全国工会信访干部培训班在昆明开班

This article discusses bias in a political context. For bias in other contexts, see Bias.

百度 ThetraderowbetweenChinaandtheUShasbeenahottopicattheChinaDevelopmentForuminBeijingwhereexecutivesandscholars,includingthosefromtheUS,warnedoftherisksofatradewar."Thetradewarmustbeavoidedatallcost,likenuclearwar,"LarrySummers,asalreadybeginningtogetresultsand"manyothercountriesarenownegotiatingfairtradedealswithus."ButwhenChinasreactstotheSection301investigationwithretaliatorymeasuresagainsttensofbillionsofdollarsinUSgoods,theUSwonhtbyChina,theworld,,schemetocontainChinasrise,utChina,,,itswishfulthierests,theywon,theUSsabilitytocontroltheTaiwanStraitsan,,butwillforceitintoatransformationthatfacilitatesreleasingChina,Chinawon,,tdeterChina.

Political bias refers to the bias or manipulation of information to favor a particular political position, party, or candidate. Closely associated with a media bias, it often describes how journalists, television programs, or news organizations party political figures or policy issues.

Bias emerges in a political context when individuals engage in an inability or an unwillingness to understand a politically opposing point of view. Such bias in individuals may have its roots in their personality traits and thinking styles; it is unclear whether individuals at particular positions along the political spectrum are more biased than any other individuals.

Political bias exists beyond simple presentation and understanding of view-points favouring a particular political leader or party, but transcends into the readings and interactions undertaken daily among individuals. The prevalence of political bias has a lasting impact with proven effects on voter behaviour and consequent political outcomes.

With an understanding of political bias comes the acknowledgment of its violation of expected political neutrality, and with that the creation of political bias.

Types of bias in a political context

Concision bias: Refers to perspective reporting using only the words necessary to explain a view quickly and spends little or no time to detail unconventional, difficult-to-explain views. Concision bias aims to increase communication by selectively focusing on important information and eliminating redundancy. In a political context, this can mean the omission of seemingly unnecessary details can constitute bias, depending on what information is deemed unnecessary. Political opinions are often reduced to a simple party understanding or belief system, with other challenging information excluded in its presentation.

Coverage bias: When political parties address topics and issues to different extents. This makes certain issues seem more prevalent and presents ideas as more important or necessary. In a political atmosphere, this applies to the presentation of policies and the issues they address, along with the actual coverage by media and politicians. Issue salience is another term for this phenomenon, in which the frequency and focus given to specific topics affect how important the public believes them to be. For instance, even though statistics indicate otherwise, the public may view immigration or crime as more urgent if a party continuously emphasizes these topics. By setting the political agenda, this strategic focus can influence undecided voters in addition to mobilizing committed voters. By prioritizing coverage of issues brought to light by powerful political figures, media outlets frequently promote these narratives, producing a feedback loop that highlights certain topics while excluding others. Because partisan priorities are given priority over thorough discussion, political discourse becomes distorted and can influence democratic decision-making.

Confirmation bias: A cognitive bias favours and seeks information that affirms pre-existing beliefs and opinions. When set in a political atmosphere, individuals with like-minded political beliefs will seek and affirm their opinions, discounting contradictory information. A recent meta-analysis attempted to compare levels of confirmation bias among liberals and conservatives in the United States and found that both groups were roughly equally biased. The idea that one side of the political spectrum is more biased is called into question by this research. It implies that cognitive biases are not exclusive to any one ideology but rather are a universal feature of human reasoning. The implications are important because they show how hard it is to overcome ideological differences and how crucial it is to promote critical thinking and an open mind to other points of view in political conversation. The study also emphasizes how motivated thinking influences political attitudes. People actively evaluate and interpret information to support their preexisting opinions rather than simply taking it in. As people get more set in their ways and less open to hearing different points of view, this dynamic adds to the polarization seen in modern politics.

False consensus bias: Exists when the normalisation of an individual's opinions, beliefs and values are believed to be common. This bias exists in a group setting where the collective group opinion is attributed to the wider population, with little to no inter group challenges. This is the basis of political party formation and engages in the ongoing attempt to normalise these views within the wider population with little recognition of different beliefs outside the party. According to research, such biases can cause political polarization as people and groups solidify their opinions and start to see opposing views as less valid. Social media platforms can produce echo chambers where users are largely exposed to content supporting their preexisting views, contributing to this polarization and increasing the false consensus effect. According to studies, people who are exposed to social media news feeds that are favorably biased tend to believe that there is more public support for their views than there actually is, which strengthens their beliefs and may even push them toward more extreme stances. In addition, the false consensus bias may influence political elites' assessments of public opinion, which can affect democratic processes. According to a study, political elites' judgments were shown to be 20 to 25 percentage points off. This suggests that these misperceptions can result in policies that do not fully reflect the electorate's genuine preferences, compromising democratic accountability and responsiveness.

