by Garrison Frost

1.
At one point earlier this year, the New York Times bestseller list had a book in the top five which contained a compelling argument that America's news media had a liberal bias and another which argued that the media was tilted toward conservatives. Media bias is a constant refrain in our ongoing culture wars: those on the right are always saying that journalists are slanted toward the left, and vice versa.

But these folks are clearly missing the boat. Just as the United States and the Soviet Union mistakenly viewed every world crisis through the prism of their cold war disagreements, so too are those representing our own country's political polarity incorrectly perceiving what's wrong with journalism today. Despite what they might think, the news media is not biased toward one social philosophy or another. It is, however, biased toward money, usually in the form of advertising revenue. And it is this bias more than any other which consistently spills over into the editorial content of the news we read, see and hear.

On the national scene, this bias takes the form of glowing reviews of movies produced by another one of the mother company's subsidiaries. It can also take the form of a lack of news stories about a major advertiser being indicted for price collusion, or under the gun from regulators for unsafe meat.

The example of the Los Angeles Times and Staples center is indicative, occurring just a short while after Times Mirror installed Mark Willes, a businessman with no credentials in journalism, as publisher of the august publication. Just months after promising to break down the walls between advertising and editorial, Willes struck a deal with the new Staples center to produce an edition of the publication's magazine highlighting the stadium. Profits would be shared between the two entities. Participating journalists weren't told of this deal, nor were readers who were treated to one glowing article about Staples after another. When news of the deal came out, the resulting controversy was a huge embarrassment for the Times.

Of course, the thing about the deal that made it so remarkably stupid was the profit-sharing arrangement between the newspaper and Staples. But one thing people should understand is that essentially the same thing happens every day under much less formal circumstances. Favorable coverage is commonly traded for advertising, or simply good will, without a written arrangement or formal agreement.

This is the elephant in the room in every editorial department.

2.
While this type of bias is pervasive at the national level, it's not always easy for the layman to detect because it is hard for everyday readers, viewers and listeners to keep track of ownership and influence. But at the local level, these connections are right in front of your face.

In the beach cities, there are only a handful of major economic players and — surprise, surprise — these entities receive mostly favorable press and hardly any of the intense scrutiny given to coverage of government affairs or crime.

The real estate business is handled with special care, as is Chevron.

Does that mean that newspapers only write good stories about these entities and ignore the occasional embarrassing news item? Of course not, because this type of bias doesn't work like that. It's much more subtle.

3.
The concept of advertorial is an old one. The word, as one might guess, is a construct of the words "advertising" and "editorial," and is used to refer to content that is essentially an ad, but is disguised as editorial. Newspapers use advertorial to please current and potential advertisers. Usually it's obvious to readers, but not always.

Some newspapers create special sections and clearly mark the advertorial copy by using a different typeface or by placing a tag at the top of the page saying "advertorial" or "content provided by advertisers" or "an advertising supplement." But many don't make this distinction clear. Further, some newspapers feel that when they can make the argument that an item is newsworthy, they will place something in the regular news section. The true litmus test, however, is whether the item would be in the paper if not for the financial leverage of the advertiser in question. And this doesn't even take into account a newspaper's various efforts to curry favor with the business community, and its advertising resources, in general.

4.
But we should give newspapers something of a break here. While they often don't acknowledge their advertorial, other news sources never do. When was the last time your local news acknowledged that the whole reason it was doing a feature about a movie star was because of all the advertising it was receiving from the studio? Or the last time you saw a dress featured in a women's magazine by a designer who also happened to take out a full-page ad?

5.
Advertorial isn't going to go away soon, nor is the media's bias toward advertising revenue. For that reason, audiences need to be savvy and spot this crap when it rears its head.

A good rule to follow is to be suspicious of any product featured in the pages of a newspaper, especially if the maker of said product has the resources to be a player on the advertising scene.

Special sections are notoriously biased. I saw one in a local paper recently that actually featured a favorable restaurant review by the advertising manager for the publication opposite the very same restaurant's full-page color ad.

Another good rule is to pay attention to what's not being covered in your local newspapers. Which subjects are receiving scrutiny and which are not? Is it because there no news there, the media is being derelict or the media is consciously avoiding the topic?

If there's one thing that the previously mentioned books on media bias make clear, it's that people are now paying more attention to how their information is generated. This can only be perceived as a good thing.

(Back to top)