PA 715 POLICY MAKING AND IMPLEMENTATION
Media Bias?
A Comparative Study of Time, Newsweek, The
National Review, and The Progressive Coverage of
Domestic Social Issues, 1977-2000
Tawnya J. Adkins Covert And Philo C. Wasburn
Reviewed by Stephanie Heath
Citation: Covert, T & Wasburn, P. (2008). Media Bias? A Comparative Study of Time,
Newsweek, The National Review and The Progressive Coverage of Domestic Social Issues, 19752000. Maryland: Lexington Books.
Abstract: To what extent can mainstream media be considered conservative or liberal? This study
attempts to answer that question by analyzing four major news publications over the course of 25 years,
examining four major social issues of gender, poverty, crime and the environment. The authors give a
background of each argument, the publications themselves, the content analysis, the findings and
implications of the results. Other readings that support the claims made by the authors of this study are
also included.
Key ConceptMedia Bias: the extent to which journalists and larger news media and their selection of which events and
stories are reported or suppressed.
1
Book Review
We live in a society that depends on information and communication to keep moving in
the right direction and keep us informed to make the best decisions in our daily lives. What
society needs to be aware of is most of our decisions, beliefs and values are based on what we
know for a fact, our assumptions or our own experiences. We may know the right decision at
work based on our past work experiences, but society must rely heavily on the media to report
current events and facts. As a whole, society has put their trust in the media to report factual
stories, every story and the whole story. In the book Media Bias? A Comparative Study of Time,
Newsweek, The National Review and The Progressive Coverage of Domestic Social Issues,
1975-2000 authors Covert and Wasburn attempt to answer the question: “To what extent can
mainstream news media be characterized as conservative or liberal?” Is a media bias negative or
positive in our media-conscious democratic society? The authors comprise a comparative study
using a content analysis to answer these questions based on an analysis of coverage in four major
news publications from the years 1975 to 2000. The four issues they examine in this analysis at
are poverty, crime, the environment and gender. The authors perform their analysis on
Newsweek and Time magazines which supposedly represent a non-partisan view of each of the
four issues. They then chose one liberal publication, The Progressive, and one conservative,
National Review. The authors hope that with the findings in this study, which provides
empirically based evidence, the public will see the value in news media and hopefully promote
civic engagement. The book is designed first with discussions for the liberal and conservative
arguments, both popular and scholarly. They define what media bias actually means. They
continue on with their reasoning for selecting each magazine, then discussing details and
rationale for their methodology in their study. Then they delve into the findings and implications
2
of the data they uncover as well as the limitations of the study. They then examine the
relationships among the sources, then study the historical effects, and lastly they analyze what
the data indicates about what the media role in our democratic society. The authors state in their
introduction of this study that “some bias, at least as we have conceptualized it, might not be
such a bad thing after all (Covert and Wasburn 2008).
Choosing the mainstream publications Time and Newsweek was based on several factors,
a few of them being the social characteristics of their readers and the depth of their issue
coverage. Time was introduced in 1923 and Newsweek in 1933. Looking at readership alone,
Time and Newsweek have ranked number one and two respectively in domestic sales of
newsmagazines (Covert and Wasburn 2008). But what is most important to the purpose of this
study is not the sheer number of readers, but the socio-economic status of those readers. Since
the 1970’s researchers have noted that the readers of newsmagazines are distinguishable from the
public in two key ways: They are more educated and they are more affluent (Covert and
Wasburn 2008). These readers being more affluent and educated than others are more likely to
participate in political discourse. In addition to ample resources, they often have some of the
country’s top scholars commentating on the publications stories and articles. The partisan
publications were chosen because of their long history and ability to offer accounts of the statusquo not found in mainstream media. The National Review has the largest circulation of the
major conservative newsmagazines in the United States (Covert and Wasburn 2008) and The
Progressive, the largest in liberal newsmagazines. The socio-economic statuses of the readers
for these publications are just as important as those for the mainstream publications.
Interestingly enough, those that subscribe to National Review did not describe to Time or
Newsweek, which supports the authors claim that those with strong political beliefs tend to
3
consider mainstream media biased (Covert and Wasburn 2008). In line with a liberal view, The
Progressive tends to describe its readers in cultural terms rather than socio-economically and
claim that they eat organically, read books and are engaged in improving the current state of the
world. According to the authors these magazines prosper most when the opposite view is in
office. When the political climate of the time is conservative the liberal magazines flourish and
vice versa. This does not seem so out of the ordinary to me, but proves to be an important part of
the authors study.
Covert and Wasburn also look at the major arguments on both sides of the bias debate,
study the evidence and then analyze the arguments and evidence using their own knowledge and
understanding of the two sides. The conservative argument can make several points based on the
claim that journalists are largely liberal in their belief systems. Researchers have studied this
group of individuals, and discovered that those that report for newsmagazines are often white,
males, highly educated from successful families. More research also shows that journalists have
also been found to have past careers in politics or campaigns. After examining voting records of
journalists researchers Richter et al. discovered they voted for Democratic presidents during the
1960’s and 1970’s. Furthermore, a Pew Research Center report found that news media were
more critical than the public on the Bush administration’s foreign policies. If journalists are all
liberal and journalists only spend time with fellow journalists, then it would make sense that their
view, politically and otherwise will feel ordinary and they will continue to think their views are
in line with the rest of the country.
