Everyone has a bias, and that is perfectly acceptable, writes the media organisation AllSides. There is no such thing as completely impartial news coverage. But hidden media bias misleads, manipulates, and divides people.
And that is exactly what we see Norwegian media doing on a regular basis, especially in their coverage of the United States. It makes no difference who the president is. Under Biden, they misled by omitting important information, something AllSides calls bias by omission. Under Trump, they break every rule in the book.
It is one thing that American politics and media divide Americans. But when Norwegian media mislead in their coverage of American politics, it divides us Norwegians as well. We see the results of this propaganda online, in comment sections, at social gatherings, in the canteen, around the kitchen table, and in growing hostility towards the United States and Americans under Trump.
Marie Simonsen completely off the charts
In this AllSides analysis, we take a closer look at a commentary by Anders Magnus on Trump’s visit to China. Last time, we analysed Christian Pletten’s piece. Both are commentaries, and that gives the writers room to express their own opinions.
But such hit pieces nevertheless go far beyond ordinary commentary and fair journalism. What is most striking is how they, and many others, regularly make serious allegations as though they were facts, without sources or evidence.
Interestingly, in the Press Complaints Commission (PFU) case against Document today, we could read the following quotation from the “verdict”:
As the Press Complaints Commission (PFU) has pointed out previously, there must be considerable latitude on opinion pages, and some room for both forceful rhetorical formulations and misinterpretations. Nevertheless, that does not mean that opinion pieces are exempt from the requirements of press ethics, or that there is no limit to what can be accepted.
Precisely. But, as in all other areas of public life in Norway, there is one law for Loki and another for Thor in the media as well.
Anders Magnus’ commentary was so strongly left-leaning that it almost broke the AllSides meter, receiving a rating of –6. But Marie Simonsen managed to break the meter and received a score of –7. Both are considered to be on the far left of the American media spectrum.
Source: AllSides.
Next time, we shall take a closer look at the analysis of Simonsen’s commentary entitled “Outrageous Greed”, in which she went completely off the chart.
One must search long and hard to find character assassinations as extreme in the American media as those we see in Norway, even in left-leaning outlets. I checked the coverage of Trump’s visit to China, and most articles and commentaries received ratings between –1 and –2.
A highly critical article from MS Now (formerly MSNBC) entitled “Despite the hype, Trump leaves China empty-handed and no better off than he was before” received only –2.5.
AllSides measures only bias, not whether information is factually correct or true.
The fact that Anders Magnus’ commentary received a rating of –6 does not necessarily mean that he himself belongs among the far left. But he writes as though he does. He received particular criticism for the phrase “shuffling along… cap in hand”.
Read more about “bias by omission”, with an example from CNN, at the end of the article.
Analysis of “Trump Goes to China Cap in Hand”
AllSides assesses Anders Magnus’ text as a commentary containing consistently left-leaning criticism of Donald Trump and his foreign policy.
The author portrays Trump as strategically incompetent, weak, and humiliated on the international stage, while his opponents (Iran and China) are portrayed as strategically superior.
Some examples from AllSides’ analysis of “Trump Goes to China Cap in Hand”.
Detailed analysis:
The author opens by declaring that Trump has “major weaknesses” that have been exposed to the entire world, expressing a personal opinion by portraying him as incompetent before any evidence has been presented.
The author characterises Trump as short-sighted and states that he “does not think beyond the end of his nose” and has no long-term strategic plans, an extensive negative assessment.
The author describes Trump as someone who believed the war would be over within a few days because “he had given little thought” to Iranian retaliation, portraying him as careless and unprepared.
The author claims that Iran placed the United States and the world economy in a “stranglehold”, portraying Iran’s actions as strategically effective, while Trump “is unable to get the United States out of this predicament”.
The author claims that Trump has “never been able to grasp” that other countries can resist his “bulldozer-like approach”, portraying him as arrogant and delusional.
The author states that Trump must “give way” to China, portraying him as defeated and weak.
The author concludes that Trump arrives in Beijing “shuffling along… cap in hand”, a vivid image of humiliation and supplication.
The author claims that Trump’s ego prevents him from understanding that he is not “the world’s most powerful and smartest genius”, but that “everyone else can see it”, leading readers to view Trump as delusional.
AllSides found that throughout the commentary, Trump’s opponents (Iran and China) are portrayed as strategically competent and patient, while Trump is portrayed as reactive and outmanoeuvred. AllSides considers this to be a deliberate narrative choice that presents a negative image of conservative leadership in the United States.
Opinions presented as facts and mind reading
The following are types of bias that AllSides identified in the commentary, including opinions presented as facts and “mind reading”.
Opinions presented as facts
Anders Magnus: America’s war against Iran has exposed Trump’s major weaknesses to the entire world: He does not think beyond the end of his nose and has no long-term strategic plans …
AllSides: This is a subjective assessment of Trump’s cognitive abilities and strategic planning, presented as an established fact rather than an analysis or opinion.
Anders Magnus: For the time being, Trump does not appear capable of steering the United States out of this predicament …
AllSides: Whether Trump is “failing” to manage the situation is a disputed assessment presented as an objective conclusion.
Anders Magnus: He has never been able to grasp that other countries and leaders have significant opportunities to resist Trump’s bulldozer-like approach …
AllSides: This is a subjective characterisation of Trump’s insight and behaviour (“bulldozer-like approach”) presented as fact.
Anders Magnus: Trump probably does not understand it himself, because his ego cannot accept that he is not the world’s most powerful and smartest genius …
AllSides: This is a psychological assessment of Trump’s self-awareness and ego, presented as fact without evidence.
Mind reading
Anders Magnus: United States President Donald Trump believed he would crush the clerical dictatorship in Iran through an intense and brief bombing campaign. The war would be over within a few days. He had given little thought to how the Iranians might retaliate.
AllSides: The author claims to know what Trump believed and thought without citing any sources or evidence.
Anders Magnus: Xi will probably not agree to such a thing, but instead let Trump and the Americans continue to stew in their own Hormuz fat.
AllSides: The author assumes Xi’s intentions and motivations without evidence or source attribution.
Subjective descriptive adjectives
Anders Magnus: But everyone else can see it: here comes the President of the United States shuffling into Beijing cap in hand.
AllSides: The word “shuffling” is a loaded and derogatory characterisation that conveys weakness and submission.
What is Bias by Omission?
AllSides identifies 16 types of media bias. Many readers will recognise what AllSides describes as bias by omission, a form of media bias in which information or voices are missing.
This type of bias occurs when media outlets choose not to cover certain stories, omit information that would support an alternative point of view, or exclude voices and perspectives from the other side.
Bias by omission can occur on a small scale, for example when a journalist fails to include alternative perspectives in coverage of an issue. Or it can occur on a larger scale, when news organisations fail to cover stories that do not support their political narrative.
This type of bias also occurs when the media cover stories that do not fit their political narrative but present them in a manner that creates a false or misleading impression. One example might be ten negative articles about Trump’s policies and one partially positive one.
AllSides provides the following example from CNN:
In an article about Jussie Smollett and hate crime, CNN claimed that hate crime had increased over the previous three years, but omitted important information from the FBI report, writes AllSides. The number of law enforcement agencies reporting hate crime had increased by approximately 1,000.
AllSides’ mission is to help people understand the world, and one another, better. Its leadership, staff, and audience consist of liberals, conservatives, independents, and everyone in between.
AllSides-analyse: Plettens kommentar om Trump og Xi gir leserne et skjevt inntrykk