Common sources of bias in the media

The media has been under constant scrutiny amidst the recent presidential campaign. 

Both candidates had a tendency to blame the media when do not go their way. Claims of the media "lying" and "inciting protests" and skewing the public opinion is nothing new or even exclusive to this election. 

I argue there are some fundamental issues regarding content validity stemming from major news sources like CNN, FOX News, etc. However, I have seen no evidence that these sources intentionally skew their content in order to mischievously manipulate the public. Who knows.

Regardless, their methods of collecting and sharing information frequently lack basic scientific rigor, which is needed to create valid and accurate information for public consumption.

This creates a real problem in society. An uninformed public is more dangerous than a misinformed public. People are frequently not digging into the details or critically searching for opposing arguments. Many people, in fact, avoid opposing arguments or viewpoints, and only surround themselves with like-minded discourse on social media. 

However, the media facilitates this current trend in misinformation by broadcasting information that has not undergone critical scientific evaluation. There are many reasons for systematic or methodological bias in the media, but I have found that selection bias is particularly problematic in the media lately. 

"Selection bias" occurs when a researcher pre-selects a group of participants to represent an entire group in a study while ignoring other participants. 

This also creates a moral hazard in journalism and can mislead audiences to make false attributions towards groups of people. 

1 on 1 interviews with citizens and bystanders is inherently subject to this selection bias, which have severe consequences on the validity of the information delivered to the audience. This is not very objective. 

More on selection bias here. 

The information provided by an interviewee can misinform or give the viewers a skewed perception of the entire population and can facilitate false generalizations. 

Here are 2 examples of selection bias regarding the recent "anti-trump" protests: 

1. Fox News, a usually conservative source of media, interviews a protester who appears largely uninformed about the protests. Watch here. 

It is likely this post would resonate well in a conservative viewer base.

These reporters frequently interview a handful of people and air the most "triggering" interview in order to receive more of an emotional response from their viewer base, which is largely conservative. This equates to more views and more profits. 

2. CBC a more "liberal" news source in Canada posts an interview from the same crowd, except this individual responded very eloquently and described the event as a movement that is not in opposition to the result of the election. Read here.

It is likely that this post would resonate well with a more liberal viewer base.

But from a scientific standpoint, we still do not have enough information to generalize this population of people. Currently, we have a sample size of 2 out of approximately 10,000.

But people make these generalizations anyway. The economic drive for TV ratings encourages this style of reporting, which can be misleading and opens the door to discrimination and can perpetuate stereotypes.

Lastly, science and unbiased information is typically dry, boring, and does not always generate good ratings. Emotionally salient or "triggering" information -- regardless of validity -- usually generates more traffic, and thus more ratings.