The Organization of Information Bias: A Debate on Power and Ideology
The Organization of Information Bias in both media and education is rarely derived from
ideologies, rather from the deliberate structures serving those in power. Both Sally Reed’s
argument that the relevant organization of information for elementary school curricula is the
structures of school districts, the federal bureaucracy, and NEA and Herman & Chomsky’s claim
for conservative bias in news media differ sharply in the biases proposed to be favored.
However, looking closer, it is clear both parties agree the systems are organized to protect and
uphold the dominance of specific power groups. Sally Reed and Herman & Chomsky may have
differing views on the ideologies of information bias—liberal in education and conservative in
media—but they both reveal a common truth: biases in information systems stem not from
ideological purity but from the dynamics of power. Analyzing the mechanisms and motivations
behind these biases shows that the way information is organized caters to the dominant interests
in each field, whether it's a strong union in education or corporate elites in media.
Take a look at Reed. Reed argues that the elementary school curriculum reflects a liberal
agenda, entirely shaped by the National Education Association (NEA). “The educational
establishment, led by the largest union in America, the National Education Association (NEA),
has almost completed its silent revolution,” she states. (Reed, 1984, 4) “How have they almost
accomplished this? With power, money, government intervention and taking advantage of their
monopoly status in public education. The NEA is in control of many state legislatures, most
teacher training colleges and, for·all intents and purposes, the Department of Education.” (Reed,
1984, 4) Immediately Sally Reed takes no time to admit to the control and power of elitists in the
realm of public education but ends her dissertation by framing this as an ideological issue by
Swathi Kovvur | GT ID 903778619
1
encouraging discussion about how it really should be the parents' choice what is taught in school.
“The real issue is whether or not parents are going to allow the public school system to perform
social engineering on their children.” (Reed, 1984, 5) The deeper reality is that the NEA’s
influence is a demonstration of its ability to dominate the educational system. Reed’s critique,
while valuable in exposing the bias, oversimplifies the dynamics at play. The NEA is not
promoting liberal values out of altruism, but instead uses these values as tools to consolidate its
authority and legitimacy in the education sector. For example, the inclusion of progressive topics
like social justice and multiculturalism in school contents seem to reflect a genuine commitment
to liberal ideals. However, these inclusions are as much about maintaining the NEA’s standing as
a crucial institution as they are about ideological alignment. The NEA’s power lies in its ability
to dictate the terms of the educational discourse, and liberal values happen to align with the
priorities of its membership base. Looking at numbers we know “NEA gives generously to
Democratic political campaigns as well as various left-of-center organizations. This trend to
active engagement in politics increased rapidly after the 1960s as states began requiring school
districts to collectively bargain with NEA and other unions. From 1980-1994 alone, NEA
increased its donations to congressional candidates from $4,000 to $3.7 million,” which is
exactly around the same time Sally Reed made her claim. (National Education Association
(NEA) - InfluenceWatch, n.d.) The monetary dominance NEA plays in endorsing political parties
acts almost as “gift”, a gift to encourage it’s ideologies and values are relayed and taught in
public education and schools. As the largest teachers' union in the United States, the NEA
represents millions of educators, giving it significant influence in advocating for policies that
reflect its priorities. The NEA actively lobbies the Department of Education and other
policymakers to promote curriculum standards, teaching practices, and funding priorities that
Swathi Kovvur | GT ID 903778619
2
align with its values, including inclusivity, equity, and progressive education reforms.
Furthermore, the NEA offers resources, training, and professional development for educators,
which subtly influences how teachers engage with their subjects. By impacting local school
boards, state education agencies, and federal initiatives, the NEA ensures its viewpoints are
integrated into the frameworks that shape classroom instruction, making its influence both direct
and nuanced.
