What is Big Think?  

We are Big Idea Hunters…

We live in a time of information abundance, which far too many of us see as information overload. With the sum total of human knowledge, past and present, at our fingertips, we’re faced with a crisis of attention: which ideas should we engage with, and why? Big Think is an evolving roadmap to the best thinking on the planet — the ideas that can help you think flexibly and act decisively in a multivariate world.

A word about Big Ideas and Themes — The architecture of Big Think

Big ideas are lenses for envisioning the future. Every article and video on bigthink.com and on our learning platforms is based on an emerging “big idea” that is significant, widely relevant, and actionable. We’re sifting the noise for the questions and insights that have the power to change all of our lives, for decades to come. For example, reverse-engineering is a big idea in that the concept is increasingly useful across multiple disciplines, from education to nanotechnology.

Themes are the seven broad umbrellas under which we organize the hundreds of big ideas that populate Big Think. They include New World Order, Earth and Beyond, 21st Century Living, Going Mental, Extreme Biology, Power and Influence, and Inventing the Future.

Big Think Features:

12,000+ Expert Videos


Browse videos featuring experts across a wide range of disciplines, from personal health to business leadership to neuroscience.

Watch videos

World Renowned Bloggers


Big Think’s contributors offer expert analysis of the big ideas behind the news.

Go to blogs

Big Think Edge


Big Think’s Edge learning platform for career mentorship and professional development provides engaging and actionable courses delivered by the people who are shaping our future.

Find out more

The Subtle Biases of Economic Reporting

May 11, 2011, 6:48 PM

Among the many deplorable effects of reading this blog, according to old-school journalists, is that you can't count on what The New York Times (here, scroll down to section B5) calls the "newsroom's standards of fairness, taste and legal propriety." There is no one protecting you from my prejudices and obsessions, dear reader. Those who make a living providing such protection have been known to tut and tsk about the blogosphere for that reason. But do these cubicle-dwelling champions of rectitude actually do what they're supposed to? Not quite, according to this study: Comparing American newspapers' economic coverage with their presidential endorsements, it found that papers increase their stories about unemployment when the party they're against occupies the White House.

In the study, Valentino Larcinese, Riccardo Puglisi, and James M. Snyder Jr. counted economics-related stories published by major American newspapers from 1988 to 2005 (for big-circulation chains) and 1996-2005 for the others. As we don't need economists to tell us that the Times leans Democrat while the New Hampshire Union-Leader prefers right-wingers, they weren't looking for signs of absolute and constant bias. (And, in fact, they found that most newspapers were fairly centrist in their endorsement patterns, leaning neither too Blue nor too Red.) Rather, the study (in press at the Journal of Public Economics but there's a pdf available of an earlier version), tested whether a newspaper's endorsement, whatever its flavor, would "spill over" into its supposedly fair, filtered, judicious and professional coverage of matters like inflation, unemployment and trade.

The authors (whom I learned about from the excellent "Findings" blog at National Affairs) found a clear and strong effect in the 102 papers they studied (all the newspapers in the NewsLibrary archive, plus the New York Times, the Chicago Tribune and Los Angeles Times). "When the unemployment rate was one percentage point above the average," they write, "newspapers with a strong propensity to endorse Republican candidates reacted with 15 percent per month more articles under Clinton than under Bush. For the same one percent increase, newspapers with a strong pro-Democratic endorsement policy have 9 percent less news on unemployment under Clinton than under Bush."

Of course, newspapers read by Democrats will want to cater to their readers, and vice versa, but the authors say they corrected for this in their analysis. In other words, they say, what they've measured is purely the connection between editorial endorsements and economic coverage—the bias of the publishers and editors, not that of the readers.

Oh, well. Objectivity, like any other form of ethical perfection, isn't a place to live. It's an ideal to which American journalists aspire, because even though failure is inevitable, the effort does good. And the study also found evidence that newspapers can live up to their ideals. Larcinese et al. did not find a similar effect for the other three economic topics they tested: inflation, the Federal budget and America's trade deficit.

Larcinese, V., Puglisi, R., & Snyder, J. (2011). Partisan bias in economic news: Evidence on the agenda-setting behavior of U.S. newspapers Journal of Public Economics DOI: 10.1016/j.jpubeco.2011.04.006


The Subtle Biases of Econom...

Newsletter: Share: