Media bias follows the money

It's true that our news media are biased. Research has shown that it depends on how you interpret it, where the bias lies.

Randy Bergman, a former editor of mine, did his master's thesis on how objective newspapers were when it came to businesses. His discovery was that, despite ardent claims that advertising dollars don't determine coverage, and despite a few newspapers that actually do appear to make a concerted effort not to connect the two, there can be no doubt that newspapers are pro-big business in terms of coverage. I've seen it myself.

At The Times of Trenton, where I worked last year, we refused to cover a major lawsuit against one of our big advertisers. (The Princeton Packet, incidentally, covered the story and lost the account, which represented more than $30,000 annually in lost advertising.) The Times also gives front-page and Page Three coverage to all sorts of stupid things because they involve advertisers. A new rollercoaster at Six Flags got a bigger story than any of the local issues that day.

It's pretty despicable, really.

At WCN Newspapers, where I work now, we're not allowed to do a story on any business -- no matter how newsworthy -- unless we clear it with the higher-ups first. After all, they might owe us money or not have an account with us. So much for an independent press.

In the end, an individual's perspective and defintions shape their understanding of media bias. "Pro-big business" is a conservative bias, and has nothing to do with how wealthy you are.