Herman & Chomsky argue similar authoritative instruction towards media and news but
towards a conservative bias instead. In their Propaganda Model, the two reveal how this bias
plays into the media as an issue of power dynamics - “The Propaganda Model contends that the
media serve as a mechanism of control that systematically filters and distorts information
according to the interests of powerful institutions.” (Herman & Chomsky, 1988, 3) H&C discuss
the subject by introducing the five filters that come into play in media bias ultimately supporting
how media, while it may not necessarily embrace conservative views, will promote certain
pieces with economic interests in mind. Consider the aspect of ownership. “The media serve as a
system of filters through which only certain ideas and information pass. The media are owned
and controlled by a few large corporations with their own agendas,” (Herman & Chomsky, 1988,
25) Herman and Chomsky state; and as “media ownership becomes more concentrated, the range
of ideas presented becomes narrower, with a greater emphasis on content that aligns with the
interests of the owners and their corporate partners.” (Herman & Chomsky, 1988, 81) Media
companies are part of larger entities that prioritize profit, and conservative narratives—like
support for corporate tax cuts or military actions—fit well with those financial objectives. But
that doesn't mean media owners are all conservatives. Instead, profit and the maintenance of
economic power dictate their decisions. For instance, the media representation of war frequently
Swathi Kovvur | GT ID 903778619
3
reflects the economic and political interests of both the defense industry and government
agencies. Like right now, “American coverage of the military campaign tends to lean towards the
Israeli and American governments’ narratives, sometimes at the expense of adequately
representing Palestinian viewpoints. The number of Palestinian casualties is often reported with a
caveat that numbers come from the Hamas-run health ministry in Gaza, as if to cast doubt on
their legitimacy.” (Minges, 2023) Why is the mainstream media so biased for Israel? Because the
corporate media are virtually owned by 1% rich elitists and those who wish to preserve the Old
World Order of free-market capitalism, privilege and inheritance. Looking closer, the facts will
find those who support Israel are big corporations, unregulated banks, mainstream media,
multibillionaires, and big data companies responding to an even larger entity of elitists that hold
more power and economic authority. Sourcing also plays a huge role in what the media covers.
News organizations rely on information from government and military officials and the result of
this relationship is that conflicts are framed in a way that justifies military action and defense
spending– what better way to get people on board with government actions than broadcasted
news from “trusted” TV stations? Likewise, advertising continues to serve as a powerful force
shaping news content - primarily to protect revenue rather than support conservative ideology. In
this perspective, news media conservatism is more about protecting the status quo that privileges
corporate hierarchy than it is about ideology. This is similar to Reed’s critique of education: both
media and school systems bias in the interest of those in power.
Critics of the power-based interpretation of Reed’s and Herman & Chomsky’s models
might contend that the biases seen in education and media stem from genuine ideological beliefs
rather than mere power plays. From this viewpoint, the NEA’s advocacy for liberal values in
education could be seen as a sincere attempt to promote inclusivity, critical thinking, and social
Swathi Kovvur | GT ID 903778619
4
progress. Now say the NEA really does support curricula that encourage liberal perspectives,
addressing systemic inequities, and promote progressive ideas not as a power play but because
they honestly believe that such topics have the potential to transform students and society. Then
why, if this were truly the case, are they not open to promoting a broader ideological spectrum
rather than primarily promoting one set of values. By focusing on progressive values and
excluding conservative viewpoints, the NEA, critics say, risks fostering an atmosphere that
prioritizes ideological harmony over reasoned debate, threatening its stated mission of inclusion
and intellectual diversity. Additionally it is because of the NEA’s sizable contributions and
endorsement of the Democratic party that multiple changes and additions have been made to the
government including, “Nearly two-thirds of the federal judges appointed by President Biden
[were] women, and the same share are members of racial or ethnic minority groups,” The
bipartisan Respect for Marriage Act, Student Debt cancellation plan and more. (Advocacy
Victories | NEA, n.d.) If the NEA had reduced its support for President Biden or the Democratic
Party, it’s possible it could have greatly impacted the influence and changes they could
implement in education policy, specifically that a decrease in support would lead to diminished
momentum and fewer meaningful changes aligned with its goals.
