As Levitt has noted in the past, media bias is a hot topic among some economists. Typically the bias is reflected in a paper’s reporting (as Dubner pointed out here). But can newspapers also influence public opinion based on their coverage of economic matters?
That’s the question addressed in the working paper “Partisan Bias in Economic News: Evidence on the Agenda-Setting Behavior of U.S. Newspapers,” by Valentino Larcinese, a government professor at the London School of Economics; Riccardo Puglisi, a political science professor at M.I.T.; and James Snyder, an M.I.T. economist. Studying a “large sample of U.S. newspapers during the last decade,” they identified each paper as liberal or conservative based on its endorsement policy. Then they examined the total number of articles each publication ran on economic issues like unemployment, inflation, trade deficits and the federal budget. Here’s how they summarize their findings:
We find evidence that newspapers with [a] pro-Democratic endorsement pattern systematically give more coverage to high unemployment when the incumbent president is a Republican than when the president is Democratic, compared to newspapers with [a] pro-Republican endorsement pattern. This result is not driven by the partisanship of readers. There is on the contrary no evidence of a partisan bias — or at least of a bias that is correlated with the endorsement policy — for stories on inflation, budget deficit or trade deficit.
So now we know that Republican administrations are slammed for high unemployment rates. But along the same logic, are pro-Republican newspapers pushing stories on inflation, deficits, or social issues during a Democratic president’s term? Either way, we may be giving the President too much credit for his influence over any of these matters.
and 
. You can also watch it on 
This should not be a shock to anyone, except perhaps journalists who in my experience don’t see the bias in their reporting. It’s funny, I’ll be the first to admit places like Fox News are biased, but trying to get anyone liberal to admit ANY mainstream media outlets are is biased toward liberals is like pulling teeth.
The real question to me is, are these papers actually successful in convincing people of their views?
I find that most people tend to seek the news they like/want to hear. This is why Fox News is such a success; millions of people watching left leaning CNN wanted news that matched their political views; Rupert delivered to an under served market.
If only some newspapers/media outlets would realize that people seek out get like minded news, they might be more successful … why the decline in viewer/readership at most main stream media outlets, while conservative outlets like Fox increase their viewer/readership? It’s the market … give people what they want, not what you want.
This should not be a shock to anyone, except perhaps journalists who in my experience don’t see the bias in their reporting. It’s funny, I’ll be the first to admit places like Fox News are biased, but trying to get anyone liberal to admit ANY mainstream media outlets are is biased toward liberals is like pulling teeth.
The real question to me is, are these papers actually successful in convincing people of their views?
I find that most people tend to seek the news they like/want to hear. This is why Fox News is such a success; millions of people watching left leaning CNN wanted news that matched their political views; Rupert delivered to an under served market.
If only some newspapers/media outlets would realize that people seek out get like minded news, they might be more successful … why the decline in viewer/readership at most main stream media outlets, while conservative outlets like Fox increase their viewer/readership? It’s the market … give people what they want, not what you want.
Responding to post #1
News should not be a market. It is information, having so much bias information is what is wrong with the media today. Most major news channels are pure crap right now because they just try to give the viewer what they want instead of actually reporting news. This is the reason Anna Nicole’s death was probably the biggest story of the year and Brittney Spears gets more news cover than anyone in politics.
There are places where capitalism fails and this is clearly one of those areas. It is spurring the polarity of politics today and being echoed throughout DC and voters everywhere.
Responding to post #1
News should not be a market. It is information, having so much bias information is what is wrong with the media today. Most major news channels are pure crap right now because they just try to give the viewer what they want instead of actually reporting news. This is the reason Anna Nicole’s death was probably the biggest story of the year and Brittney Spears gets more news cover than anyone in politics.
There are places where capitalism fails and this is clearly one of those areas. It is spurring the polarity of politics today and being echoed throughout DC and voters everywhere.
Who isn’t biased? Everyone of us is a product derived after years or decades of existence.
We all are long on opinions and short on facts. We also form our opinions then look for facts to back them up rather than vice versa. I feel we should interpret any and all news pieces through a skeptical filter and as readers (viewers) we should be more empiric.
Also, the news media tends to sensationalize most news stories and another of their biases is that they produce negative pieces as opposed to positive ones. After all, news is a market and a big one. Negative news sells.
I don’t entirely agree with the comment that the news media is one area where capitalism fails although I see your point. If it comes between a capitalistic news system, or a government-controlled one, I’d rather the government stick to trying to run itself than to establish new laws to control communications.
Who isn’t biased? Everyone of us is a product derived after years or decades of existence.
We all are long on opinions and short on facts. We also form our opinions then look for facts to back them up rather than vice versa. I feel we should interpret any and all news pieces through a skeptical filter and as readers (viewers) we should be more empiric.
Also, the news media tends to sensationalize most news stories and another of their biases is that they produce negative pieces as opposed to positive ones. After all, news is a market and a big one. Negative news sells.
I don’t entirely agree with the comment that the news media is one area where capitalism fails although I see your point. If it comes between a capitalistic news system, or a government-controlled one, I’d rather the government stick to trying to run itself than to establish new laws to control communications.
I must disagree, Charles. This is NOT where capitalism fails, it is a stunning success. There was a market for competing ideas, and it has been filled.
The issue is not conscious bias. It just so happens that two of the most overtly liberal cities in the USA (NYC and DC) happen to house the most influential agenda-setting newspapers. The writers and editors who are most likely to want to live in those cities will be more aggressive about getting jobs there. And being surrounded by like-minded people, they are oblivious to the bubble in which they are firmly ensconced. A nice, safe, liberal cocoon.
No bias on my part – that’s just the way it is.
I must disagree, Charles. This is NOT where capitalism fails, it is a stunning success. There was a market for competing ideas, and it has been filled.
The issue is not conscious bias. It just so happens that two of the most overtly liberal cities in the USA (NYC and DC) happen to house the most influential agenda-setting newspapers. The writers and editors who are most likely to want to live in those cities will be more aggressive about getting jobs there. And being surrounded by like-minded people, they are oblivious to the bubble in which they are firmly ensconced. A nice, safe, liberal cocoon.
No bias on my part – that’s just the way it is.