Speculative content: When stories focus on what can potentially occur with speculative phrasing such as "may", "what if", and "could" rather than focusing on the evidence of what has and/or definitely will occur. When a piece is not specifically labelled as an opinion and analysis article, it can lead to further speculative bias. This occurs in a political context, particularly introducing policies, or addressing opposing policies. This bias allows parties to make their policies more appealing and appear to address issues more directly, by speculating positive and negative outcomes. Without enough information, such speculation frequently presents stories in ways that provoke emotions or exaggerate the perceived importance or effectiveness of a proposed policy. This gradually decreases public confidence in journalism, particularly when predicted outcomes fail to pass. Additionally, by emphasizing speculative scenarios over confirmed facts, speculative content might unintentionally be used as a platform for political propaganda or manipulation, influencing public opinion. When algorithms on social media and news collection sites highlight speculative information because it is emotionally charged or dramatic and tends to generate higher engagement, this problem gets more complicated. Such stories, particularly when read by audiences who might not be able to distinguish between reporting and opinion, confuse journalism with speculation in the lack of clear labeling and open sourcing.

Gatekeeping bias: This type of bias exists through the use of ideological selection, deselection and/or omission of stories based on individualised opinions. This is similarly related to agenda bias, primarily when focusing on politicians and how they choose to cover and present preferred policy discussions and issues.

Partisan bias: Exists in the media when reporters serve and create the leaning of a particular political party. When journalists intentionally or unintentionally show material in a way that prioritizes one political ideology or party over another, they are engaging in bias and affecting the public's perception of political events and individuals. Story selection, framing, tone, and the frequency of criticism or support of specific parties or people are all examples of partisan bias. Fox News, for example, has a history of favoring Republican opinions while disparaging Democratic leaders, especially during election seasons. Furthermore, significant partisan bias in reporting was discovered by empirical research that examined over 800,000 news stories from major U.S. broadcasters. Other networks, such as ABC, CBS, and NBC, were shown to have a slight liberal bias, however, their slant varied according to the political administration in power, whereas Fox News showed a strong conservative bias. According to a Gallup study, 62% of Americans think the media favors one political party, with Republicans majority stating that the media favors Democrats. This divide is reflected in the public's opinion.

Political neutrality

Political neutrality is the counteraction to political bias, looking to ensure the ability of public servants to carry out any official duties impartially, relative to their political beliefs. In areas like media coverage, legal and bureaucratic decisions and academic teachings, the need for taking corrective action against politically biased actions is the foundation of neutral enforcement. Research suggests that nonpartisanship is favoured over political bias, with Republicans, Independents, and Democrats preferring to get their news from politically neutral media. Individuals' responses to political bias and motivations are challenged when the engagement of bias furthers and assists their political party or ideology. Calling out attempts to stay neutral, can lead to stronger reactions, since people often see neutrality as the right way to handle political topics and issues. In the media aspect, trying to stay fair may not always easy and can still lead to claims of bias if something seems one sided. This is a result of different political groups competing, and the way messages are shared can either challenge other beliefs or make one side's views stronger.

Political bias and framing

Political bias exists primarily through the concept of framing. Framing is the social construction of political or social issues in ways that emphasize certain aspects over others, often creating a positive or negative representation of events, individuals, or policies. In this context , political leaders and parties use framing to highlight specific problems while offering solutions that align with and promote political agendas. This makes their stance appear more favorable and their policies seem as the logical or necessary course of action. The framing effect looks at situations in which people are only presented with options within two frames, one presented negatively and the other positively. The framing effect is increasingly significant in opinion polls designed to encourage specific organisations that are commissioned to poll. If reliable, credible and sufficient information is provided, this bias can be significantly reduced. Framing further looks at the impact of slanting in political campaigning and its potential impact on the distribution of political power where political bias is present. It is important to understand framing is an omnipresent process used in analysis to discern connections between aspects of reality and to convey an interpretation of opinions that may not be entirely accurate.

