A recent article in the Wisconsin State Journal about local reaction to President Bush”s proposed mercury emissions regulations brought an interesting set of responses to the in box and answering machine of the author, Ron Seely.

“I got calls from people on both sides of the issue,” Seely recalls. “Environmental groups told me that I didn”t address the need for reductions seriously enough, while utilities stakeholders thought I didn”t present enough information from their point of view.”

This phenomenon-when partisans on both sides of a contentious issue view the same piece of media coverage as biased toward the other side-is nothing new to writers, editors and reporters, according to Al Gunther, a professor of life sciences communication in the UW-Madison”s College of Agricultural and Life Sciences. “The so-called hostile media effect predicts that, when people are highly involved in an issue, their view of news coverage tends to be biased also.”

What”s more, says Gunther, this effect seems peculiar to information in mass media. In a study published in the current issue of Journal of Communication, Gunther and graduate student Kathleen Schmitt showed a news article about the controversy over genetically modified foods to various interest groups. Neutral readers described the article as fair and balanced. However, pro-biotech researchers saw it as biased against GM foods while members of an anti-GM food cooperative said it was slanted in favor of the biotech side.

Gunther and others have done similar studies before, but this one contained an innovative twist: each respondent read identical information, but some were told that the story came from a national newspaper, while others were told it was a college student essay. The reserachers found that the perception of hostile media content disappeared when partisans thought the story was merely a student essay. “And on some measures it actually reversed-partisans saw the essay version as favoring, rather than opposing, their own view,” says Gunther. “It was only when the information was believed to be in the mass media-where presumably many other people must have seen it-that the partisans saw the coverage as biased against them,” he explains.

Politicians, or people on the front lines of an issue, often complain about unfair media coverage. “They might be wrong about that,” Gunther says. “This work tells us that journalists should beware of overreacting to complaints: partisans who accuse the press of bias may just be predisposed to see the media that way.”

However, Gunther is quick to add that he does not think the news is always fair and balanced. “I”m not an apologist for the media,” he says. “News can certainly be biased; it”s just that audiences can be biased also.”

Seely, a professional journalist and a science writing instructor in the department of life sciences communication, has another take on the hostile media effect. “As a journalist, in a way I feel I”ve done my job if both sides complain,” he says. “My stories aren”t meant to be scientific treatises, or the last word on an issue. I”m trying to raise questions and make people think.”
###