Good Night and Good Luck

I accept that there was a liberal media bias that existed for years in the days of a limited mainstream media (3 major TV networks).  I also accept that the liberal bias was overstated from time to time to advance a conservative talking point, or just plain hide the truth (see Nixon-Agnew blaming the Washington Post for uncovering and reporting on their criminal activities).  Blame the messenger worked then (for a time), and it works now.  Remember, Sarah Palin never flubbed the answer to a question; the media tricked her.  The media is a convenient enemy, and probably always will be. 

The liberal bias in the modern era, however, is a myth, a carry over from simpler times when Americans got their news from 3 different guys in suit and tie at 7 PM each weeknight.  Today, many conservative talking points, regardless of their merit, are treated with the same gravitas as liberal talking points.  The press and general media has been scared into submission by conservatives, so congratulations to the Right.  Your agenda is on the air, and from time to time, some good comes from that.  It can be healthy, as long as fact checking by journalists is involved.  You are entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts.  The real bias, in my opinion, is towards the sensational and the inflammatory, and that is what really matters.

Let’s take a look at the recent mainstream political media coverage of recent court decisions regarding the Affordable Care Act.   Those upholding the constitutionality of the health care law get very little attention, while conservative rulings against the law are literally treated as front-page news.

From the Washington Monthly:
Three federal district courts have said the Affordable Care Act meets constitutional muster; two have reached the opposite conclusion. Here's how four major media outlets have covered the rulings, in the order in which the decisions came down:

Washington Post

* Steeh ruling (upholding the ACA): article on page A2, 607 words
* Moon ruling (upholding the ACA): article on page B5, 507 words
* Hudson ruling (against the ACA): article on page A1, 1624 words
* Vinson ruling (against the ACA): article on page A1, 1176 words
* Kessler ruling (upholding the ACA): no article, zero words

New York Times

* Steeh ruling (upholding the ACA): article on page A15, 416 words
* Moon ruling (upholding the ACA): article on page A24, 335 words
* Hudson ruling (against the ACA): article on page A1, 1320 words
* Vinson ruling (against the ACA): article on page A1, 1192 words
* Kessler ruling (upholding the ACA): article on page A14, 488 words

Associated Press

* Steeh ruling (upholding the ACA): one piece, 474 words
* Moon ruling (upholding the ACA): one piece, 375 words
* Hudson ruling (against the ACA): one piece, 915 words
* Vinson ruling (against the ACA): one piece, 1164 words
* Kessler ruling (upholding the ACA): one piece, 595 words

Politico

* Steeh ruling (upholding the ACA): one piece, 830 words
* Moon ruling (upholding the ACA): one piece, 535 words
* Hudson ruling (against the ACA): three pieces, 2734 words
* Vinson ruling (against the ACA): four pieces, 3437 words
* Kessler ruling (upholding the ACA): one piece, 702 words

[Update: here's this same data in chart form.]

As a legal matter, none of these ruling is more important than the other -- they're all at the federal district level, they're all dealing with the same law, and they'll all be subjected to an appeal.  And yet, the discrepancy is overwhelming. In every instance, conservative rulings get more coverage, longer articles, and better placement.

Does this mean that there is a conservative media bias at work across these publications?  Of course not.  Let’s face it – deciding that a law is still a law isn’t very sexy news.  Declaring that a major piece of legislation is unconstitutional, now that’s interesting.  “If it bleeds, it leads,” goes the old TV news saying.  Laws being overturned by the courts are the judicial equivalent of a car wreck.  You can’t look away, so the media covers it, page one, above the fold.  That's a bias towards selling advertising, not a political point of view.

Why is there such a bias towards the sensational?  Sadly, our national attention span isn’t long enough for anything else, and the competition for someone's attention is so acute in the Internet Age.  We have access to more information, and yet we're getting dumber.  

The Kaiser Family Foundation released a poll that asked people the following question:

"As far as you know, which comes closest to describing the current status of the health reform law that was passed last year?"

A narrow majority, 52%, said the law is still on the books, while 22% said the law has been repealed, and 26% weren't sure either way.  Yes, 48% of those polled don’t even know if one of the most important and controversial laws of the past 25 years is on the books.  Only three things could be at play here – the media has done a terrible job covering the story, Americans could care less, or Americans don’t understand the question.  Any of the three possibilities is a tragedy.

Editor's Note:

I have to mention that fair and balanced news reporting is possible, but I would question whether you could get that from a network that employs just about every GOP presidential contender for 2012 as a “paid contributor”.