- 2 days ago
Category
🗞
NewsTranscript
00:00The media has always played a critical role in how the world understands international
00:05conflicts. When violence breaks out, the world turns to the news for information and for the
00:11truth. But what happens when the news is selective in which information it gives and which data it
00:17ignores? When outlets only rely on selective sources, facts can easily be construed into
00:23a narrative. We're seeing that now in the media's coverage of what's happening in Nigeria.
00:29Today's episode is going to feel a little bit different. I'm bringing in an outside perspective,
00:34Julie Mastrini, director of media bias ratings at All Sides. Now, if you're familiar with this show,
00:40then you know how often I reference this media watchdog group. I shared with them the patterns
00:44of bias I found in the coverage of Nigeria and how it fits into a bigger global problem,
00:50how media can distort the truth in times of conflict. This conversation is one I feel is
00:57really important, not just for understanding this Nigeria story, but also for how we view
01:02media coverage of the war in Gaza, the Russia-Ukraine war, and any other conflict past or future.
01:09Welcome back to Bias Breakdown.
01:13Last week, we took you on the ground in Nigeria through the perspective of a Nigerian Christian
01:18journalist. Christians in Nigeria are living under a big cloud of terror.
01:24While the world widely acknowledges the horrific violence happening in Nigeria, where the world
01:30disagrees is why it's happening. Are Christians being targeted and killed because of their faith,
01:36or are terrorists indiscriminately killing anyone in their way of seizing mineral-rich territory?
01:42These are very serious claims. And you might think this should be easy to prove. Just show me the
01:48data. The data proves Christians are and are not disproportionately being killed. It all depends
01:56on the source of information and the news source that you turn to. Because we found left and right
02:02leaning media are citing completely different data sets, leaving their audiences with a distorted view
02:08of reality. Here are the patterns among partisan news outlets. The Associated Press, NBC News, The
02:15Washington Post, CNN, and ABC News. All of these news outlets labeled by all sides and others as left
02:22leaning, either cite or quote from just one source of Nigerian Christian death numbers. In their write-ups,
02:30they are citing the Armed Conflict Location and Event Data Project. This U.S.-based non-profit reports this.
02:37Between January 2020 and September 2025, there were 20,409 deaths. 317 of them were Christians who
02:47were targeted and killed because of their Christian identity. During that same time frame, 417 Muslims
02:54were targeted and killed because of their faith. All of the other deaths are deemed indiscriminate and
03:00not faith-based killings, according to the ACLED. This data would suggest Christians are not
03:07often targeted by terrorists. Now, here are the data patterns among news coverage deemed right-leaning.
03:13The New York Post, Fox News, The Daily Wire, Blaze Media, and The Federalist. These news outlets all cite
03:20other sources. The Nigerian-based non-profit, InterSociety, and a Christian non-profit, Open Doors.
03:27Open Doors' most recent data shows 3,100 Christians in Nigeria were targeted and killed between October 2023
03:35and September 2024. A recent InterSociety report shows from January to July, the first seven months
03:43of this year, more than 7,000 Nigerians were killed for being Christians. These figures would suggest
03:51Christians are being targeted over their religious beliefs. The sort of clear pattern and divide in what
03:58sources news outlets selectively picked for their audience fits several forms of media bias.
04:03It's media slant and bias by omission of information. And this is where we bring Julie
04:10Mastrini from all sides into the conversation, because the media watchdog group helps define
04:15and identify these types of media bias. This is a really good example of slant, because
04:21you have the news media choosing to present information from one source and not another,
04:27instead of giving you both and saying, you know, there's some disagreement over the numbers here,
04:31here's what these two sources are saying and letting you decide.
