Given the extremely large pool of events and stories available, media outlets need to focus on a subset of issues and aspects to convey to their audience. Outlets are often accused of exhibiting a systematic bias in this selection process, with different outlets portraying different versions of reality. However, in the absence of objective measures and empirical evidence, the direction and extent of systematicity remains widely disputed. In this paper we propose a framework based on quoting patterns for quantifying and characterizing the degree to which media outlets exhibit systematic bias. We apply this framework to a massive dataset of news articles spanning the six years of Obama's presidency and all of his speeches, and reveal that a systematic pattern does indeed emerge from the outlet's quoting behavior. Moreover, we show that this pattern can be successfully exploited in an unsupervised prediction setting, to determine which new quotes an outlet will select to broadcast. By encoding bias patterns in a low-rank space we provide an analysis of the structure of political media coverage. This reveals a latent media bias space that aligns surprisingly well with political ideology and outlet type. A linguistic analysis exposes striking differences across these latent dimensions, showing how the different types of media outlets portray different realities even when reporting on the same events. For example, outlets mapped to the mainstream conservative side of the latent space focus on quotes that portray a presidential persona disproportionately characterized by negativity.
Media bias Our work relates to an extensive body of literature---spanning across political science, economics and communication studies---that gives theoretical and empirical accounts of media bias and its effects. We refer the reader to a recent comprehensive survey of media bias @cite_27 , and focus here on the studies that are most relevant to our approach.
@cite_27
2024633545 2793539342 2169227786 2592913799 1968917437 2798594587 2169020698 2166273866 1119807432 2060704337 2145451908 1904709910 2949098399 1128822470 2162068143 2112687664 2799201010 2129229917 2149252982 2587944871
The bias in the news media is an inherent flaw of the news production process. The resulting bias often causes a sharp increase in political polarization and in the cost of conflict on social issues such as Iraq war. It is very difficult, if not impossible, for readers to have penetrating views on realities against such bias. This paper presents NewsCube, a novel Internet news service aiming at mitigating the effect of media bias. NewsCube automatically creates and promptly provides readers with multiple classified viewpoints on a news event of interest. As such, it effectively helps readers understand a fact from a plural of viewpoints and formulate their own, more balanced viewpoints. While media bias problem has been studied extensively in communications and social sciences, our work is the first to develop a news service as a solution and study its effect. We discuss the effect of the service through various user studies. News consumers expect news outlets to be objective and balanced in their reports of events and opinions. However, there is a growing body of evidence of bias in the media caused by underlying political and socio-economic viewpoints. Previous studies have tried to classify the partiality of the media, but there is little work on quantifying it, and less still on the nature of this partiality. The vast amount of content published in social media enables us to quantify the inclination of the press to pre-defined sides of the socio-political spectrum. To describe such tendencies, we use tweets to automatically compute a news outlet’s political and socio-economic orientation. Results show that the media have a measurable bias, and illustrate this by showing the favoritism of Chilean media for the ruling political parties in the country. This favoritism becomes clearer as we empirically observe a shift in the position of the mass media when there is a change in government. Even though relative differences in bias between news outlets can be observed, public awareness of the bias of the media landscape as a whole appears to be limited by the political space defined by the news that we receive as a population. We found that the nature of the bias is reflected in the vocabulary used and the entities mentioned by different news outlets. A survey conducted among news consumers confirms that media bias has an impact on the coverage of controversial topics and that this is perceivable by the general audience. Having a more accurate method to measure and characterize media bias will help readers position outlets in the socio-economic landscape, even when a (sometimes opposite) self-declared position is stated. This will empower readers to better reflect on the content provided by their news outlets of choice. Partisan bias in the news is a perennial matter of concern and debate for scholars, journalists, politicians, and citizens. Although there are abundant opinions about the magnitude, direction, and even existence of media bias, producing a scholarly consensus on the issue has proven difficult for several reasons. In particular, scholars studying media bias empirically must overcome problems of subjectivity, strategic behavior by the actors involved in the process, and especially the absence of suitable baselines against which to assess bias. This article reviews some approaches to studying media bias and explores several promising strategies and tools scholars have developed to help overcome these obstacles. I conclude with suggestions for future research in the area. Bias is a common problem in today's media, appearing frequently in text and in visual imagery. Users on social media websites such as Twitter need better methods for identifying bias. Additionally, activists --those who are motivated to effect change related to some topic, need better methods to identify and counteract bias that is contrary to their mission. With both of these use cases in mind, in this paper we propose a novel tool called UnbiasedCrowd that supports identification of, and action on bias in visual news media. In particular, it addresses the following key challenges (1) identification of bias; (2) aggregation and presentation of evidence to users; (3) enabling activists to