Late in December 2023, the former top editor of The New York Times’ editorial page, James Bennet, dropped a bombshell in an article for The Economist. “The leadership of the New York Times is losing control of its principles,” he wrote, saying slanted coverage at the institution is “pervasive.”
In the article, Bennet talked about the pressures driving what he called “liberal bias” at one of the world’s most influential newspapers. While recounting his final days at The New York Times – he resigned amid controversy in 2020 over an op-ed by Republican Senator Tom Cotton – he also discussed what economists call demand- and supply-side factors behind the rise of media bias.
Demand-driven bias happens when newspapers offer slanted news to appeal to readers. Supply-driven bias stems from the ideological leanings of owners or employees. Bennet indicated that both had influenced decision-making at The New York Times.
To be fair, not everyone agreed with Bennet’s diagnosis – not least the current leadership at The New York Times. But people across the political spectrum tend to agree that media bias is a problem, and not just at the Times.
I wanted to understand which cause of bias mattered more: supply or demand. So I did an experiment.
Why I ‘read’ 100,000 articles
As an economist who specializes in the economics of digitization, I’ve long been captivated by how new technology empowers editors with unprecedented control.
For example, in the old days, it was nearly impossible for newspapers to update their “front pages” after they had been laid out; if you wanted to make a change, you needed to literally stop the presses. But the rise of digital platforms lets editors make updates on a minute-by-minute basis. That helps certain stories remain in the spotlight, subtly guiding public discourse.
So, together with my colleague Koleman Strumpf at Wake Forest University, I looked at how this plays out in two of America’s leading newspapers: The New York Times, which people commonly believe leans left, and The Wall Street Journal, which is often viewed as leaning right. We analyzed more than 100,000 articles from both newspapers, as well as 22 million tweets linking to them, to tease out the factors that influence how long articles remain on digital homepages.
By controlling for demand-side preferences – as measured by the number of times each story was shared on Twitter, which we used as a proxy for reader interest – we found that supply-side biases were a big factor behind articles being kept on a homepage. In other words, newspapers kept stories prominently placed based on their own political preferences rather than because people were reading it.
Two examples from The New York Times
Using a machine learning approach, we assigned political scores to each article, with the most Republican-leaning articles scored as “zero” and the most Democratic leaning as “one.” We found that both tweet counts and a publication’s ideological leanings affect how long a given article is kept on the homepage.
To illustrate, consider two stories from The New York Times. The first, “For Many Who Marched, Jan. 6 Was Only the Beginning,” published on Jan. 23, 2022, had a clear liberal-leaning tone, describing the event as the “worst attack on American democracy,” garnering it a “pro-Democrat” score of 0.93. The article was published at 3 a.m., featured on the homepage by 6 a.m., garnered around 200 tweet shares by noon, and stayed on the homepage for more than two days.
Contrast this with the second article, “At Least 46 Migrants Found Dead in Tractor-Trailer in San Antonio,” published on June 27, 2022. This piece had a more conservative-leaning tone, highlighting Texas Governor Greg Abbott’s criticisms of President Joe Biden. The story, which got a “pro-Democrat” score of just 0.22, was published at 9 p.m., immediately featured on the homepage, and received more than 600 tweet shares within two hours. However, despite its strong engagement, it was removed from the homepage within the next hour.
Media bias as a larger phenomenon
Of course, unrelated issues like competition from breaking news could have affected how those two articles were placed. But they weren’t isolated cases.
We found that on the whole, articles aligning with the political leanings of their respective newspapers – liberal for The New York Times and conservative for The Wall Street Journal – tend to remain on the homepage longer, even after accounting for their popularity.
This is clear evidence of supply-driven media bias. Editorial choices aren’t just a response to reader demand; they reflect a publication’s ideological leanings. This influences which stories get highlighted, and which narratives dominate public discourse. (The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal did not respond to requests for comment as of publication time.)
Determining whether media bias is caused by supply or demand issues isn’t just an academic game. It has profound real-world implications.
Most important, it can help the public understand how competition in the media industry affects bias. If bias is mostly about publications responding to demand, more competition could actually make the problem worse, as outlets vie to cater to the specific preferences of their audiences.
