An analysis by AllSides’ Bias Checker reveals a strong left-wing bias in the Norwegian media’s coverage of Barack Obama’s verbal attacks on President Donald Trump during this contentious election campaign.
The articles analysed were published by three Norwegian media organisations: NRK, Nettavisen and VG. AllSides classifies all three as news articles. This makes the bias even more worrying.
And with regard to the Code of Conduct for the Press, there are several points of press ethics which, in my view, are being breached. These include, amongst other things, the requirement that different views be expressed, the critical use of sources and the breadth of the selection of sources.
This also applies to the requirements for objectivity, the distinction between facts and commentary, and that headlines and lead paragraphs do not go beyond what is supported by the content.
Everyone is biased — and that’s okay
Everyone is biased, and that’s fine, writes AllSides. There is no such thing as completely objective news. But hidden bias in the media misleads, manipulates and divides us.
Document makes no secret of the fact that we have a bias, and that it is conservative. We are often accused of being far-right extremists and of practising activist journalism. These are lies intended to undermine our credibility.
As a US correspondent, I can safely say that we do not produce the sort of rubbish that AllSides has analysed in its news articles. We are very clear about the distinction between news and commentary, even though breaches do occur. Nobody is perfect.
Disturbing evidence of how media bias can mislead, manipulate and divide can be found in a reader survey in VG’s article. AllSides itself has highlighted this survey in its analysis of the text:
The poll in the VG article asks readers whether they agree with Obama. His criticism is thus presented as something readers are encouraged to support, rather than as one partisan viewpoint amongst many. This editorial choice once again favours the Democratic perspective.
The poll question embedded in the [VG] article asks readers if they agree with Obama, positioning his criticism as worthy of agreement rather than as one partisan perspective – an editorial choice that again favours the Democratic viewpoint.
Chaos, cruelty, corruption and incompetence
The survey comes hot on the heels of VG quoting Obama’s remarks: ‘After two years of chaos, cruelty, corruption and incompetence, we now have the opportunity to say that enough is enough,’ said the 65-year-old from the podium.
The VG journalist repeats the words in the headline, thereby reinforcing the article’s one-sided message: – Lashes out at Trump: – Chaos, cruelty and incompetence.
AllSides defines this as ‘bias by headline’, where the choice of words, angle, tone and emphasis in a headline influence the reader’s perception even before the article has been read.
VG’s opinion poll shows how years of similar bias in US media coverage have indoctrinated the public. The media are probably aware of this, but continue along the same path. In fact, the coverage is getting worse by the day.
As mentioned in previous analyses, AllSides is not a right-wing organisation, but a recognised company that works to uncover bias in the media by presenting news stories from the left, centre and right side by side.
AllSides assesses over 1,400 news outlets and writers on a five-point scale: left, leaning left, centre, leaning right and right. The aim is to show where different media outlets sit on the political spectrum.
All three articles analysed were rated as ‘Left’ by AllSides. Nettavisen and NRK were given a score of -4, whilst VG was given -3.5. This places them on a par with American media outlets such as MS NOW, Mother Jones and the Huffington Post, which are known for their far-left bias.
It is important to emphasise that AllSides is analysing the individual articles here, not the general bias of the three Norwegian media organisations. Nor does the analysis assess whether the information in the articles is false. It examines the political bias in the presentation.
AllSides identifies a consistent pattern
The analysis of the three articles reveals a consistent pattern: Obama dominates the coverage, whilst Trump’s perspective and the Republicans’ views are given little or no space. AllSides highlights both emotive language, the journalist’s own interpretations and a one-sided presentation of Obama’s accusations.
For example, AllSides writes about Nettavisen:
The author’s own angle presents Obama’s attack as the story itself, rather than what he is actually arguing for. Phrases such as ‘made fun of’ emphasise how Obama criticises Trump, rather than what he is criticising him for. Consequently, the focus remains on the confrontational tone of the speech, rather than its political content.
