Media framing biases and political power: Explaining slant in news of Campaign 2008

TLDR

Research on media bias shows that framing often favors one side in political disputes, illuminating its effects on political power and public policy. The article refines framing theory to establish a theoretical foundation for systematic studies of media bias. The authors define framing by its diachronic nature and cultural resonance, argue that slanted framing arises from interactions among real‑world events, cultural norms, journalistic rules, and elite efforts, and illustrate this with a 2008 campaign coverage case study of Sarah Palin. The study finds that unbalanced news does not stem from journalists’ stable personal ideologies, but from other factors.

Abstract

Although many scholars dismiss allegations of bias in the mainstream US media, careful research on bias can illuminate media effects on political power and public policy. This article refines framing theory to provide a theoretical foundation for systematic studies of bias. It suggests that scholars distinguish framing from other communication by its diachronic nature and its cultural resonance. Despite journalists’ best efforts, framing often favors one side over another in political disputes. Slanted framing results from the interaction of real world developments, cultural norms, and journalistic decision rules with the sometimes proficient and other times maladroit efforts of competing elites to manage the news. A case study of 2008 presidential campaign coverage focusing on Republican Vice Presidential nominee Sarah Palin illustrates how slanted framing can shift over time with changes in these interactions. The findings imply that, contrary to many critics’ contentions, unbalanced news does not arise from the presumably stable personal ideologies of journalists.