04:34And when these news outlets choose just one data set over others, even though multiple sources are
04:41easily found with a quick Google search on Christian deaths in Nigeria, this reveals a clear bias by
04:47omission. The bias by omission serves the purpose to slant the story. So we often see them kind of holding
04:53hands in news coverage. So bias by omission is exactly what it sounds like. It's when information
05:00is omitted to slant the stories. In this case, we have bias by omission of different data. So the reader
05:08can't get the full story is probably not going to understand that there's some dispute over the actual
05:13numbers if they only read news on one side of the political spectrum. While news outlets on the left and
05:19right side were selective over their data sets, news outlets rated as being center did offer multiple
05:26data sets that are critical to the heart of the issue over Nigeria violence. The Hill News Nation Newsweek
05:34and in our own coverage from last week, these outlets all cited more than just one data group
05:41and some even cited more than just the groups we've talked about so far. Some center write ups also cite
05:47numbers from a Dutch based nonprofit, the Observatory for religious freedom in Africa. The group reports
05:5436,000 civilian deaths between 2019 and 2024. It says 2.4 Christians were killed for every Muslim during
06:04this period, a rate more than five times higher than Muslims when population size is factored in. This data
06:12subset would suggest Christians are disproportionately dying in terror attacks. The common theme for center
06:19news outlets was citing more than just one data source. By doing so, these news outlets offered a more
06:26balanced approach to telling the story. It's very important for media outlets to give the full story,
06:33especially if there's conflict within that story. If there's conflict about the facts, if there are different
06:38sources providing different facts, it is most noble for a journalist to provide all that information
06:46because the goal of the journalists should really be not to slant your perception towards the conclusion
06:52that they want you to reach, but to provide you with all the information so that you can decide for yourself.
06:57News outlets on the left and right also weaved their selective data talking points in a way to fit a left
07:04and right narrative. The New York Times wrote there is no clear evidence to show that Christians are attacked
07:10more frequently than any other religious group in Nigeria, citing unnamed analysts and not providing the data
07:17that would show Christians are attacked more frequently. So for the journalists to come out and say there's no
07:23evidence or this is baseless, somebody else could just as clearly say, but there is evidence. See, look at this data set, right?
07:28While Fox News also inserted its own takeaway, stating as a matter of fact that the situation
07:34for Christians in Nigeria is reaching an alarming level. Fox News is doing the opposite of the New
07:40York Times and coming right out and saying, this is alarming. I'm going to interpret the data for you.
07:44I'm going to interpret what's going on for you and present you with a subjective opinion. Um,
07:50and that is also straying from neutral journalism. So both of these sides are just doing the same
07:55things, landing the story in different directions. Something I think we do well here is identifying
08:01bias in the media and breaking down why a story is biased. What I want to get better at is helping
08:07viewers understand why a left and right leaning outlets frame stories the way they do. This part
08:13of the story is more of a political analysis. We're bringing in all sides to help explain how the
08:19political left and right see an issue differently and how those different perspectives may
08:25shape the way left and right media cover a story. This is about interpreting the bias patterns
08:32and the media divide over Nigeria violence. And using their expertise in political narratives,
08:38all sides offers one interpretation of why this media discourse over the issue exists.
08:45I said it before, the atrocities and horrific nature of these killings is not disputed. The difference is
08:53one side sees this as a serious systemic persecution of Christians and the other sees it as indiscriminate
09:01killings. There's a very clear difference in the media coverage here with one side seeming to play
09:07up that there are a lot of Christian deaths and the other side sort of trying to throw cold water on that
09:12claim. So the reason for that is ideological and religious differences in the West. So progressive
09:18leaning audiences in the West feel less identification with global Christianity. They tend to not be
09:24Christians and they see it as culturally dominant rather than vulnerable. Whereas Christian conservatives
09:30in the West see Christianity as vulnerable domestically and globally. Left-leaning journalists see Muslims as
09:36a marginalized or misunderstood group that doesn't hold entrenched power. So they might unconsciously or
09:41consciously downplay what they see as an Islamophobic narrative. So a story framed as Muslims are killing
09:48Christians risks in their mind reinforcing Western Christian dominance, even if the facts are accurate.
09:55And then on the other hand, the conservative media is more Christian sympathetic. It probably even
10:01contains Christians. Same with the Trump administration. So they're more willing to highlight
10:06Christian persecution. They are concerned about Christianity's decline in the West or the threat of Islamic
10:10dominance globally or domestically. So they would be more willing to select data sets that would
10:17reinforce that concern. While this is one of the more recent examples of media malfeasance when it
10:23comes to presenting the full picture of data to its audience, this is far from the first time we've seen this.
