The Right's Media Pipeline

Last week, while reporting the Public Policy Polling study of Americans' trust in the news media, I mentioned that, contrary to the common stereotype that the media have a “liberal bias,” most studies show the media to be more conservative than the public. Not wanting to review the large and complex literature on the subject, I cited a single study. It's a good study, but one study doesn't make the case. What I prefer to do in this blog is cite new studies of media bias as they come to my attention. Here's a case in point.

Media Matters for America has analyzed all the news coverage of the proposed Keystone XL pipeline from August 1 through December 31, 2011, on three broadcast networks (ABC, CBS and NBC), three cable news networks (CNN, Fox and MSNBC) and six newspaper outlets (Associated Press, Los Angeles Times, New York Times, USA Today, Wall Street Journal and Washington Post). At issue was whether their coverage of the conflict between corporate profits and environmental protection was balanced. What was the mixture of conservative arguments for the pipeline and liberal arguments against it? Previous research had shown journalists to be to the left of the American public on environmental issues, but far to its right on economic issues.

One way to measure media bias is to examine the positions of the experts who were interviewed or cited in the news reports. Each expert was classified as either a pipeline supporter, a pipeline opponent, or neutral. Here are the results:

	Broadcast	Cable	Print
Support the pipeline	79%	59%	45%
Oppose the pipeline	7%	16%	31%
Are Neutral	14%	25%	24%

The six newspapers published 19 editorial and op-eds in favor of the pipeline and 10 opposed.

They then examined how often the media mentioned two specific arguments in favor of the pipeline and two opposition arguments. The two arguments in favor were.

1. Job creation. Pipeline proponents claimed the pipeline would create 20,000 manufacturing and construction jobs and over 600,000 “spinoff” jobs, primarily due to increased energy availability. Independent economists suggested these claims were wildly inflated. The State Department put the number of temporary construction jobs at 5,000-6,000 and said the pipeline would have little effect on long-term employment.
2. Energy security. Advocates of the pipeline said it would reduce our dependence on “foreign” (other than Canadian) oil. Since the pipeline runs from Canada to the Gulf Coast, this ignores the obvious fact that its primary purpose is to facilitate the export of oil to the rest of the world.

The two arguments against the pipeline were:

1. Environmental impact. Opponents pointed out that if the pipeline were to leak, it could do great damage to the Great Plains ecosystem. Furthermore, oil extracted from the Canadian tar sands releases more carbon dioxide than any other fossil fuel, which will have a disastrous effect on global warming.
2. State Department review. The State Department's review of the pipeline, which recommended construction, was tainted by corruption. The consulting firm which prepared the review also had Transcanada, the owners of the pipeline, as a client. (I'll bet many of you haven't even heard this criticism. You'll see why.)

Here's how often these arguments were mentioned. (Since a news report can mention more than one argument, the figures total more than 100%.)

	Broadcast	Cable	Print
Job creation potential	67%	77%	68%
U. S. energy security	22%	28%	54%
Environmental concerns	17%	34%	65%
Criticism of State Dept. review	6%	7%	20%

The news media passed on Transcanada's job creation estimates five times more often than they mentioned criticism of these numbers by independent economists.

Although all media outlets supported the pipeline, it is important to note that print coverage of the issue came closer to being balanced than television.

Why are the media so biased in favor of the pipeline? In this case, the primary reasons are probably the prevalence of energy company advertising in the media, and the fact that media conglomerates have interlocking financial relationships with energy corporations.

Why do most people falsely believe the media have a “liberal bias,” in spite of the evidence from their own eyes and ears? That's complicated. One reason is that the media keep telling us they have a liberal bias, by reporting anecdotal claims by right wing media critics while suppressing studies such as this one. One study found that the more often the media reported claims that they have a liberal bias, the more the public believed it. What could be better for mass media with a strong conservative bias than to be falsely believed to have a liberal bias? This would imply that if they were “fair and balanced,” they would be even more conservative than they presently are!