Framing the Election

While voters don't head to the polls until November, members of the media seem to vote every day.

THE AMERICAN MEDIA would have you believe that they report the facts neutrally and objectively. The reality, however, is that the mainstream media—national daily newspapers and major broadcast news networks—exhibit a liberal political bias that undermines the full exercise of democracy. Reporters, writers and editors regularly portray conservatives negatively and liberals positively; they ignore altogether politicians to their left. While this bias is nothing new in American journalism, it's now easier than ever to detect—thanks to the Internet.

Media bias takes shape through a process called framing. A frame is a story line, an angle, or as Boston College sociologist William Gamson puts it, "a central organizing idea for making sense of relevant events and suggesting what is at issue." Frames are not necessarily bad; they help readers interpret facts and evaluate issues. But frames are powerful devices, elevating the salience of some ideas while making other ideas virtually invisible. Although providing contextual cues for the interpretation of events is a necessary part of media responsibility, problems begin when reporters, writers and editors frame news stories in ways that advance their personal political perspectives.

You can learn to see frames by asking yourself: What is the story asking the reader to focus on? Look for words that are used repeatedly or in a manner that distracts from a neutral interpretation. Watch for explications of problems, causes and solutions—and for moral judgments writers may impose on them. Since frames may carry themes across time, read the continuing coverage over a period of days or weeks, even months.

With a national election upon us, it is surprisingly simple to see firsthand how media bias alters the news. We usually receive our political news from only a few sources—and rarely from the original statements of politicians. But those are now readily available on the Internet. When either presidential candidate gives a speech covered by the media, just click on the candidates Web site ( www.george wbush.com or www.algore2ooo.com ) and download the speech. Next, visit several news sites on the Web and search for articles on those particular speeches (for a listing of most newspapers online in the United States, see the Newspaper Association of Americas Web site at ( www.naa.org /hotlinks/index.asp) Then compare how Governor Bush or Vice President Gore framed a problemand how the media framed it.

Lets look, for example, at how three newspapers covered speeches given by the candidates on the first anniversary of the Columbine High School massacre April 20. TheNew York Times pushed the candidates' positions to the extremes: for Bush the massacre "was a lesson in neglected values," while Gore called for "newer, tougher gun control laws." In emphasizing differences and neglecting similarities in the candidates' positions, the Times framed the story such that Bush appeared wholly for character education and Gore wholly for gun control.

The Washington Post similarly pushed oppositions between the candidates and left no doubts about how it saw the differences between them: "Views on gun control offered the widest substantive gap between the two candidates." The Post negatively portrayed Bush as coming under Democratic criticism, while portraying Gore positively for criticizing the NRA. The coverage thus suggested that Bush is on the defensive while Gore is on the offensive.

The Washington Times, an editorially conservative yet reportorially neutral paper per, introduced information the other dailies lacked: that a recent Pew Center survey of voter attitudes toward guns and youth violence found that more voters thought along the lines of Bush's proposals than Gore's. Why didn't the other papers find the Pew Center survey equally newswor thy? Could it be because it runs counter to what those editors personally believe about gun control? Could it be that they do not want Bush to be seen as in touch and Gore seen as out of touch with what Americans want? Has Bush been framed as a gun control opponent and Gore as a gun control advocate so thoroughly that the media can see their statements only as black or white?

Time for a reality check. The candidates' Web pages reveal many similarities and only a few major differences in their attitudes toward gun violence. After comparing the full text of their Columbine speeches with media accounts, one wonders if reporters actually read the candidates' statements. In this case, Bush was misreprented by the mainstream media as being against any gun control. Gore was credited for being proactive against gun violence, yet by being pushed into the liberal mold of the media, part of his political voice was silenced.

And this is only one example of media dia bias. Others abound.

The bottom line is clear. You must approach news coverage with an educated skepticism. Know the stated and unstated bias of the news sources you consult. Keep asking yourself: What is the media telling me to focus on and think about? By detecting frames, you not only become a critical consumer of news stories, you become a true participant in democracy.

JIM A. KUYPERS, a senior lecturer and director of the Office of Speech at the College, isthe author of Presidential Crisis Rhetoric and the Press in the Post-Cold War World (Praeger, 1997).