In *Nettavisen* and *VG*, dramatic and subjective phrases such as ‘relentless attack’, ‘biting jibes’ and ‘thunderous speech’ are used. *AllSides* writes about *Nettavisen*:
By using ‘biting’ several times, the journalist frames Obama’s statements in a negative light and gives them a derisive slant. According to AllSides, these are subjective assessments presented as facts.
Regarding VG, AllSides writes:
The article is dominated by Obama’s speech criticising Trump. Almost everything quoted consists of attacks on the incumbent president. The one-sided selection of sources favours Trump’s critics and the Democrats’ perspective.
Another key point is the absence of dissenting voices. In NRK and VG, neither Trump, the administration nor the Republicans are given the opportunity to respond to the criticism. In Nettavisen, Trump’s response appears only right at the end, after Obama’s attacks have dominated the article. AllSides writes about NRK:
The article is built almost exclusively around Obama’s criticism of Trump. Trump’s or the administration’s response is not included anywhere. This results in a one-sided angle through source selection (Slant through Source Selection) that favours Trump’s critics.
AllSides also criticises the very choice of news story and angle. When Obama’s party-political attack is presented as a separate news story, without corresponding coverage of Republican campaign events or other perspectives, a political stance becomes the dominant narrative.
AllSides believes, for example, that NRK’s decision to cover Obama’s attack on Trump as a standalone news story, rather than as part of broader coverage of the mid-term elections featuring multiple perspectives, presents a party-political viewpoint as the news event itself.
AllSides also identified bias in the headline (Bias by Headline) and writes about NRK:
‘Obama lashes out at Trump: – Chaos, cruelty and corruption”
The headline uses Obama’s description as the framework for the article, without signalling that this is one person’s view in a political election campaign.
The criticism is therefore not about Obama being given a voice, but about how the articles are structured: which words are used, which claims are reproduced, which voices are omitted, and how much space the various perspectives are given.
Why spend time on this?
Below is a translation of AllSides’ analyses for those who wish to examine the criticism more closely.
Some might ask why I, as Document’s US correspondent, am spending time on this. Because I believe Norwegian media coverage of the US has completely lost the plot.
Throughout the decade since Trump came to power, the Norwegian media has conveyed an image of American politics which, to use AllSides’ own words, has been misleading and manipulative, and which contributes to dividing the Norwegian people.
When 96 per cent of VG’s readers, in opinion polls with over 30,000 responses, support Obama’s statements, it is a huge problem that so few question the remarkable nature of a former president making such attacks.
It is a scandal, not least because American politics, on the whole, has little bearing on Norwegians’ everyday lives. Thanks to AllSides’ analyses, we now have concrete evidence to show that this bias is not merely an allegation. It is real and serious.
According to AllSides, Bias Checker is an AI-powered tool that has been carefully calibrated to reflect the average assessments of Americans across the political spectrum, rather than the opinions of a small group of experts or a biased AI.
Nettavisen: Blunt message from Obama: ‘Corrupt and incompetent’
Rating: –4. Left-leaning (Left Bias)
This is a news article. The headline and introduction describe Obama as having ‘launched a relentless attack’ with ‘a series of scathing remarks’. This is charged language that portrays Obama’s speech as aggressive and biting.
The author describes Obama’s comments as ‘biting jibes’ several times in the text, thereby reinforcing the derisive angle.
Obama’s extensive criticism of Trump and the Republicans dominates the article. He calls the Republican Party ‘corrupt and incompetent’, mocks Trump’s taste in interior design at length, and questions whether Trump takes anything at all seriously. All of this is reported in detail, without a balancing perspective until right at the very end. AllSides believes this results in a one-sided angle through the selection of sources that favours Obama and the Democrats.
The author’s own angle presents Obama’s attack as the story itself, rather than as the substance of his arguments. Phrases such as ‘made fun of’ emphasise how Obama criticises Trump, rather than what he is actually criticising him for. Consequently, the focus remains on the confrontational tone of the speech, rather than on the substance of the arguments.
