towards the government. The Straits Times is one media outlet that has been criticized as biased and pro-government. After scrolling through their environment section, I noticed that a lot of the articles are about what the government is doing to tackle environmental problems in Singapore and other positive events. It is evident that the articles are trying to paint the government in a positive light, by mainly reporting the government’s efforts. Media Bias/Fact Check rated The Straits Times as “Right-center Biased” though, which means that it is “slightly to moderately conservative in bias”. I guess the ruling government is seen as more conservative, so they lean more to the right side.
However, CNA seems to be relatively less controlled by the government, it reports a wide range of environmental related news from around the world that are quite balanced between positive and negative events. (even Media Bias/Fact Check rated CNA as “Least-Biased”)
– Si Ying
Joanna Coleman October 21, 2020
Hi Si Ying,
Great job !
Look, something to be aware of is local media censorship. There are diverse forms of controls and due to penalties for publishing content that the govt might not approve, media outlets may end up effectively censoring themselves.
In addition, certain legally required practices are problematic. One is the requirement that journalists disclose the identity of all sources. This means people whose info may be pertinent and reliable (and possibly revelatory) but whose contributions could somehow place them at risk will not be used as sources.
Finally, there is no freedom of the press entrenched in law, which is ultimately what the issues above are, I guess, symptomatic of.
Therefore, even if CNA is least biased, I believe we won’t get the full picture from any of our news outlets, so I turn to Reuters & Al Jazeera (as well as the Conversation, though it’s the same type of outlet since it doesn’t report daily news and its articles aren’t written by journalists) first, unless I really want local news and I’m not so concerned about bias (e.g., something non-controversial).
I’m sorry if anything I say here is construed as negative toward SG. That’s not my intention. These are independently verifiable facts.
This may interest you.
https://rsf.org/en/singapore
And this is an article written about the above…
https://www.onlinecitizenasia.com/2020/04/21/singapore-falls-to-158-on-2020-world-press-freedom-index-categorised-as-black/
Si Ying October 27, 2020 — Post Author
Hi Dr. Coleman,
Thank you for sharing! I have overlooked the point on local media censorship, but it is definitely a significant issue and contributes to the biasness of Singapore’s media outlets. Especially since the government passed the fake news law, it likely worsened the self-censorship by SG’s media outlets. I just found out that online news sources that report news about Singapore regularly need to get a license and renew it yearly under a framework by MDA, and they are required to “Remove content which is in breach of content standards within 24 hours”. CNA is under that framework so I guess I was wrong and it is still highly controlled by the government.
I was not aware of the second issue you mentioned. I researched more about it and found out that many US states have “shield laws” that allow journalists to protect the confidentiality of their sources. The protection of sources is also recognized under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights. While SG does not give journalists the right to protect their sources. There has even been cases of Singapore’s court demanding journalists from Reuters and The Straits Times to disclose the identity of their sources.
I haven’t used Reuters and Al Jazeera much, thanks for bringing them up, I will check them out and use them next time when I’m looking for unbiased news.
– Si Ying