Confirmation bias in the media: Show me, tell me

By THOMAS HARTWELL

We, as humans, believe that we are inherently correct and seek out information that agrees with our thinking. How does this apply to our daily thinking or our consumption of products, services, and news?

Confirmation bias, or the interpreting of evidence or information in regards to existing beliefs, has been addressed often in the discussion of the presentation of news. Most believe that there should be no biases in news reporting, and journalists are taught to stay completely objective in the presentation of hard news. While, in a perfect world, consumers of news could watch/read news presented completely objectively and make educated decisions based on what they read, we do not live in a perfect world. News organizations have to incorporate what sells into the presentation of their stories. There is also a consideration of gatekeepers who run the media organizations. While the goal should always be objective reporting, people have a tendency to have strong opinions on political issues, which many times manifest themselves in subtle biases in reporting.

When we explore confirmation bias in the larger media outlets, we often encounter a widely-accepted thought pattern: "CNN and MSNBC are liberal, Fox is conservative." While this is now considered the norm, the media outlets themselves would never come out and admit to it. The media outlets, therefore, must disguise their biases as "just another way of reporting."

Let's look at Fox and MSNBC's reporting of the same story. A racially insensitive joke was told at a charity dinner recently, and both outlets wrote a story on it. Keeping in mind that Fox is considered conservative and MSNBC liberal, there is a subtle difference in the reporting in a couple ways:

Image and story from foxnews.com

Image and story from msnbc.com

1. The headlines: In Fox's case, the headline reads that both Mayor De Blasio and Hillary Clinton take part in the joke and draw criticism. If we consider Fox's possible confirmation bias, it would make sense that they would want to frame Hillary in this way. Whereas, in MSNBC's case, only De Blasio takes part in the joke, and even then it's presented as "coming at a bad time" rather than being "racially-tinged."

2. The visuals: Fox shows Clinton and De Blasio laughing and seemingly celebrating with the headline "racially-tinged joke" hovering above. It seems to be framed as the two enjoying the insensitive comment. MSNBC instead shows Clinton off to the side looking on as the joke is made. This way, she seems to not take part in the joke making. Clinton also is even standing next to the African-American gentleman, further separating herself from the insensitivity.

Images, as we've already seen, can speak a thousand words in reporting, and often do. The images we see can impact our impression of the candidate depicted. For these examples, I'll choose a picture of Ted Cruz from CNN and one from Fox.

Image from cnn.com

Image from foxnews.com

In these cases, the presentation of Ted Cruz is considered in the photos chosen to be published on the sites. CNN's picture choice is less than flattering, while Fox's looks like a campaign flier.

While minds won't necessarily be changed by only images or word choice, the presentation of information or images can alter the way that people think about a subject. Objective news reporting and an educated public would be preferable to what is widely accepted as a biased news environment, but in order to inform the public, the public must want to be informed. If it takes subtle biases (even no-so-subtle ones) to inform them, then so be it -- I'll take the news with a grain of salt.

Republican Party Cage Match: Contested Convention

By THOMAS HARTWELL

As the race for the Republican nomination continues on its wrecking-ball-esque path of destruction and embarrassment, the possibility of a contested convention has begun to lean to the side of probability.

Political cartoon by Gary Varvel. From http://townhall.com/political-cartoons/2016/01/18

In the midst of the president's historic trip to Cuba, the FBI's breaking into the San Bernadino shooter's phone, the veto of Georgia's "religious exemption" bill and several terrorist attacks around the globe, the Republicans have chosen to continue the blood bath that is repeated stabs at each other's personal lives, track records and even wives' track records. Republican voters and Independents alike have voiced increasing frustration with the "play the player, not the ball" tactics, and Democrats have to be looking on rubbing their hands together in wait for November.

Even the, thus far, unshakable Trump supporter base has begun to show signs of plateau or even decline. As has been recorded since the beginning of the campaign season, Trump's unfavorable rating continues to best his favorable, but it has grown even further. His is now the highest ever recorded, according to a Gallup poll. This has further excited establishment Republicans and the Never Trump movement on the left and the right in their crusade to force the nomination to a contested convention.

From the Associated Press

Trump currently has 739 delegates to Cruz's 465. While the difference at first glance may seem like a lot, it's simply not, and Cruz has a trick up his sleeve. With the same organization and "ground game" that won Cruz several Republican caucuses across the country, the campaign is collecting extra "unpledged" delegates, a tactic over which Trump has threatened suit -- so unlike him. Trump's campaign has since picked up the strategy as part of a plan to block the contested convention. Cruz's ground game has the potential to close the gap on Trump, though, and with diminishing support in a race becoming increasingly future-sighted, Cruz might be able to make a case for himself at a contested convention.

BUT... would the establishment rather put Cruz, a third party not already running or even Kasich up for nomination? Here's the simplest answer I can give: I dunno -- not right now at least. While Cruz is the other front-runner and the establishment really doesn't like Trump, they're not a huge fan of Cruz either. The Texas senator doesn't have many friends in Congress and tends not to play well with others. He's a conservative with "give me conservatism or give me death" tendencies, which would usually sound great for Republicans, but since he's really in this for himself and not necessarily the party, the fact that he doesn't always like to go with status quo turns a lot of his colleagues off. I think there's a good chance of a Romney-like nomination out of a contested convention, but what I think should happen is a Kasich nomination.

Kasich is a moderate Republican who, thus far, has been flying pretty low-profile and staying out of the Republican Hunger Games. While he started out as a "nobody," voters have been taking notice. His moderate-ness could be the best weapon in a fight against Hillary in November, and his mix of establishment history and "just a regular guy" platform could serve him well in a general election, too. Interestingly, national polls often show Kasich and sometimes Cruz -- but not Trump -- beating Hillary in a general election in November, but at this point, take those polls with a grain of salt -- it's still pretty early.

Oh, and hey, Democrat voters, while you're probably sitting back watching this Republican debacle as a satire, you might start thinking about the internal conflict that may arise between a Trump nomination, which would likely end in a Clinton victory but is still downright terrifying, or a nominee who isn't Trump, which could mean a Democrat's demise.