Cultural and Social Influence of Political Partisan News
AP Seminar
Word Count: 1,320
News outlets have evolved into political battlegrounds where divisions are amplified, and
ideologies are solidified. Each side providing a limited view or a skewed one on the truth,
significantly contributes to escalating political polarization. Constantly being shown biased
information only has negative societal outcomes. Some being group polarization, where
individuals with similar views become more extreme, furthering the gap between groups. Often
partisan news reinforces pre-existing biases, creating an “echo chamber.” When people are not
willing to hear differing opinions, it can lead to groups of people who separate themselves from
society due to their personal beliefs. This is made worse by the media. Their algorithms show us
content that matches our views, creating echo chambers. These chambers cut us off from other
opinions. Misinformation spreads quickly, and many people do not think critically about what
they see. This makes it hard for society to focus on true facts. Instead, feelings and political
stories take the lead.
Media bias influences the way we make decisions. We end up choosing based on skewed
information from news outlets. Often, this is not just about leaving facts out; it is also about
showing only certain facts to push an opinion. This bias often creates stereotypes or ideas of
groups that may be inaccurate. This erodes the trust in our government which is detrimental to a
democracy that requires informed and involved citizens. As a result of media bias, collective
decision-making is distorted, resulting in misinformed choices and democracy that reflects the
opinions of the broadcast news channels, because of skewed information provided by the media.
It does not have to be the outright omission of facts, instead it is often the selective choice of
facts or stories to promote a certain agenda. By using portions of the truth, the media can invoke
a certain feeling on a story or situation before you hear a different side. This selective
representation creates an erosion of trust in our government, causing the citizens within to be
unwilling to participate. Which is detrimental to the US democracy that relies on an informed
and engaged society. As Phil Wasburn, a professor of sociology, notes, “repeated assertions of
media bias can lead the public to believe the media is inherently prejudiced, resulting in
disengagement from political affairs. This disengagement, coupled with the proliferation of
misinformation, creates an environment where polarization and societal fragmentation are
abundant.” (Wasburn, If the people of America are not properly educated on both sides of the
truth or the full truth our government is doomed to fail. Our government is by design reliant on
the people and the people's opinions; an entity can influence a multitude of people and makes
companies like NBC, FOX, and CNN the most powerful being in our country. To address this
issue the people must demand unbiased reporting and encourage critical thinking. One-sided
news media is driven by profit, so to maximize the monetary gain, they often promote prejudiced
stories that worsen political divides. If society limited the money they could make on false or
sensationalized stories it is possible it would also limit the power they hold in our government.
Biased media coverage promotes political polarization by presenting information that
confirms existing beliefs creating echo chambers. This is when a person is surrounded in an
environment that only reconfirms that person's thoughts. These echo chambers actively filter and
curate content, reinforcing ideologies and excluding opposing ideas. This leads to a culture of
people being self-centered and unwilling to accept people with different ideas. These effects are
apparent in day-to-day life the number of friendships and families split simply due to different
political beliefs are far too numerous. Despite claims of partisan bias, empirical studies have
yielded mixed results. Studies by Domke et al. (1997), Shah et al. (1999), Waldman & Devitt
(1998), and D’Alessio & Allen (2000) have found little evidence of consistent bias in one
direction or the other. For instance, Shah et al. (1999) found that while incumbents received most
coverage during presidential elections, its valence was not necessarily in their favor. (Shah,
Watts, Domke, Fan, & Ibison) On the other hand, the question of bias extends beyond a
quantitative analysis of the data. It is the subtle ways in which language, framing, and selection
of stories can influence the public. As Lott and Hassett (2014) point out, “the personal political
attitudes of journalists, often more liberal and progressive than the general public, can
unconsciously influence news decisions, leading to skewed portrayals of events.” (Lott and
Hassett 66) This unconscious bias can manifest in the selection of sources, the framing of
narratives, and the choice of language. For example, one of the things you learn quickly at an
early age is that you can say the same thing two separate times and your results will change
depending on the tone. Why would reporting be any different? Reporters' tone or word choice
can have a bigger effect than the story they are reporting. Uri Berliner, a former NPR editor,
highlights this, “revealing how cultural shifts within NPR led to the dominance of identity-based
progressive politics, which he argued was detrimental to journalistic processes.” (Berliner) To
break that down Berliner is saying that the cultural shift within the news company itself to
promote a specific political ideology is destroying the journaling process. This is a journalist
himself admitting to a cultural bias within a company. These cultural shifts within news
organizations can lead to a homogenization of perspectives. This limits the range of viewpoints
presented to the public.