10:30We saw the same death toll discrepancy in the war on Gaza. Nearly a year into the Israel-Hamas conflict,
10:37some revisions in the count made headlines. All sides wrote the United Nations recently updated how
10:43it shows data on the Palestinian death toll in Gaza, making some figures appear to decrease by nearly half.
10:50Days later, Israel released its first estimate of the death toll in Gaza as 16,000, which is more than
10:5750 percent lower than the toll kept by the Hamas-administered Ministry of Health in Gaza.
11:02Media on the left tend to accept the numbers from the UN and Ministry of Health and in some cases
11:09criticize them as possibly underestimating the true toll. Meanwhile, outlets on the right tend to
11:16suggest that Hamas may be intentionally inflating the death toll.
11:20We see conflicting death tolls with international conflict all the time. And it makes total sense,
11:27right? The entities that are meant to collect data, they themselves might have loyalties to one side or
11:34another. We would hope that they'd be neutral, but that might not be the case. Some of these are,
11:39you know, government entities that might have entrenched interests.
11:42It's a similar story in the Russia-Ukraine war. About a year and a half into that conflict,
11:47all sides wrote there are no universally agreed-upon statistics for casualties on either side,
11:53as both the Kremlin and Ukrainian government have been tight-lipped about reporting casualties of
11:59their own soldiers. While these are of our most recent wars, difficulties in covering death toll data,
12:05it's nothing new. A war studies researcher told the outlet Al Jazeera during World War II,
12:10each side underreported their casualties by half and exaggerated enemy casualties by two to three times.
12:18And the 1994 Rwandan genocide, where estimates would later show 800,000 to 1 million Tutsis
12:26were killed over their ethnicity in a span of about 100 days. An International Press Institute piece
12:32reported early published death counts were gross underestimates. On April 16th,
12:38The Guardian still reported only an estimated 20,000 deaths. Two days later,
12:43the New York Times repeated the same statistic, underestimating the actual carnage at that point
12:49by about tenfold. Data is hard to verify, especially coming from conflict zones where news outlets
12:56have little to no presence. When death count and data reports conflict, like the numbers from Nigeria,
13:02the media should just be transparent about that. Journalists are always going to have to be
13:08overcoming their own bias and being truthful and honest about differences. Instead of just
13:15avoiding or ignoring conflicting data or sources that they don't agree with, the journalists role
13:22is to kind of overcome their own bias, to be honest about differences and to present both to the reader.
13:28And when the media fails to do so, readers should recognize it as bias.
13:33This is not new. It's unfortunate, but it's really just another way that bias and loyalties and
13:42different perspectives are shown in the media. And it's really on the reader to always be approaching
13:47things with a critical eye. And that's your bias breakdown. This is different than any of our
13:53other previous episodes, and I hope you were able to get a really good understanding of the subject matter.
13:58I'm really happy with this collaboration that we did with All Sides, and I really hope that you
14:02have the same takeaway, that it was refreshing to just hear some truth and maybe even a little
14:08educational as we expose some of the left-right media bias. A big thank you to Julie at All Sides.
14:15She was so great to work with. Remember to find past episodes of Bias Breakdown. All you got to do is
14:21search for us on any of your favorite podcast platforms, and be sure to find us over on YouTube,
14:26where I can join in on the conversation with you in the comments section of our posted episode.
14:31I read through last week's comments, but I forgot to go back and respond to you, so forgive me on that
14:36one. This week I will for sure be seeking out your comments and feedback. Say hi and let me know what
14:42you think of this sort of format. It is definitely time for me to go ahead and wrap up now, but I just
14:46want to say one thing. I went down a rabbit hole researching this Rwanda genocide. It is a very
14:53interesting part of world history, especially reading about how the US government later apologized
14:58for not intervening sooner, and how using the term genocide was so widely debated for so long.
15:05So I highly recommend researching that topic if you're looking for something historic to learn more
15:10about. Okay, it's time to go. A big thank you to Ian and Allie for the edits and huge graphics lift this
15:16week. Thanks again to Julie for her time and perspective on this story. Of course, thank you for
15:22watching and I will see you next time.
Recommended
0:35
|
Up next
49:11
39:49
1:51
1:08:39
1:16:02
0:29
Be the first to comment