Biased In Both Directions

By: Brian Montopoli
Topics: Media Issues

(GETTY IMAGES/Chris Hondros)

Gallup has found, unsurprisingly, that most Americans (56 percent) believe the media is providing an inaccurate portrait of the situation in Iraq. Here's the fun part: 36 percent of those that question the coverage said it makes the situation appear to be better than it actually is, while 61 percent said it makes it appear worse that it actually is. In other words, people are sure that the media is hopelessly biased. They just can't agree on which way the bias runs.

These findings point to the challenges faced by large news organizations like CBS, which want to hold on to the wide audience they've traditionally attracted. A large portion of the audience, it seems, wants the network and its competitors to skew their coverage in one direction, while another large portion wants them to skew their coverage the other way. And they can't do both.

In the days before the Internet, when the "Evening News" was one of the few available news sources, the middle was a pretty safe place to be. Viewers from the left and right might occasionally be annoyed by the tenor of the coverage, but they gravitated to the evening newscasts anyway, since (a) they remained more or less in the middle and (b) viewers had little in the way of alternatives.

That has changed, for three primary reasons. The first is the rise of the alternatives – blogs, Web sites, and news outlets that cater to just about every ideological position out there. If you want your news more liberal or more conservative than you find on the "Evening News", it's easy to turn off CBS and find it. The second reason is the sustained assault on the media's credibility by partisans, from Spiro "nattering nabobs of negativism" Agnew through David Brock and Brent Bozell and George W. Bush. And the third reason is mistakes by the media such as "Rathergate," which have lessened the press' credibility and played into partisan media critics' hands.

The irony here is that the press doesn't really offer an accurate view of Iraq – but not for the reasons most of the doubters think. Gallup broke its results down by party identification, and, naturally, Republicans think the press is making things look worse than they actually are while Democrats believe the opposite. But ideology, in the end, isn't the problem. Talk to reporters who have spent time in Iraq and they'll tell you about obstacles to good reporting – the limitations in their ability to move around the country, for example – that provide the real impediments to bring an accurate picture to the folks back home. (CJR's oral history gets into this.)

Large news outlets are now scrambling to find a way to appease their audience by addressing concerns about bias – Public Eye can surely be characterized as one such effort. But they are in an extremely difficult position. Americans may simply be too ideologically diverse to stay with any one outlet in wide numbers, particularly when partisans from both sides are consistently attacking any outlet that tries to maintain the middle ground. The decision they now face is whether to continue deflecting those attacks or throw in the towel and throw in their lot with one side or the other.

Brian Montopoli
Brian Montopoli is the senior political reporter at CBSNews.com.
Follow on Twitter »

15 Comments Have Your Say
Email Story Send to a Friend
Share This Tell Your Friends
Tweet This Tweet This
More Share It

Add a Comment

See all 15 Comments


by sanfelz January 6, 2007 8:26 PM EST: Yesterday, Hannity on FOX had a picture of Pelosi and Boenher captioned something to the effect "100 hours to make America like San Francisco." That at least was the essence of the headline, another example of their balance. I wonder who they hate more: Pelosi, Democrats or San Franciscans? Or is it just anyone that is not a Republican?; Reply to this comment


by one_american January 5, 2007 3:18 PM EST: "36 percent of those that question the coverage said it makes the situation appear to be better than it actually is, while 61 percent said it makes it appear worse that it actually is. In other words, people are sure that the media is hopelessly biased. They just can't agree on which way the bias runs."

Isn't it more than clear, Brian?

The vast majority (61 percent) think that the media is biased against the war.

And the fact is that the soldiers in Iraq KNOW that the media is painting a heavily biased picture against what they are trying to achieve over there.

And for your information, those like me that get their news from other CREDIBLE sources are not partisan, but rather SEEK THE TRUTH.

Get a damned clue, will you?; Reply to this comment


by mattcat25 January 5, 2007 1:17 PM EST: Tony Snow makes statements everyday, if the Bush Administration wanted to convey an accurate vision of the conditions in Iraq no one is hindering this. Instead, we%u2019re treated to ambiguous rhetoric, political attacks, and a few straight out lies.

The Media in Iraq are completely controlled by the pentagon under the pretense of national security, I believe that this is vital to our success during a war time campaign, but it leads one to consider the manipulation of the actual truth and reality on the ground there considering that the entire reason for the invasion and occupation was a lie told to the American People and the World by the Bush Administration through the John Rendon Public Relation Group.

What the truth, tell the truth.; Reply to this comment


by baye13 January 5, 2007 10:05 AM EST: Political Parties are like religions. They are for the weak minded.; Reply to this comment


by centralcal-2009 January 4, 2007 9:38 PM EST: Memekiller - you are a pretty angry person. Are you Keith Olbermann with too much time to kill between shows?; Reply to this comment


by kmwhitten January 4, 2007 9:32 PM EST: Memekiller,
Now I am disappointed in you, you are obviously not the "genius" I was giving you credit for.
If your memory of the UN inspections in Iraq is that they were welcomed in and shown everything they asked to see, then you really are in denial!
Do some searches and see how many times they were ordered out of Iraq (and I am not talking by the US, but by Saddam).