Trump’s response appears only at the very end, in a short paragraph. The author notes that Trump ‘does not mention’ Obama’s work for Biden. AllSides considers this to be a slight dig at the journalist’s own text, as it highlights something Trump does not mention, thereby favouring Obama.
The article gives Obama’s criticism a prominent place throughout the text, whilst Trump’s response is pushed right to the end and presented as a reaction. AllSides believes this skewed placement favours Obama.
Overall, AllSides assesses the article as left-leaning. The author’s own text repeatedly describes Obama’s speech as sharp and relentless, whilst the article’s structure clearly gives the most space to Obama’s criticism of Trump and the Republicans. Only right at the very end does a brief response from Trump. According to AllSides, this one-sided presentation favours the Democratic perspective.
Specific examples
This tool highlights 16 types of media bias that may be present in the article.
Word Choice ‘Mercilessly on the attack’.
The word ‘mercilessly’ (or ‘ruthlessly’) is a loaded description of Obama’s speech that suggests excessive harshness without any evidence to support this.
Subjective Qualifying Adjectives
AllSides highlights the phrases ‘biting remarks’, ‘delivered biting jibes’ and ‘he made a biting remark’. By using ‘sarcastic’ several times, the journalist frames Obama’s statements in a negative light and gives them a derisive slant. According to AllSides, these are subjective assessments presented as facts.
Opinion statements presented as fact
‘Barack Obama made it clear what he thinks of the current US administration, which was criticised on a number of occasions’.
The expression ‘was given a dressing-down’ is an interpretation of the impact of Obama’s speech, not a neutral description, writes AllSides.
Spin
‘For those in any doubt, Barack Obama is not using the restaurant chain as an example of good taste’.
The author interprets Obama’s intention and adds editorial comments explaining the joke. This is an interpretation that influences the presentation, rather than neutral reporting.
Word Choice ‘Thunderous speech’
Describing Obama’s speech as a ‘thunderous speech’ is a charged and dramatic characterisation.
Slant
‘Trump does not mention that Obama also took part in Biden’s election campaign, which was successful in 2020.’
Although it is relevant to correct Trump’s omission, AllSides believes that the journalist’s choice to highlight what Trump ‘does not mention’ gives the article a slant that favours Obama.
NRK: Obama lashes out at Trump: ‘Chaos, cruelty and corruption’
Rating: –4. Left-wing bias
This is a news article.
The article is almost exclusively built around Obama’s criticism of Trump. Trump’s or the administration’s response is not included anywhere. This creates a one-sided angle through the selection of sources (Slant through Source Selection) that favours Trump’s critics.
Obama’s characterisations are in quotation marks and are therefore not included in the assessment of bias. Nevertheless, the author has chosen to reproduce only the attacks, without a balancing perspective. This is an editorial choice that favours the left.
The journalist writes in their own voice that the Trump administration is to blame for the rise in inflation. This is presented as a fact, not as a claim made by Obama. It is an opinion statement presented as fact (Opinion Statement Presented as Fact) that favours Trump’s critics.
No defender of Trump, spokesperson for the administration or Republican voice is given a platform anywhere in the article. This constitutes bias by omission (Bias by Omission) that consistently favours one side.
Overall assessment: The article is assessed as left-leaning. The journalist’s own text places the blame on Trump as if it were a fact. The article is structured around one-sided criticism, without allowing Trump or the administration to respond. No voice defending Trump is given a chance to speak.
Specific examples
Bias through the headline (Bias by Headline)
‘Obama lashes out at Trump: – Chaos, cruelty and corruption’
The headline uses Obama’s description as the framework for the article, without indicating that this is one person’s view in a political election campaign.
Slant
“The former president blamed the Trump administration for rising inflation, which is one of the most important issues for voters ahead of the election in a week and a half.”
