When journalists stoke our biases
How can we expect to overcome confirmation bias when it's pushed on the national stage?
This is not the sort of place where our presuppositions are challenged. But we should expect more from journalists. (Photo by Raúl Lazcano on Unsplash)
At the gym where I work out, there’s a guy who typically punctuates his ready-to-share views on politics and society with the kicker, “That’s just the way it is.” I’m so often tempted to respond, “Actually, it’s not.” But that would identify me as a know-it-all, which I do not wish to seem since humility is an admirable trait, as is surely recognized by all of us. Or almost all of us.
Besides, there would be little to gain from arguing with Mr. Way-it-is, because most of us aren’t open to considering anything beyond what we already know, anyhow. A lot of research over the past couple of decades has explored what’s usually called confirmation bias — that is, our tendency to embrace information that supports what we believe and reject anything that might suggest otherwise. Unless we are rigorous in demanding intellectual independence of ourselves, we’ll avoid looking for anything that might challenge our presuppositions, and if we’re served up new data, we’ll either interpret it to match whatever we already think or else conclude that it’s simply wrong.
It's a human tendency, and we’re all susceptible to it. I can fantasize about knocking the (sweaty) socks off the guy at the gym with a cogent argument or a flood of facts, but I might as well imagine doing five reps of a 200-pound bench press. No locker room lecture is going to erase the influence of confirmation bias.
Mind you, there are benefits to confirmation bias, which is how it developed in our distant ancestors. It helps us to sort information quickly: I don’t need to check consumer ratings for mayonnaise, because I know I’m going to buy Hellman’s. And it reduces the stress of cognitive dissonance, which is the uncomfortable feeling we have when we hold two conflicting views in mind. It’s much more pleasing to wallow in what we know.1
Children, by the way, aren’t as susceptible to confirmation bias, since they haven’t formed as many opinions and they’re more accustomed to being told what to believe, anyway. But grown-ups get pretty sure that they’re right and grow pretty hostile to suggestions otherwise. Not for nothing is “grouchy old man” an overused phrase, because the characterization is true: Guys my age don’t much like being told anything. It’s probably why a lot of people would rather be around children.
All of this is particularly frustrating to people in two fields: journalism and politics. If you’re a politician, you’re always running smack up against about half the population that doesn’t want to hear from you because they’ve already made up their minds that you’re on the wrong side. Journalists, meanwhile, are supposed to pursue the simple goal of giving people a true sense of what’s beyond their own view — an honorable task that becomes problematic when what’s true conflicts with what people already believe. That is, confirmation bias often inhibits the reception of truths delivered by journalists. I’d say that’s a key reason that less than one-third of Americans, according to Gallup, report even a “fair amount” of confidence that the media will report the news “fully, accurately and fairly.” People tend to consider a news report inaccurate and unfair if it conflicts with what they believe.2
Politicians often try to solve their side of this dilemma by exquisite contortion, angling to win your vote by demonstrating that that their views are like yours. It is of course impossible for one politician to match the opinions of the roughly 244 million eligible voters in the country; for that matter, it would be hard to square up with even the 5,000 or so voters in my little Upstate town. The integrity of candidates in this pursuit varies. Without meaning to excuse dishonesty on the part of politicians, I might suggest a modicum of sympathy: A bit of wishy-washiness in political rhetoric is understandable when a commitment to public service confronts the hurdle of millions of closed minds.
That shouldn’t be an issue for a journalist, though, because popularity isn’t a prerequisite for the job. The first tenet of the Code of Ethics of the Society of Professional Journalists makes the responsibility clear: “Seek the truth and report it.” It does not give ground to any of our innate psychological flaws – that is, in recognition of confirmation bias, the code has not been modified to read, “Seek the truth and report that which is pleasing to your audience.”
The code’s second tenet is likewise straightforward: “Act independently.” That offers no leeway for becoming a wee bit less independent in the context of a journalist’s own confirmation bias or that of news consumers. Nobody gets to claim the mantle of journalistic independence while also acting as an agent for one side or another in a political context.3
With confirmation bias such a factor in both politics and journalism, one of the most illuminating moments of the presidential campaign played out this week on Fox News, when Kamala Harris sat down for a 26-minute interview with Bret Baier, the anchor usually identified as the closest approximation to a straight-down-the-line journalist that the conservative network employs. Both sides could claim bragging rights from the encounter, but the integrity gap that confirmation bias encourages was more acute on one.4
Even before a word was spoken, the interview was notable for the fact that it was happening: Harris knew she would have to fight to get her message across, because Fox is flamboyantly biased in favor of Donald Trump. Network hosts miss few opportunities to attack the Democratic nominee and the policies of the Biden administration; in the choice of stories it airs and those it omits, in the words it broadcasts and the guests it touts, Fox gives conservatives a comfortable home. It reinforces the confirmation bias of its audience.