Quit rewriting history to fit your own political viewpoint.; Reply to this comment


by memekiller January 4, 2007 9:25 PM EST: Kmwhitten,
Sped out the back gates -- with what? My skepticism was not confined to myself, and seeing through this administration does not take genius. My skepticism, and that of a lot of other people who were shut out, and continue to be shut out of the media, arose from the fact that Saddam let the inspectors in, and they didn't find anything. So Bush, in his speech to the nation, told the inspectors to leave and decided to bomb them before a few more months of inspections turned up dry and sapped his support. Another thing that arose my suspicions was the "violation" of UN rules that justified our invasion. You see, we demanded that Hussein give us an accounting of all his WMD stockpiles, and Saddam said he didn't have any. So, Saddam was officially in breach of UN Resolutions because we knew he had WMD. Now we know he wasn't: there were no WMD to declare. Which is why Bush continues to say we invaded because "Saddam didn't let our inspectors in".

The reason the only debate at the time was how to stop him is because all of the people who thought invasion was a bad idea were shut out. And they continue to be shut out in favor of the people who have been wrong about absolutely everything.

This isn't evidence of my genius so much as proof of blindness of the people with clout in DC, who get on TV the more wrong they are about everything, always. You're average voter has sussed out the situation better than most of the Beltway, including the Democrats.; Reply to this comment


by memekiller January 4, 2007 9:14 PM EST: Kmwhitten,
Sped out the back gates -- with what? My skepticism was not confined to myself, and seeing through this administration does not take genius. My skepticism, and that of a lot of other people who were shut out, and continue to be shut out of the media, arose from the fact that Saddam let the inspectors in, and they didn't find anything. So Bush, in his speech to the nation, told the inspectors to leave and decided to bomb them before a few more months of inspections turned up dry and sapped his support. Another thing that arose my suspicions was the "violation" of UN rules that justified our invasion. You see, we demanded that Hussein give us an accounting of all his WMD stockpiles, and Saddam said he didn't have any. So, Saddam was officially in breach of UN Resolutions because we knew he had WMD. Now we know he wasn't: there were no WMD to declare. Which is why Bush continues to say we invaded because "Saddam didn't let our inspectors in".

The reason the only debate at the time was how to stop him is because all of the people who thought invasion was a bad idea were shut out. And they continue to be shut out in favor of the people who have been wrong about absolutely everything.

This isn't evidence of my genius so much as proof of blindness of the people with clout in DC, who get on TV the more wrong they are about everything, always. You're average voter has sussed out the situation better than most of the Beltway, including the Democrats.; Reply to this comment


by memekiller January 4, 2007 9:13 PM EST: Kmwhitten,
Sped out the back gates -- with what? My skepticism was not confined to myself, and seeing through this administration does not take genius. My skepticism, and that of a lot of other people who were shut out, and continue to be shut out of the media, arose from the fact that Saddam let the inspectors in, and they didn't find anything. So Bush, in his speech to the nation, told the inspectors to leave and decided to bomb them before a few more months of inspections turned up dry and sapped his support. Another thing that arose my suspicions was the "violation" of UN rules that justified our invasion. You see, we demanded that Hussein give us an accounting of all his WMD stockpiles, and Saddam said he didn't have any. So, Saddam was officially in breach of UN Resolutions because we knew he had WMD. Now we know he wasn't: there were no WMD to declare. Which is why Bush continues to say we invaded because "Saddam didn't let our inspectors in".

The reason the only debate at the time was how to stop him is because all of the people who thought invasion was a bad idea were shut out. And they continue to be shut out in favor of the people who have been wrong about absolutely everything.

This isn't evidence of my genius so much as proof of blindness of the people with clout in DC, who get on TV the more wrong they are about everything, always. You're average voter has sussed out the situation better than most of the Beltway, including the Democrats.; Reply to this comment


by memekiller January 4, 2007 9:00 PM EST: "Outlets trying to maintain a middle ground would largely be accurate today only if the middle ground was defined as liberal."

Accurate reporting IS liberal. Iraq is in a civil war. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. There was no Iraq/Al Qaeda connection. The Earth is warming due to the burning of fossil fuels. Evolution is a well-established scientific theory. These are facts, but to state them is "liberal". So, CBS has a choice. Print the facts and be liberal, or suppress the facts and throw in a few Swiftboat Vets and Abramoff's-bipartisan memes for balance.

My personal preference would be for CBS to report the news, and let partisans whine all they want.; Reply to this comment