inform the public of bias and take action by engaging people in conversation with bots. We describe a preliminary study on the Twitter platform that explores the impressions that activists had of our tool, and how people reacted and engaged with online bots that exposed visual bias. We conclude by discussing design and implication of our findings for creating future systems to identify and counteract the effects of news bias. We hypothesize that in the real world, as opposed to the lab, the norm is for people to experience friendly media that favor their political predispositions when political favoritism is perceived at all. For this reason, media are generally limited in their ability to create cross-cutting exposure. We test this hypothesis using representative survey data drawn from 11 different countries with varying media systems. We further hypothesize that television will contribute more to cross-cutting exposure than newspapers. Finally, and most importantly, we test the hypothesis that the more the structure of a country's media system parallels that of its political parties, the more that country's population will be dominated by exposure to like-minded views via mass media. We find confirmation for all 3 of these hypotheses and discuss their implications for the role of mass media in providing exposure to cross-cutting political perspectives. News entities must select and filter the coverage they broadcast through their respective channels since the set of world events is too large to be treated exhaustively. The subjective nature of this filtering induces biases due to, among other things, resource constraints, editorial guidelines, ideological affinities, or even the fragmented nature of the information at a journalist's disposal. The magnitude and direction of these biases are, however, widely unknown. The absence of ground truth, the sheer size of the event space, or the lack of an exhaustive set of absolute features to measure make it difficult to observe the bias directly, to characterize the leaning's nature and to factor it out to ensure a neutral coverage of the news. In this work, we introduce a methodology to capture the latent structure of media's decision process on a large scale. Our contribution is multi-fold. First, we show media coverage to be predictable using personalization techniques, and evaluate our approach on a large set of events collected from the GDELT database. We then show that a personalized and parametrized approach not only exhibits higher accuracy in coverage prediction, but also provides an interpretable representation of the selection bias. Last, we propose a method able to select a set of sources by leveraging the latent representation. These selected sources provide a more diverse and egalitarian coverage, all while retaining the most actively covered events. We review the burgeoning political economy literature on the influence of mass media on politics and policy. This survey, which covers both theory and empirics, is organized along four main themes: transparency, capture, informative coverage, and ideological bias. We distill some general lessons and identify some open questions. Given the extremely large pool of events and stories available, media outlets need to focus on a subset of issues and aspects to convey to their audience. Outlets are often accused of exhibiting a systematic bias in this selection process, with different outlets portraying different versions of reality. However, in the absence of objective measures and empirical evidence, the direction and extent of systematicity remains widely disputed. In this paper we propose a framework based on quoting patterns for quantifying and characterizing the degree to which media outlets exhibit systematic bias. We apply this framework to a massive dataset of news articles spanning the six years of Obama's presidency and all of his speeches, and reveal that a systematic pattern does indeed emerge from the outlet's quoting behavior. Moreover, we show that this pattern can be successfully exploited in an unsupervised prediction setting, to determine which new quotes an outlet will select to broadcast. By encoding bias patterns in a low-rank space we provide an analysis of the structure of political media coverage. This reveals a latent media bias space that aligns surprisingly well with political ideology and outlet type. A linguistic analysis exposes striking differences across these latent dimensions, showing how the different types of media outlets portray different realities even when reporting on the same events. For example, outlets mapped to the mainstream conservative side of the latent space focus on quotes that portray a presidential persona disproportionately characterized by negativity. It is widely thought that news organizations exhibit ideological bias, but rigorously quantifying such slant has proven methodologically challenging. Through a combination of machine learning and crowdsourcing techniques, we investigate the selection and framing of political issues in 15 major U.S. news outlets. Starting with 803,146 news stories published over 12 months, we first used supervised learning algorithms to identify the 14 of articles pertaining to political events. We then recruited 749 online human judges to classify a random subset of 10,950 of these political articles according to topic and ideological position. Our analysis yields an ideological ordering of outlets consistent with prior work. We find, however, that news outlets are considerably more similar than generally believed. Specifically, with the exception of political scandals, we find that major news organizations present topics in a largely non-partisan manner, casting neither Democrats nor Republicans in a particularly favorable or unfavorable light. Moreover, again with the exception of political scandals, there is little evidence of systematic differences in story selection, with all major news outlets covering a wide variety of topics with frequency largely unrelated to the outlet's ideological position. Finally, we find that news organizations express their ideological bias not by directly advocating for a preferred political party, but rather by disproportionately criticizing one side, a convention that further moderates overall differences. We measure media bias by estimating ideological scores for several major media outlets. To compute this, we count the times that a particular media outlet cites various think tanks and policy groups, and then compare this with the times that members of Congress cite the same groups. Our results show a strong liberal bias: all of the news outlets we examine, except Fox News' Special Report and the Washington Times, received scores to the left of the average member of Congress. Consistent with claims made by conservative critics, CBS Evening News and the New York Times received scores far to the left of center. The most centrist media outlets were PBS NewsHour, CNN's Newsnight, and ABC's Good Morning America; among print outlets, USA Today was closest to the center. All of our findings refer strictly to news content; that is, we exclude editorials, letters, and the like. "The editors in Los Angeles killed the story. They told Witcover that it didn't ‘come off’ and that it was an ‘opinion’ story.