On the other hand, if bias is largely supply-driven, competition could be a corrective. That’s because in a competitive market, media outlets have incentives to appeal to the broadest possible audience, which means bias is bad for business.
The recent waves of consolidation in the media industry, coupled with the noticeable rise in perceptions of media bias over the past decade, seems to support the supply-side argument. As fewer companies control more of the media landscape, outlets have less of an incentive to maintain a broad, unbiased approach.
Tin Cheuk Leung is Associate Professor of Economics, Wake Forest University.
The Conversation is an independent and nonprofit source of news, analysis and commentary from academic experts.
© The Conversation
30 Comments
Login to comment
TaiwanIsNotChina
Uh, it is fueled by disgusting Social Media trends so probably 100% the "readers'" fault.
dagon
I don't buy the marketolatry explanation.
Neo-liberal corporate funding is what powers Fox News and the alt-right podcasting pundits.
It is an old con with simple enemies offered up for troubles: The Trans Agenda, Great Replacement, immigrants, 'Marxism'.
Instead of the billionaire oligarchs pushing tax burdens onto a shrinking middle class and removing all labor protections that were won over decades of struggle.
Just look at the divergence between the organic online and media takes on the biggest story this month.
sakurasuki
It's all about eyegaze, and traffic clickbait becoming norm these days.
bass4funk
Absolutely.
ArtistAtLarge
It's slanted by whatever the owners want. The writers and readers have nothing to do with it.
KyotoToday
This is a good question. I used to read the Guardian (left) and the Telegraph (right) and if I comfortably disagree with both of them, I thought I might be right.
1glenn
Ask the pundits over at the Fox Network. Would they dance to the tune of Rupert Murdoch if he did not demand it?
bass4funk
No, the pundits do what they want.
Raw Beer
News bias is mainly fueled by sponsors and the owner's financial interests.
Zaphod
Kind of a misleading question. Both the biased journalists and the consumers of their biased articles live in the same echo chamber, so naturally the consumers expect the familiar narrative. Just look at how it plays out on this site.
Jimizo
What would you recommend?
I know you like watching podcasts like Joe Rogan and Jordan Henderson.
Links would be fantastic.
Wick's pencil
Oh, so viewers were demanding to be told that the vax was very safe and effective?
virusrex
There is only so much that can be distorted by stablished media, when something is so completely proved as the value of vaccines the consensus of the experts is not so easily hidden, it would be as complaining that "viewers are demanding to be told" that microbes do exist, that the planet is not flat, or that it has existed for billions of years. No matter how much antivaxxers, flat earthers or creationist want to hear differently clear lies are not so easy to support by any stablished company. For that youtube and podcasts from people that don't have to protect any reputation are more than enough.
Raw Beer
The thing with podcasts, like Joe Rogan and Jordan Peterson, is that unlike MSM we get both sides. If people stop believing the information, they stop watching. That is why MSM "news" outlets have very poor ratings.
The "consensus of experts" is also fueled by the same sponsors as the MSM "news" outlets, as are the "fact checkers". Outside these groups, it is not "completely proved", far from it.
Zaphod
bass4funk
No, they are also under pressure to toe the party line. Not as much in the pure propaganda media like CNN, MSNBC, NYT, BBC, WashPo , but still. Ask Tucker Carlson how much free speech he had there.
virusrex
When the sides are correct and completely false that is called a false balance. Is like having a recognized astronomer explaining how science allows for the composition of other planets' atmospheres be known, and in the other side a flat earther saying that it is all false because stars are just lights moving around the earth as the center of the universe.
No, it is not, because it is based on scientific data collected from every institution of science in the whole world, as in every country. If you have no evidence (as in scientific one) that can refute the consensus then it surely remains completely proved. That applies for microbes, the shape of the planet and the benefits from vaccines.
kohakuebisu
What a foolish comment. As if journalists have any control over their publications. Bias is fueled by media ownership. When the owner says jump, the journalists working for them say "how high?"
The way to defeat bias is to have diverse media ownership. Not people like Murdoch owning multiple sources. Or a single person controlling what gets put on Twitter.