Similarly, critics might also claim that the media’s alignment with conservative views is
based on a true ideological commitment to free markets, national security, and stability. With
media organizations highlighting stories that support corporate profitability or military action not
only due to structural factors like ownership or advertising, but also because their editors and
journalists genuinely believe in the merits of capitalism, economic growth, and a robust defense,
one might believe the effects are truly based on ideology and not power. However, looking at the
facts, Herman & Chomsky’s "Propaganda Model" points out again sourcing as a crucial filter.
Swathi Kovvur | GT ID 903778619
5
For example, a 2020 study by the Media Reform Coalition found that 60% of news content
originates from government or corporate press releases. (Herman & Chomsky, 1988, 167) This
dependence restricts investigative journalism and favors narratives that align with elite interests.
During the Iraq War, for example, a Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting analysis highlighted these
dynamics. The study revealed that 71% of U.S. network news stories about the conflict presented
pro-war viewpoints, while merely 10% showcased anti-war perspectives. (Herman & Chomsky,
1988, 300) This data shows just how crucial it was for news media outlets to cover the views
higher elitists wanted to be covered and how significant these economic and structural pressures
really became.
In conclusion, both Sally Reed's critique and that of Herman & Chomsky reveal how
education and media are defined less by ideological commitment than by the mechanics of
power. In Reed’s analysis, one can see how the NEA and how it promotes liberalism values
education is not really a reflection of political ideology but a system to consolidate their power
base within the educational structures. In a similar context, Herman & Chomsky claim that the
media’s market conservative bias is not an ideological activism in favor of said values but rather
a force ensuring economic stability serving corporate interests. Though critics might claim that
these biases are ideologically driven, the predominance of evidence suggesting power plays at
work — whether through the NEA’s political contributions or the media’s dependence on elite
sources for information — suggests that both are motivated more by control than an ideological
purpose. If the NEA or the media were truly interested in facilitating a level playing field of
ideas, they would embrace all political and ideological perspectives but we can see it today, how
as the elitist power shifts, what becomes prioritized shifts as well. Take a look at Trump’s Project
2025. The plan aims for a conservative overhaul of federal agencies and American education
Swathi Kovvur | GT ID 903778619
6
policy, such as banning progressive curriculum like Critical Race Theory (CRT) in schools. This
is also in line with the conservative effort to promote traditional American values, which are
promoted in the media and by Trump through increasingly aligned policies and narratives. This
has even been welcomed by some “right-wing media outlets”, including Fox News, which have
reported stories that endorse conservative ideologies like tax cuts and military spending. This is a
perfect example that, rather than promoting neutral discourse, these institutions will generally
assist in advancing the ideological aims of whatever political forces are dominant or in power.
Thus despite the claims of critics' actions, we observe that the pursuit of power, influence, and
economic interests remains the driving factor behind the biases they perpetuate. That is, the
biases that Reed and Herman & Chomsky point out must be seen not as independent ideological
commitments, but reflections of how knowledge or information relayed is shaped by existing
power structures to benefit those in power.
Swathi Kovvur | GT ID 903778619
7
References
Advocacy Victories | NEA. (n.d.). National Education Association. Retrieved December 4,
2024, from https://www.nea.org/advocating-for-change/action-center/our-victories
Herman, E. S., & Chomsky, N. (1988). Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy
of the Mass Medi.
Minges, M. (2023, November 21). How Does the Media Impact Public Perception about
War? American University, Washington DC.
https://www.american.edu/sis/news/20231121-how-does-the-media-impact-public-perception-ab
out-war.cfm
National Education Association (NEA) - InfluenceWatch. (n.d.). InfluenceWatch.
Retrieved December 4, 2024, from
https://www.influencewatch.org/labor-union/national-education-association-nea/
Reed, S. D. (1984). NEA: Propaganda Front of the Radical Left.
Stanford, L. (2024, October 14). The U.S. Department of Education, Explained.
Education Week. The U.S. Department of Education, Explained
Swathi Kovvur | GT ID 903778619
8