… The solution was simple, they told him. All he had to do was get other people to make the same points and draw the same conclusions and then write the article in their words" (emphasis in original). Timothy Crouse, Boys on the Bus [1973, p. 116]. Unbiased language is a requirement for reference sources like encyclopedias and scientific texts. Bias is, nonetheless, ubiquitous, making it crucial to understand its nature and linguistic realization and hence detect bias automatically. To this end we analyze real instances of human edits designed to remove bias from Wikipedia articles. The analysis uncovers two classes of bias: framing bias, such as praising or perspective-specific words, which we link to the literature on subjectivity; and epistemological bias, related to whether propositions that are presupposed or entailed in the text are uncontroversially accepted as true. We identify common linguistic cues for these classes, including factive verbs, implicatives, hedges, and subjective intensifiers. These insights help us develop features for a model to solve a new prediction task of practical importance: given a biased sentence, identify the bias-inducing word. Our linguistically-informed model performs almost as well as humans tested on the same task. This study provides the first direct assessment of the extent to which citizens encounter news and opinion challenging their political views via mass media. The widely accepted conjecture that people refuse to hear the other side is based upon self-reports of media exposure, rather than direct observation of it. In light of this long-acknowledged limitation, I leverage unique data tracking partisanship as well as actual exposure to media collected 24 7 via passive tracking devices. Contrary to previous understandings, the vast majority of citizens consume predominately centrist information, while frequently encountering ideological programming challenging their views. In fact, the best predictor of how much conservative news you watch is how much liberal news you watch, regardless of partisanship. The demonstration of widespread exposure to diverse viewpoints challenges claims asserting that resistance to political influence occurs at the exposure stage of the persuasion process. The hypothesis of selective exposure assumes that people seek out information that supports their views and eschew information that conflicts with their beliefs, and that has negative consequences on our society. Few researchers have recently found counter evidence of selective exposure in social media: users are exposed to politically diverse articles. No work has looked at what happens after exposure, particularly how individuals react to such exposure, though. Users might well be exposed to diverse articles but share only the partisan ones. To test this, we study partisan sharing on Facebook: the tendency for users to predominantly share like-minded news articles and avoid conflicting ones. We verified four main hypotheses. That is, whether partisan sharing: 1) exists at all; 2) changes across individuals (e.g., depending on their interest in politics); 3) changes over time (e.g., around elections); and 4) changes depending on perceived importance of topics. We indeed find strong evidence for partisan sharing. To test whether it has any consequence in the real world, we built a web application for BBC viewers of a popular political program, resulting in a controlled experiment involving more than 70 individuals. Based on what they share and on survey data, we find that partisan sharing has negative consequences: distorted perception of reality. However, we do also find positive aspects of partisan sharing: it is associated with people who are more knowledgeable about politics and engage more with it as they are more likely to vote in the general elections. For over a generation, social scientists have tried to categorize the relationship between journalists and politicians. Which side holds power and influence over the other? Some scholars propose “active” theories: journalists have preferences and the power to impose them on anyone seeking media attention. Other scholars argue journalists are essentially “reactive,” dutifully writing down what politicians say with little ability to add alternate perspectives. In this dissertation, I propose both camps are extremes based on a fundamental misunderstanding of how journalists can apply their preferences on news content. Politicians and other sources provide information to reporters, bloggers and other new media writers. Each writer then chooses how to respond to this information. Journalistic power – whether we are discussing traditional media outlets or newer partisan media organizations – is best understood as a set of if : then propositions.The empirical sections of the dissertation consist of three separate studies, each of which focuses on one set of inputs and the output from a particular set of news organizations. The first study focuses on how presidents schedule press conferences at particular times and places. I find scheduling influences how much attention journalists give a conference, which in turn influences the balance of opinion found in stories. The second study shows how journalists resist but may ultimately give in to evasive responses, by examining quotations on a statement-by-statement basis. The third study examines some of the most popular phrases from the 2008 election, comparing how a wide range of media organizations