Evidence of political bias in search engines

Search results from search engines like Google often shape opinions and perceptions of political issues and candidates. Google does not design algorithms to provide a balanced or equal representation of controversial issues. Search engines influence democracy because of the potential distrust of media, leading to increasing online searches for political information and understanding. Looking specifically at America, the Fairness Doctrine was introduced in 1949 to avoid political bias in all licensed broadcasting media. Within the context of polarising topics such as political bias, the top search results can play a significant role in shaping opinions. Through the use of a bias quantification framework, bias can be measured within political bias by rank within the search system. It can further address the sources of bias through the input data and ranking system. Within the context of information queries, a ranking system determines the search results, which in the case of topics such as politics, can return politically biased search results. The bias presented in search results can directly result from either biased data that collaborates with the ranking system or because of the structure of the ranking system itself. This questionable nature of search results raises questions of the impact on users and to what degree the ranking system can impact political opinions and beliefs, which can directly translate into voter behaviour. This can also affirm or encourage biased data within Google search results. Whilst research has shown users do not place exclusive trust on information provided by search engines, studies have shown that individuals who are undecided politically are susceptible to manipulation by bias relative to political candidates and the light in which their policies and actions are presented and conveyed. In the quantification of political bias, both the input data for search results and the ranking system in which they are presented to the user encapsulates bias to varying degrees.

There is distinctive political bias in social media where the algorithm that structures user content facilitates confirmation bias. This involves presenting political information dependent on common searches and users' focus, further re-affirming political bias and reducing exposure to politically neutral content.

Determining the difference between content and source bias is a significant focus of determining the role of political bias in search engines. This focus looks directly at the actual content of the information present and whether it is purposefully selective in the information presented, or rather whether the source of information is projecting personalised opinions relative to their political opinions.

Political bias in the media

Media bias highlights political bias in the reporting of political topics and the representation of politicians. Where a reporter sometimes emphasises particular points of view and conveys selected information to further their own political view, they may present biased information favouring their own political opinion or that of their readership. There are distinctive regulations which protect against the fabrication of information. The media, may alter the representation of information to promote political positions. Media bias can change political opinions, which directly impact voter behaviour and decisions, because of the failed representation of information. This form of political bias has continuing impacts when used to change the opinions of others. Where media remains a powerful information source for political information, it can create political bias in the informational representation of political actors and policy issues.

Use of media to further political bias

An example of quantification of political bias in the media is a propaganda model, a concept introduced by Edward S. Herman and Noam Chomsky. It is a political economy model, looking at the "manufacturing" of political policies through the manipulation of mass media. This model further looked at the capital funding of media outlets and their ownership, which often relates to political ties.

Political bias in the media is also discussed, showing how social leaders discuss political issues. To determine the existence of political bias, agenda determination is used. Agenda determination is designed to provide an understanding of the agenda behind the presentation of political issues and attempt to determine political bias that is present.

Within a 2002 study by Jim A. Kuypers: Press Bias and Politics: How the Media Frame Controversial Issues, he looks at the omission of left leaning points of view from the mainstream print press. Kuypers determined politicians would receive positive press coverage only when covering and delivering topics that aligned with press-supported beliefs. This meant the press was engaging in bias within the media through their coverage and selection/release of political information, which was challenging the neutral conveyance of political messages.

David Baron similarly presents a game-theoretic model of media behaviour, suggesting that mass media outlets only hire journalists whose writing is aligned with their political positions. This engages false consensus bias, as beliefs are determined to be common due to being surrounded by aligned views. This effectively heightens political bias within media representation of information, and creates false narratives about the nations' political climate.

See also

• Fake news
• False equivalence
• Framing (social sciences)
• Freedom of speech by country
• Mainstream media
• Manufacturing Consent § Five filters of editorial bias
• Mass media impact on spatial perception
• Media in Alberta § Political bias
• Pink-slime journalism
• Political censorship
• Political correctness
• Schismogenesis
• Self-censorship

Further reading

• Game Theory: An Introduction, Baron, David
• The New Media's Role in Politics, Owen, Diana

External links

• Kulshrestha, Juhi; Eslami, Motahhare; Messias, Johnnatan; Zafar, Muhammad Bilal; Ghosh, Saptarshi; Gummadi, Krishna P.; Karahalios, Karrie (2019). "Search bias quantification: Investigating political bias in social media and web search". Information Retrieval Journal. 22 (1–2): 188–227. doi:10.1007/s10791-018-9341-2. hdl:21.11116/0000-0005-F9A1-C.
• Yair, Omer; Sulitzeanu-Kenan, Raanan (2018). "When do we care about political neutrality? The hypocritical nature of reaction to political bias". PLOS ONE. 13 (5): e0196674. Bibcode:2018PLoSO..1396674Y. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0196674. PMC 5933769. PMID 29723271.