The article presents Obama’s claim that Trump is to blame for inflation as a fact in the journalist’s own text. It is not made clear that this is a contentious political claim, nor are any counter-arguments or comments from the Trump administration provided.
Bias by Omission
AllSides considers the entire article to be bias by omission.
The article deals exclusively with Obama’s criticism of Trump. Neither Trump, his administration nor Republican candidates are given a voice.
The article presents no alternative viewpoints to the claim regarding inflation, the accusation that the war is ‘unnecessary’, or the characterisation of ‘chaos, cruelty, corruption and incompetence’.
Bias through story choice and placement
AllSides considers that NRK’s decision to cover Obama’s attack on Trump as a standalone news story, rather than as part of broader, multi-perspective coverage of the mid-term elections, presents a partisan viewpoint as the news event itself.
VG: Lashes out at Trump: – Chaos, cruelty and incompetence
Rating: −3.5. Left-wing bias
This is a news article.
The article is dominated by Obama’s speech criticising Trump. Almost everything quoted consists of attacks on the incumbent president. The one-sided selection of sources favours Trump’s critics and the Democrats’ perspective.
The journalist describes Obama’s speech as a ‘thunderous speech’ in their own text. This is a dramatic choice of words (Word Choice) that lends the criticism greater weight and legitimacy, rather than describing the speech neutrally. It favours the Democrats.
Trump’s perspective, defence or response is completely absent. This constitutes bias by omission, which leaves the attacks unchallenged and favours Trump’s critics.
The poll in the article asks readers whether they agree with Obama. Consequently, his criticism is presented as something one naturally takes a stance on – whether one supports it or not – rather than as one party-political viewpoint amongst many. This editorial choice, in turn, favours the Democrats’ perspective.
The article repeats Obama’s claims about an ‘unnecessary war’ and that the Trump administration is to blame for the price rises, without providing any balancing context, rebuttal or fact-checking. The accusations stand as the main content of the piece, without any counterarguments.
Overall assessment: The article is assessed as left-leaning. The journalist’s own choice of words and angle give Obama’s criticism greater weight. No dissenting voice is given a platform, and the selection of sources is one-sided throughout the article.
Specific examples
Types of media bias
Subjective qualifying adjectives
‘Thunderous speech’
The adjective ‘thunderous speech’ is a subjective characterisation that conveys drama and power without being underpinned by neutral facts.
Word choice
The author describes Obama’s criticism as him ‘coming down hard on’ Trump, rather than using neutral alternatives such as ‘criticised’ or ‘commented on’.
Slant
‘On Saturday, Barack Obama delivered a thunderous speech at an election rally in the state of Ohio, in which he came down hard on his successor in the White House.’
The article begins by portraying Obama’s speech as an attack on Trump. This establishes a confrontational tone from the outset and emphasises conflict rather than political content.
Bias through story choice and placement
The entire article focuses on Obama’s criticism of Trump during a campaign rally, writes AllSides.
The very decision to cover Obama’s party-political campaign speech, which included attacks on Trump, as a separate news story highlights a single political perspective. There is no balanced coverage of Republican campaign events or reactions to Obama’s claims.
Bias by Omission
The article contains no response from Trump, the Trump administration or others with Republican perspectives on Obama’s allegations.
Obama’s serious allegations of an unnecessary war, corruption, incompetence and responsibility for rising prices are presented without any objections, rebuttals or alternative explanations from those against whom the allegations are directed, or their supporters.
Biased angle (Slant)
‘Obama blamed the Trump administration for the rise in inflation, which, according to the report, is among the most important issues for voters in the run-up to election day.’
Although the journalist attributes responsibility for the claim to Obama, the statement on price rises is presented without any context regarding economic factors, Federal Reserve policy or alternative explanations. According to AllSides, this helps to reinforce Obama’s narrative.
Excerpt from AllSides’ analysis, attached as documentation.
