I code the "balance" of news stories - how slanted a given article is in favour of expert opinion or opposed to it (1 to -1). On average, balance tilts towards the position of the expert community (0.3). This pattern is overwhelming in CC and vaccine coverage [8/13]
Finally, I code whether expert messages are rebutted by contrarian experts (false balance) or polarizing political opponents. False balance isn't all that common (22%), but it comparably higher in GMO and nuclear power coverage [9/13]
Polarizing opponents are more commonly cited (42%), especially on economic issues. Worth noting: journalists uniquely avoid both false balance and polarizing opponents in CC and vaccine coverage [10/13]
My data set also allows me to make comparisons between news format, outlet partisan or ideological leaning, and over time [11/13]
To wrap up, worries about journalistic balance in news content may be overstated on the issues where it has received the most attention. A bigger concern is the inability of journalists to consistently provide information about expert consensus where it exists [12/13]
I just got my PhD at @UBCPoliSci. I'm currently a postdoc at the @munkschool with @PeejLoewen. If you are interested in more of my work, check out http://www.ericmerkley.com . Hire me! [FIN]
Working paper posted here: https://ericmerkley.files.wordpress.com/2019/08/merkley-apsa-paper-are-experts-newsworthy.pdf