Even so, what played out during the interview was shocking, because the politician and the anchor seemed to switch imperatives: Harris tried to convey some points of truth that Fox viewers likely wouldn’t know, since the network of course wouldn’t risk losing audience share by challenging its viewers biases. Meanwhile, Baier made sure that the 7 million conservatives who tuned in would have no reason to doubt that he was their advocate.
Not that Harris didn’t squeeze her way out of direct answers to tough questions; she is quick-witted and a good debater, so she wasn’t about to let the Fox agenda define the debate. Nor was Baier wrong in trying, as any journalist should, to move a politician off her favored talking points. But the exercise made clear that Fox’s goal wasn’t to help voters understand the Democratic presidential candidate as much as it was to promote Trump: Baier focused on topics stressed by the Trump campaign and echoed its slogans; he attacked the record of the Biden administration in posing questions, and even aired a Trump attack ad as part of a question. When Harris managed to point to Trump’s shocking threat to use U.S. troops to round up his political opponents, Baier rolled a selectively-edited video of Trump that dishonestly downplayed the notion.
It was as though Baier took up the task that Trump has refused — a second debate with Harris. Of course, Baier did the job better than Trump would have: There was no swaying to Ave Maria, no spewing of outrageous falsehoods and wandering about random topics, no evocation of fascism in asserting plans for enhanced executive power.
To be clear, I’m not arguing that there’s no place for opinion on journalistic platforms, nor that we don’t all have our biases. The Upstate American is a weekly opinion essay, and opinion is what’s heard on MSNBC and published on the opinion pages of major newspapers. But none of those opinion outlets intentionally distort reality and push lies, as Fox News does consistently. And opinion journalism is not what Fox claims Bret Baier’s show represents, in any case; he is touted as a tough and independent journalist, not a shill. People in a television audience who tune in for a true view of the news deserve more than fabricated reassurances that they know all they need to know, and they deserve better than this: deception aimed at protecting the sensibilities of Fox’s audience, and thus the profits Rupert Murdoch reaps from his network’s shows.
From early childhood, we gain understanding by observation and experience. Our environment and training predispose us to certain ideology and values, and once they’re embedded, those fundamentals tend to hold, psychologists tell us. Challenges to what we’ve internalized can upset our equilibrium, so we keep ourselves settled by focusing on information that is consistent with what we already believe.
Yet humans also possess the ability to reason and the intelligence to determine when change is needed. We’re pushed away from that sort of diligent assessment by all sorts of factors: emotional arguments, images that stoke old values, even outright lies. (Haitian immigrants are eating pets in Ohio! Our cities are overrun with crime! Disaster aid was diverted to migrants! Votes were stolen in Georgia!)
Against the backdrop of our own attachment to what we already believe and the effort by unethical politicians to win our votes with falsehoods and fear, there’s an imperative for journalists to do their jobs with unyielding ethical standards. Any departure from truth-telling is a violation of trust, but it’s egregious if the journalist plays upon the biases and fears of the news consumer to shut down independent thought. That’s what Fox News is all about, though, and it’s why the network and its stars are such a pox on the American political scene.
And that’s just the way it is.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/blog/belief-and-the-brain/201706/why-we-believe-what-we-re-told
https://news.gallup.com/poll/651977/americans-trust-media-remains-trend-low.aspx
https://www.spj.org/pdf/spj-code-of-ethics.pdf
For a transcript of the interview, consult Juliet Jeske’s useful Decoding Fox News podcast, newsletter and blog.
BONUS VIDEO
My great friend Niki Haynes, an artist who is best known for her brilliant collages, has created a short video with a message appropriate for this election season. You won’t want to miss it. Check it out here.
DOWNLOAD OR LISTEN NOW: MORE FROM THE UPSTATE AMERICAN
IF YOU’RE A READER who wants to hear more of Rex Smith’s views, check www.wamc.org for his weekly on-air commentary aired by Northeast Public Radio. Here’s a link to the latest essay.
AND IF YOUR INTEREST IS SPECIFIC TO AMERICAN MEDIA, you can download the podcast of The Media Project, the 30-minute nationally-syndicated discussion that Rex leads each week on current issues in journalism. In the seven states where Northeast Public Radio is heard, the program airs at 3 p.m. each Friday and is rebroadcast at 6 p.m. Sunday. You can tune in live, too, at www.wamc.org, or get the podcast there. It has been called “a half-hour of talk about finding and telling the truth.” And it’s worth your time.
NOW, LEARN TO WRITE OP-EDS
If you’d like to learn how to write opinion essays — for newspapers, audio or digital platforms — check out the live 90-minute class that Rex co-teaches that is offered by Marion Roach Smith’s global platform for writing instruction, The Memoir Project. Click below for information on our upcoming schedule of classes.
Our next class is Wednesday, Nov. 20, at 11:30 a.m. Eastern.
Lots of our students have been well published — and you can be, too.
THANK YOU for reading The Upstate American, and for joining us in the conversation about *our common ground, this great country. I hope you’ll join us again next week — or send a message with ideas you’d like to see us address.
-REX SMITH