Jimizo
My personal favourite was what emerged about Mehdi Hasan. He is a bright, educated, left-leaning journalist who railed against the Daily Mail among others for its reactionary and often xenophobic stances.
Fair point.
It later emerged he wrote a letter of application to the Mail gushing about how he admired its principled stands.
He’s now in the podcast business. It is a bit of magnet for the less principled looking to make a few quid.
itsonlyrocknroll
A smidgen of both, with dollop of misrepresentation/irony, not always in that order.
itsonlyrocknroll
The eye of the beholder perhaps?
Context?
itsonlyrocknroll
Don't readers yearn to be triggered, provoked, to seethe in the red mist of indignation?
Why the world’s worst newspaper hates Britain so much
https://www.reaction.life/p/why-the-worlds-worst-newspaper-hates-britain-so-much-nyt-new-york-times
Hell is empty and all the devils are here.
Raw Beer
I assume you meant Jordan Peterson.
As for Joe Rogan, he invites people and lets them talk. Some are really interesting guests, while others are complete shills (Shanjay Gupta, Peter Hotez, ex-CIA Mike Baker...). If you like the guest, you listen; if you don't, you switch to something else...
Zaphod
Jimizo
He has long-format inquisitive interviews with interesting people, definitely preferable to the packaged talking points delivered by the the alphabet legacy media.
No idea what specifically you mean, but the bubble bias is showing.
There are also people like Glenn Greenwald, Matt Tabibi, or Dave Rubin, all previously part of your media bubble, who got fed up by the propaganda. And of course people like Jordan Peterson and Gad Saad who have a bit to say about the woke mind virus. No idea what your Jordan Henderson has to with anything.
virusrex
Which does nothing to solve the problem that known liars can convince people to make wrong decisions about their health and put them (and maybe even those around them) at risk.
That would have absolutely nothing to do with reliability, finding someone interesting would only make it worse when it is not a reliable source.
Zaphod
virusrex
"Reliability" is something you have to determine. In an unscripted, long conversation with e.g. a politician you can get a reliable picture of the person. In the scripted, breathless propaganda talking points of the legacy media you do not.
virusrex
And it has absolutely nothing to do with popularity.
But unless a proper validation of the claims made you don't get any idea about their reliability. If someone talks for hours with a flat earther about their beliefs you can get a "reliable" image of the person, but unless the conversation includes challenges to those ideas a listener can get the wrong idea and think the claims are rational or correct.
Raw Beer
That must be why people like Fauci and Peter Hotez refuse to debate those who are skeptical of their claims. If they were able to provide proper validation of the claims made, they would welcome debates.
virusrex
Endlessly repeating falsehoods is not "debating", when people out themselves as simple denialists without any interest on actually holding a conversation then it becomes perfectly valid to simply ignore them, everything the false skeptics use as "arguments" have been debunked even to their own faces and they will still try to use those debunked claims without even making an effort to defend them against the arguments that refuted them.
Debates are welcomed and continuous in the scientific field, peoplde do it on scientific reports and replies to them. The huge difference is that nobody is trying to use repeatedly debunked claims as if they were still valid.
Raw Beer
Except that it is Fauci and friends who are repeating falsehoods that cannot be defended by real data. It's only because they control the MSM and journal publications that it appears as if they can defend it.
RFKjr's book (The Real Anthony Fauci: Bill Gates, Big Pharma, and the Global War on Democracy and Public Health) provides many highly referenced details about how Fauci and big pharma control the scientific health research narrative. If anything in his book was false, they would have sued him.
virusrex
Not at all, they are simply repeating what the scientific consensus is, you are the one that depends on the whole scientific community of the world being in an impossible conspiracy in order to be right since you can never provide any evidence for your claims, repeating those claims when they have been already debunked by the available evidence makes the claims irrelevant in actual debate.
Still a baseless claim that is impossible to believe since this would mean controlling everything being produced around the world on every country, Russia, China, Japan, etc. Nobody can do that, and nobody can believe this especially without evidence.
RFKjr on the other hand has been found lying, misrepresenting or just plain wrong repeatedly, even to his own face. He never produces any actually valid evidence, just again repeatedly debunked claims that remains debunked since he never makes any effort to defend them.