A struggle in society remains objective until an idea is thoroughly proven correct. This is
especially hard for reporters and journalists who may have to present ideas or cases they don’t
personally agree with. As Bozell and Baker (1990) argue,
“Journalism is inherently subjective; a journalist’s approach to a story invariably reflects his
opinions. No one would accept the statement of a Ku Klux Klansman, in line for a judgeship,
that he could apply the civil rights laws objectively, without regard to his personal opinions.”
(Bozell and Baker 1) What Bozell and Baker are highlighting is instead of just simply observing
the stories produced look at the people producing the stories. The journalists authoring these
stories have the power to influence mass amounts of people and their opinions. So, the effect of
partisan media could be limited if the American people research the journalist giving them their
media. Jay Kang, a journalist himself, makes it known “Conservative outlets are not shy about
labelling themselves as such, even if only through a wink and a nod.” So, if evaluated you can
find unmistakable evidence of bias in these articles. So, it is possible to limit the power of
partisan news by taking a step back and view text with an open mind so that slowly we can heal
the damage done to the American society. The technological age further escalates this potential
by means of social media portals and online aggregators of the news which act in real time to
shape popular discourse. Such websites' fundamental algorithms favor engaging content which
offers permission for exchange of sensational and emotive tabloid-style reports. The coming of
age of citizen journalism in combination with social media activism has resulted in conventional
journalism merging with opinion-based content.
In conclusion, the influence of partisan news extends beyond politics to deeply impact
cultural norms and social interactions. By the creations of the self-centered society America is
now used to and the division within the country partisan news is having severe effects. Though
this cannot be simply made illegal there are things the people can do to weaken the power news
bias has over our society. Being removed from the echo chamber that has been built is one way
to start. The media only has as much power as the people give it. If that influence is taken away
divides will be weakened, and the country will be better united.
Works Cited
Berliner, Uri. “I’ve Been at NPR for 25 Years. Here’s How We Lost America’s Trust.” The
Free Press, 9 Apr. 2024.
Bozell, L. Brent, and Brent H. Baker. That's the Way It Isn't: A Reference Guide to Media Bias.
Media Research Center, 1990.
D’Alessio, David, and Mike Allen. “Media Bias in Presidential Elections: A Meta-Analysis.”
Journal of Communication, vol. 50, no. 4, 2000, pp. 133-56.
Domke, David, et al. “News Media, Candidates, and Issues in the 1996 U.S. Presidential
Campaign.” Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, vol. 74, no. 4, 1997, pp. 665-
80.
Kang, Jay Caspian. “How Biased Is the Media, Really?” The New Yorker, 18 Oct. 2024,
Lott, John R., and Timothy J. Hassett. “Is Liberal Bias in the Media Real? Evidence from Panel
Data.” Journal of Public Finance and Public Choice, vol. 32, no. 1, 2014, pp. 63-88.
Shah, Dhavan V., et al. “Effects of Partisan Media on Candidate and Issue Evaluations: Evidence
from the 1996 Presidential Campaign.” Public Opinion Quarterly, vol. 63, no. 3, 1999,
pp. 392-410.
Waldman, Paul, and Tom Devitt. “Congress on TV: News Coverage of the 104th Congress.”
Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics, vol. 3, no. 4, 1998, pp. 6-27.
“Perception of Media Bias Hurts Democracy.” USA Today Magazine, vol. 136, no. 2750, Nov.
2007, p. 7. EBSCOhost, research.ebsco.com/linkprocessor/plink?id=f6c4d8ca-f905-3379-af1c-
781cd7a9ca4f.