responded to the same set of political and non-political ideas. Put together, these studies offer a common theoretical framework for comparing traditional and new media organizations, allowing for commonalities as well as differences. We investigate the market for news under two assumptions: that readers hold beliefs which they like to see confirmed, and that newspapers can slant stories toward these beliefs. We show that, on the topics where readers share common beliefs, one should not expect accuracy even from competitive media: competition results in lower prices, but common slanting toward reader biases. On topics where reader beliefs diverge (such as politically divisive issues), however, newspapers segment the market and slant toward extreme positions. Yet in the aggregate, a reader with access to all news sources could get an unbiased perspective. Generally speaking, reader heterogeneity is more important for accuracy in media than competition per se. In a news media environment characterized by abundant choice, it is becoming increasingly easy for Americans to choose news sources slanted toward their own political views rather than sources providing more diverse perspectives. This development poses a challenge to ideals of deliberative democracy if people who consume politically like-minded news disproportionately populate the electoral process, while those presumably reaping the benefits of exposure to more diverse views in the news (e.g., more informed, tolerant attitudes) withdraw from politics. Using panel data collected during the 2008 presidential campaign, this study investigates the proposition that exposure to news slanted toward one's own partisan views increases political participation, while exposure to news with the opposite partisan slant depresses participation. The results suggest that, while exposure to partisan news does not alter the strongly habitual decision to turn out, the hypothesized energizing and enervating effects of exposure do appear for other behavior during the campaign; the partisan hue of the news sources citizens choose to consume affects both when voters decide and their levels of participation over time. Rankings of people and items are at the heart of selection-making, match-making, and recommender systems, ranging from employment sites to sharing economy platforms. As ranking positions influence the amount of attention the ranked subjects receive, biases in rankings can lead to unfair distribution of opportunities and resources such as jobs or income. This paper proposes new measures and mechanisms to quantify and mitigate unfairness from a bias inherent to all rankings, namely, the position bias which leads to disproportionately less attention being paid to low-ranked subjects. Our approach differs from recent fair ranking approaches in two important ways. First, existing works measure unfairness at the level of subject groups while our measures capture unfairness at the level of individual subjects, and as such subsume group unfairness. Second, as no single ranking can achieve individual attention fairness, we propose a novel mechanism that achieves amortized fairness, where attention accumulated across a series of rankings is proportional to accumulated relevance. We formulate the challenge of achieving amortized individual fairness subject to constraints on ranking quality as an online optimization problem and show that it can be solved as an integer linear program. Our experimental evaluation reveals that unfair attention distribution in rankings can be substantial, and demonstrates that our method can improve individual fairness while retaining high ranking quality. In this paper we investigate the effect of the context of interaction on the extent to which a contributor's perspective bias is displayed through their lexical choice. We present a series of experiments on political discussion data. Our experiments indicate that (i) when people quote contributors with an opposing view, they tend to quote the words that are less strongly associated with the opposing view. (ii) Nevertheless, in quoting their opponents, the displayed bias of their word distributions shifts towards that of their opponents. (iii) The personal bias of the speaker is displayed most clearly through the words that are not quoted, (iv) although characteristics of the quoted message do have a measurable effect on the words that are included in the contribution. And, finally, (v) posts are influenced by the displayed bias of previous posts in a thread. Information environments have the power to affect people's perceptions and behaviors. In this paper, we present the results of studies in which we characterize the gender bias present in image search results for a variety of occupations. We experimentally evaluate the effects of bias in image search results on the images people choose to represent those careers and on people's perceptions of the prevalence of men and women in each occupation. We find evidence for both stereotype exaggeration and systematic underrepresentation of women in search results. We also find that people rate search results higher when they are consistent with stereotypes for a career, and shifting the representation of gender in image search results can shift people's perceptions about real-world distributions. We also discuss tensions between desires for high-quality results and broader societ al goals for equality of representation in this space. Search systems in online social media sites are frequently used to find information about ongoing events and people. For topics with multiple competing perspectives, such as political events or political candidates, bias in the top ranked results significantly shapes public opinion. However, bias does not emerge from an algorithm alone. It is important to distinguish between the bias that arises from the data that serves as the input to the ranking system and the bias that arises from the ranking system itself. In this paper, we propose a framework to quantify these distinct biases and apply this framework to politics-related queries on Twitter. We found that both the input data and the ranking system contribute significantly to produce varying amounts of bias in the search results and in different ways. We discuss the consequences of these biases and possible mechanisms to signal this bias in social media search systems' interfaces.