Cited by 336Media Influence and PoliticsMedia Studies and CommunicationComputational and Text Analysis Methods

Fair and Balanced? Quantifying Media Bias through Crowdsourced Content Analysis

Open access
Budak, Ceren, Goel, Sharad, Rao, Justin M.·2016·Public Opinion Quarterly

Abstract

It is widely thought that news organizations exhibit ideological bias, but rigorously quantifying such slant has proven methodologically challenging. Through a combination of machine learning and crowdsourcing techniques, we investigate the selection and framing of political issues in 15 major U.S. news outlets. Starting with 803,146 news stories published over 12 months, we first used supervised learning algorithms to identify the 14% of articles pertaining to political events. We then recruited 749 online human judges to classify a random subset of 10,950 of these political articles according to topic and ideological position. Our analysis yields an ideological ordering of outlets consistent with prior work. We find, however, that news outlets are considerably more similar than generally believed. Specifically, with the exception of political scandals, we find that major news organizations present topics in a largely non-partisan manner, casting neither Democrats nor Republicans in a particularly favorable or unfavorable light. Moreover, again with the exception of political scandals, there is little evidence of systematic differences in story selection, with all major news outlets covering a wide variety of topics with frequency largely unrelated to the outlet's ideological position. Finally, we find that news organizations express their ideological bias not by directly advocating for a preferred political party, but rather by disproportionately criticizing one side, a con…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/poq/nfw007

Cites

51 of 51 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • In contrast to our multi-dimensional approach that examines the ideology of the issue being discussed instead of the author stance, much of the recent work in computational linguistics has been dedicated to the latter while collapsing ideology to one dimension.

    “In contrast to our multi-dimensional approach that examines the ideology of the issue being discussed instead of the author stance, much of the recent work in computational linguistics has been dedicated to the latter (detection of ideological bias in news media) while collapsing ideology to one dimension”

    From Political Ideology and Polarization: A Multi-dimensional Approach (2022) · cites this paper as Budak et al., 2016

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 52 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Budak, C., Goel, S., & Rao, J. M.
Affiliations
Microsoft (United States) (US)
Corresponding author
Budak, Ceren
Venue
Public Opinion Quarterly
Published
2016
Volume
80
Issue
S1
Pages
250-271
ISSN
  • 0033-362X (ISSN-L)
  • 1537-5331
OpenAlex
W1119807432
Cited by
336
References
52
Citations by year
2026: 18 · 2025: 40 · 2024: 28 · 2023: 38 · 2022: 30 · 2021: 55 · 2020: 38 · 2019: 39 · 2018: 32 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 1
FWCI
81.00
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Public Opinion Quarterly (publishedVersion)
  • SSRN Electronic Journal (acceptedVersion)
  • HighWire Press Open Archive (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Media Influence and Politics
  • Social Sciences › Communication › Media Studies and Communication
  • Social Sciences › General Social Sciences › Computational and Text Analysis Methods
Keywords
media bias, ideological bias, news framing, media coverage of politics, partisan bias, political scandal, news selection

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review