Maybe you noticed a small disclaimer lodged in the middle of a Washington Post article describing a book on Amazon labor practices mentioning the company and newspaper’s billionaire owner Jeff Bezos.
(Amazon founder and chief executive Jeff Bezos owns The Washington Post.)
Or, perhaps you read about Laurene Powell Jobs, widow of Apple co-founder Steve Jobs, purchasing The Atlantic.
Then again, maybe you haven’t thought at all about who owns the biggest newspapers in the United States — after all, the owners don’t write any of the articles, right?
Billionaires own nearly all major news publications in the United States, with very few exceptions. While the infusion of funding from these magnates kept many newspapers from shuttering their doors during the digital media revolution, these buyouts came at the cost of journalistic integrity.
For journalists and readers alike, billionaire ownership spells trouble. Coverage of the industries and companies that owners participate in suffers from the pressure to satisfy the powerful individual who signs your biweekly paychecks.
Yet, even outside of commercial and economic reporting, newspapers owned by billionaires introduce bias in their coverage of other subjects. Reporting on protests and other forms of civil resistance faces some of the most damaging consequences of newspaper media bias; and, consequently, stands to receive some of the greatest benefits if we encourage greater transparency in the news industry.
Biased Distortions in Newspaper Accounts of Protest
Outside of Novel Hand, I conduct research on civilian-led collective action. I work on determining how risks to protesters change over time and across different tactics of civil resistance — using datasets largely built from newspaper articles. In my research, I spend a great deal of time thinking about potential biases and issues with the data that my coauthors and I analyze.
I have seen first-hand how newspaper coverage of these events systematically underreports and misrepresents participation in protests and other forms of collective action. Biased protest reporting not only undermines the efforts of social movements by misrepresenting the goals of protesters, but also fails to capture accurate information about the size, participants, tactics, and outcomes of these events. Protests which substantially disrupt social and political norms face even greater levels of negative reporting bias, disadvantaging movements which represent racial, ethnic, sexual, religious, and other minorities.
Consequences of Bias for both Individuals and Movements
Inaccurate and biased representations of civil resistance lead to sinister consequences. From instigating negative public opinion backlash to generating threats against the lives of activists, it is critical to address the effects of biased framing in newspaper coverage. Natasha describes the importance of obtaining a ‘critical mass’ for social movement success, especially when movements attempt to disrupt the status quo. When bias in newspaper reporting delegitimizes the work of protest movements, these social justice initiatives face greater barriers to success.
Beyond the obstacles that movements face as a result of biased reporting, individual activists can face threats from the state and private individuals alike. As a fundamental part of First Amendment rights, biased reporting which puts protesters at risk jeopardizes individuals’ abilities to freely speak and assemble. For a public-facing activist whose work is the subject of reporting bias, retaliation in the form of physical violence, verbal abuse, workplace discrimination, or many other varieties of social sanctioning is all too common.
Confronting Private Ownership as a Threat to Free Speech
As long as owners play a role in the management of newspaper organizations, the reporting of these organizations is subject to substantial bias. Even if Jeff Bezos doesn’t approve of each individual headline published in The Washington Post, it is difficult to ignore WaPo’s tepid takes on recent backlash against labor practices at Amazon.
Most recently, the newspaper published a piece describing Amazon managers as heroes who saved workers from the deadly tornado that collapsed an Amazon facility in Illinois, killing six workers in a warehouse without suitable storm shelter. Conversely, many of The Washington Post’s competitors published heavily critical articles examining social media protest against the company and legal inquiries about Amazon’s flagrant lack of regard for its workers’ safety. Being financially beholden to a billionaire owner ties a newspaper to their economic, political, and social interests, whether they like it or not.
Owners’ Voices in the Editing Process
While individual reporters may seek to accurately report on the subjects they care about, their bylines still face a critical test of approval. Notable Twitter account Editing TheGreyLady (@nyt_diff) is a bot which automatically posts changes in article headlines and bylines from the main page of The New York Times. A year ago this month, the account’s posts on coverage of farmer protests in India highlighted the pernicious nature of editorial bias, even though the original author’s framing of this protest event was fairly neutral.
Published title: Indian Farmer Protest Turns Unruly in Challenge to Modi
Published abstract: Protesters used their tractors to pull apart barricades, prompting police to fire tear gas, as emotions flared before the scheduled start of a rally against new farming laws.
Presently, The New York Times lists the article under the title, “As Angry Farmers Take to New Delhi’s Streets, Protests Turn Violent,” completely shifting all blame to the farmers while absolving Prime Minister Modi and the government forces that responded to peaceful — albeit disruptive — protests with state violence.
While journalists themselves may have little to do with the owners of their publications, the many editors, division heads, and executive staff of the organization are responsive to the demands of investors and owners. Organizations themselves must consider how to balance the interests of their investors and the integrity of their efforts to report on current events.
Finding Solutions to the Reporting Bias Problem
Ownership transparency and organizational accountability are essential to protect freedoms of speech. For journalists, protesters, and readers alike, these reforms can contribute to more accurate knowledge about social justice movements and their strategies of resistance. When journalists are protected by their employers, they can examine more contentious topics and write articles with a greater degree of integrity.
Whether obscuring Amazon’s intentional sabotage of union elections or retroactively conceding that earlier coverage claimed Black Lives Matter protesters engaged in violence without providing reliable evidence, these biases create harmful consequences and must be addressed. Protesters benefit from greater transparency and accountability because reduced bias in reporting permits more informed strategizing to advance the goal of protest movements. We can learn more about when to employ different strategies of resistance, how to best convince a public audience to support a justice movement, and which tactics reduce risks to a minimum for protesters.
As a reader, my goal is to learn more about the world, and hopefully to overcome misinformation, bias, and the other challenges that stand in the way of meaningful knowledge. If Democracy Dies in Darkness, then journalism decays through opaque governance. To protect journalists and protesters alike, transparency is vital for the future of newspaper ownership and management.
- State of the UNIONS: Welcome to September’s Impactfull Series - September 2, 2022
- What We Can Learn from the Ukrainian Refugee Crisis - March 29, 2022
- The Olympic Effect: Changes in Host Communities - February 21, 2022