Studies concluding that mainstream media demonstrate a conservative bias focus on the
commercial nature of the news organization and the ties between media corporations and the
government (Covert and Wasburn 2008). According to the authors the media began to operate
4
on a market model with consumerism as the main function of the news itself. They treat the
public as customers rather than citizens and they wanted them to read ads, and buy things from
them instead of getting a straight forward news report. There is also an argument where the
news will fail to publish or report stories that discuss corporate wrong-doings or fraud. These
large corporations own most of the media and are now able to influence them as they see fit. The
authors began again by saying the contention that the news media do not operate to provide
citizens with the information they need to participate intelligently in democratic political life is a
sizeable part of the liberal argument. Instead they produce propaganda that serves their sponsors
and corporate partners.
The authors then delve into the research. They included articles that dealt with one of the
four issues, gender, poverty, the environment and crime. If they were at least one page in length
and between the years 1975 and 2000 they were in the study. Another criterion was that they
had to have at least three of the four components that identified it as a social issue so they had to
have a source, costs, cause and a solution. Then they could be identified as a social issue. After
careful selection 873 articles were selected by the authors. Each of the four indicators was then
coded as either liberal or conservative if the statements or position were implicitly partisan. The
authors found that poverty received the least amount of coverage by the magazines while gender
and the environment received the most. The articles in The Progressive and National Review
were more issue centric than the articles in the non-partisan publications. The sources, costs,
causes and solutions were then coded and given scores based on their root of either liberal or
conservative basis. For example in one Time article entitled “Who Should Still Be on Welfare”
in August of 1999 there were thirteen sources all together, five neutral, four conservative and
four liberal resulting in a 0.0 score for sources (Covert and Wasburn 2008). This type of
5
balanced coverage, as the authors refer to it should not be associated with the article being
neutral or having no position. It simply implies that this article in the terms of the sources used
were balanced, non-partisan and equal. Across the four indicators amongst the 873 articles on
the four major social issues between the years 1975-2000 a score resulting in anything between
-2.0 and +2.0 were considered balanced and non-partisan. Any other number not between those
two sets were considered liberally biased (less that -2.0) or conservative (more than +2.0).
Another thing to note here is that the articles often didn’t mention solutions to main issues in an
article and they often blamed government or stated that the problem could not be solved. The
authors have discovered that one of their most important findings was the overall balanced nature
of Time and Newsweek with a small exception made to the reports on crime. They differed
largely here, but were still within the -2.0 to +2.0. Covert and Wasburn suggest here that the
findings provide very little support that bias, liberal or conservative have an active role in
mainstream media. They did find, however, large amounts of bias in the partisan publications
with mean of +.672 in the National Review and -.602 for The Progressive. The authors also
found that claims stating the media adjust their coverage to changes in political climate are also
not supported by the findings in this research. In addition they also state “what is clear from
these findings however, is a critical need for additional research which applies clear
methodologically sound models to examine the issue of ideological bias in mainstream media.”
Assessment
Political bias may be impossible to avoid in today’s fast-paced world. Television
programs, articles, and internet news is apparently designed to keep the attention of impatient
citizens. Stories, especially those on television, need to be told quickly and precisely. This is
6
where a journalist’s bias could come into play. They are choosing what to include or what to
leave out in their story to keep it under the time, page or paragraph allotment. Partisan
publications showing a bias in one way or another is not shocking news to me. I would rightly
assume that a liberal publication is biased toward the left and a conservative publication is biased
toward the right. We live in a country where freedom of speech and the press is a right that
Americans are proud of. Watching television, reading magazines (newsworthy or not), going
online and even looking at Facebook, the citizens in this country are inundated with messages
from one side or another. At the root of most of these messages is some sort of decision to be
made from some sort of corporate company which holds stake in some sort of political ideology
and they need to support their candidate. It is difficult to go through a day where no messages of
one side or another are forced upon you. The messages are everywhere even where we least
expect them. This book and their study taught me that, that the companies who own these
publications have a high level of interest in a policy issue, political candidate or overall strong
views on a topic based upon their goals. In my opinion, before reading this book I would think
that most people read publications and watch certain television news reports that are in line with
their political views. It seems that this study reinforces that view and the need for more research
is still in order.
The research and viewpoints discussed in this study can easily be replaced in some other
form of government, policies or issue, not just in the media, though I feel that the media is the
culminating avenue in which the public learns about what is going on in society. There was a
great deal of biased reporting when Hurricane Katrina hit New Orleans and for several months
after, even years. There is bias in reporting on issues like gun control and abortion. Gun owners
do have a right to privacy and in Illinois, the attorney general would like to release the names of
7
gun owners to the public. This would tell two types of lawbreaker’s pertinent information; one
where guns are if you are in the gun stealing business and two, where guns are if you are in the
burglary business. It seems that there is a large amount of evidence relating to media bias in
abortion issues. There are many claims that those that are pro-choice are quoted more in articles
or new stories and those that are pro-life are given a radical and conservative stereotype. The
2008 election cycle had a large amount of favoritism toward Barak Obama, even suppressing
damaging information about him. Even now, how often do we talk about Obama being a
smoker? We never see him with a cigarette in his hand nor does anyone comment on this aspect
of his personal life. If all we “know” is what someone else has told us, how are we able to make
informed and knowledgeable decisions about politics or anything for that matter? In an edition
of Time magazine where the cover story was about global warming, the famous photograph of
the soldiers raising the flag on Iwo Jima where the flag was replaced by a tree outraged many
Americans and some World War II veterans called to boycott the magazine.
