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 
A thought struck me while reading this. During President Clinton’s term in the late 1990s unemployment was low and real wages were rising. At the start of the Bush presidency it was rising. So I would have to question just how much high unemployment coverage there would have been under a Democratic president in the last decade no matter what the bias of the paper.
A thought struck me while reading this. During President Clinton’s term in the late 1990s unemployment was low and real wages were rising. At the start of the Bush presidency it was rising. So I would have to question just how much high unemployment coverage there would have been under a Democratic president in the last decade no matter what the bias of the paper.
I would like to see the matter of media ownership studied. I imagine that what the owners want is a far more important bias than that of lowly reporters who are assigned stories, only to have them edited by someone above.
I also imagine that the strongest bias of all is pro-advertisers. That is why the manifest racketeering of American cell phone companies gets so little media attention. Cell phone companies are media’s best advertisers.
I would like to see the matter of media ownership studied. I imagine that what the owners want is a far more important bias than that of lowly reporters who are assigned stories, only to have them edited by someone above.
I also imagine that the strongest bias of all is pro-advertisers. That is why the manifest racketeering of American cell phone companies gets so little media attention. Cell phone companies are media’s best advertisers.
Over the drinks this weekend, I was with one of my friend’s father who has spent his time in Georgia Tech. during his youth.
When I’d (I’m an Indian) opined that American public in general are considerate ‘n moderate; he replied that they’re media controlled/driven.
Probably your post bolsters his views.
Over the drinks this weekend, I was with one of my friend’s father who has spent his time in Georgia Tech. during his youth.
When I’d (I’m an Indian) opined that American public in general are considerate ‘n moderate; he replied that they’re media controlled/driven.
Probably your post bolsters his views.
Responding to post #2:
“News should not be a market. It is information, having so much bias information is what is wrong with the media today.”
Well, then, where do you propose it come from, dropped already printed from the sky? Maybe you trust the government to produce unbiased news?
You are right to distrust the media — each outlet has an objective in its reporting. Fortunately, capitalism has brought us many outlets, with different objectives, so that in the middle we may find the truth.
Responding to post #2:
“News should not be a market. It is information, having so much bias information is what is wrong with the media today.”
Well, then, where do you propose it come from, dropped already printed from the sky? Maybe you trust the government to produce unbiased news?
You are right to distrust the media — each outlet has an objective in its reporting. Fortunately, capitalism has brought us many outlets, with different objectives, so that in the middle we may find the truth.