In the Kull, Ramsey and Lewis article the authors claim that the Bush administration led
the public to believe that we were entering a war with Iraq to seek out weapons of mass
destruction and to stop any and all involvement Iraq had with Al Qaeda. These accusations
fuelled a fire among the American public and the war had the support of Americans even without
approval of the United Nations Security Council approval. And even after the U.S. occupied
Iraq and did not find the WMD the American public still supported the war. The authors ask
why the public was still supportive. Where did the public gain this knowledge of WMD, Iraq’s
involvement with Al Qaeda and the idea that Iraq was involved with the terrorist attacks on
September 11, 2001? They believe the media was largely to blame for these misconceptions of
the U.S. reasoning to go to war. Based on research done the authors hypothesize that the Bush
8
Administration made several statements implying they had intelligence supporting the
accusations. Then the media comes largely into play as another reason for these misperceptions.
According to the authors some media persons felt that it was not their duty to challenge the
administration and that pro-war view was more frequent. The media downplayed the fact that
we did not find WMD nor was there a direct and solidified link between Iraq, Al Qaeda and
September 11th. The authors conclude by saying “the process of the public catching on is a slow
one. In the meantime the administration, by giving incorrect information, can gain support for
policies that may not be consistent with preferences held by the majority of Americans” (Kull et
al. 2003). I find this articles as well as the Covert and Washburn study to be in line with each
other. There is overwhelming evidence to support all hypotheses made in each study. These
studies support the notion of media bias and that to be truly cognizant of a situation, political or
otherwise, the public must educate themselves on both sides of the argument. This leads directly
into The Affluent Society by John Kenneth Galbraith, where he states that the public must have a
clear view of the relation between events and the ideas that interpret them. I will also say not
only ideas, but who is interpreting the ideas. Galbraith states the liberal as being predictable and
one that does not strive to think critically or have original ideas. I don’t find that to be a party
delineation, but a personal bias of the author’s. This I believe, is contradictory to the Covert and
Washburn book, as it does not put any sort of bias on either political interest or party. It is
however, a very interesting comment and one that I think could be true for conservatives as well.
I do not find that I agree with that statement in a party perspective, but more of a general public
perspective. With news media inundation today it is difficult to shut out the media and think for
ourselves, though that is what needs to happen. It is also difficult, once you have heard an
argument for one side or the other to completely block that out and have it not affect your day to
9
day discussions in certain political topics. Thinking critically, taking information and developing
your own ideas and theories would be ideal.
No matter how much we try to ignore it, human communication always takes place in a
context, through a medium, and among individuals and groups who are situated economically,
historically and socially. This simply just is, and many people believe there is no such thing as
an objective point of view. Bias is a world that identifies the collective influences of the entire
context of a message. Politicians are certainly biased and blatantly so. Journalists are certainly
biased as well but it may not be so obvious. I believe they attempt to be fair and equal in the
reporting of their stories, but their ethical standards may not always be reached. They are just
people and I believe attempt to do the right thing, most of the time. Surprisingly enough the
Covert and Wasburn study did find bias in the mainstream publications but only on the liberal
side, not the conservative. In the mainstream magazines, there was a liberal bias in the coverage
of environmental issues and articles on relationship to gender. The authors make sure to state
that the bias presented there is far from the bias presented in The Progressive, but bias all the
same. There is still little evidence that supports the statement that the media is largely bias,
leaning to the left. I find myself asking the question though, is a bias media wrong? Shouldn’t
there be conflicting viewpoints of current events? Shouldn’t there be exercises society is put
through to make the best, most educated decision based on critical thinking skills of their own? I
do not find a bias media to be offensive. In fact, I think it’s a positive thing, but only so long as
people are aware of the bias presented. Knowing that will give citizens power to make their own
judgments and decisions which will not be the same decision as a news reporter in any of the
four publications mentioned here, or on the evening news. I conclude with a statement by an
10
anonymous source that Covert and Wasburn also conclude their study with. “The media are only
as liberal as the conservative businesses who own them.”
11
References
Covert, T & Wasburn, P. (2008). Media Bias? A Comparative Study of Time, Newsweek, The
National Review and The Progressive Coverage of Domestic Social Issues, 1975-2000.
Maryland: Lexington Books.
Freidman, M. (1962). Capitalism and Freedom. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Kull, S, Ramsay, C & Lewis, E. (2003). Misperceptions, the Media, and the Iraq War. Political
Science Quarterly, 118(NA), 569-598.