skip to main content
research-article
Public Access

Identifying Framing Bias in Online News

Published:27 June 2018Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

It has been observed that different media outlets exert bias in the way they report the news, which seamlessly influences the way that readers’ knowledge is built through filtering what we read. Therefore, understanding bias in news media is fundamental for obtaining a holistic view of a news story. Traditional work has focused on biases in terms of “agenda setting,” where more attention is allocated to stories that fit their biased narrative. The corresponding method is straightforward, since the bias can be detected through counting the occurrences of different stories/themes within the documents. However, these methods are not applicable to biases which are implicit in wording, namely, “framing” bias. According to framing theory, biased communicators will select and emphasize certain facts and interpretations over others when telling their story. By focusing on facts and interpretations that conform to their bias, they can tell the story in a way that suits their narrative. Automatic detection of framing bias is challenging since nuances in the wording can change the interpretation of the story. In this work, we aim to investigate how the subtle pattern hidden in language use of a news agency can be discovered and further leveraged to detect frames. In particular, we aim to identify the type and polarity of frame in a sentence. Extensive experiments are conducted on real-world data from different countries. A case study is further provided to reveal possible applications of the proposed method.

References

  1. Saud Alashri, Sultan Alzahrani, Lenka Bustikova, David Siroky, and Hasan Davulcu. 2015. What animates political debates? Analyzing ideological perspectives in online debates between opposing parties. In Proceedings of SocialCom.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Jisun An, Meeyoung Cha, Krishna Gummadi, and Jon Crowcroft. 2011. Media landscape in Twitter: A world of new conventions and political diversity. In Proceedings of the 5th International AAAI Conference on Weblogs and Social Media.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Jisun An, Meeyoung Cha, Krishna P. Gummadi, Jon Crowcroft, and Daniele Quercia. 2012. Visualizing media bias through twitter. In Proceedings of the 6th International AAAI Conference on Weblogs and Social Media.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Eytan Bakshy, Solomon Messing, and Lada A. Adamic. 2015. Exposure to ideologically diverse news and opinion on Facebook. Science 348, 6239 (2015), 1130--1132.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Ethan M. Balk, Mei Chung, Nira Hadar, Kamal Patel, W. Yu Winifred, Thomas A. Trikalinos, and Lina Kong Win Chang. 2012. Accuracy of data extraction of non-English language trials with Google Translate.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. David P. Baron. 2006. Persistent media bias. Journal of Public Economics 90, 1 (2006), 1--36.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  7. Eric Baumer, Elisha Elovic, Ying Qin, Francesca Polletta, and Geri Gay. 2015. Testing and comparing computational approaches for identifying the language of framing in political news. In Proceedings of HLT-NAACL. The Association for Computational Linguistics, 1472--1482.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  8. Steven Bird, Ewan Klein, and Edward Loper. 2009. Natural Language Processing with Python. O’Reilly Media, Inc. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. David M. Blei, Andrew Y. Ng, and Michael I. Jordan. 2003. Latent Dirichlet allocation. The Journal of Machine Learning Research 3 (2003), 993--1022. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. Amber E. Boydstun, Dallas Card, Justin Gross, Paul Resnick, and Noah A. Smith. 2014. Tracking the development of media frames within and across policy issues.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Amber E. Boydstun, Justin H. Gross, Philip Resnik, and Noah A. Smith. 2013. Identifying media frames and frame dynamics within and across policy issues. In Proceedings of New Directions in Analyzing Text as Data Workshop.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Leo Breiman. 2001. Random forests. Machine Learning 45, 1 (2001), 5--32. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. Pedro Henrique Calais Guerra, Adriano Veloso, Wagner Meira, Jr., and Virgílio Almeida. 2011. From bias to opinion: A transfer-learning approach to real-time sentiment analysis. In Proceedings of the 17th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining (KDD’11). ACM, New York, 150--158. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. Erik Cambria, Bjorn Schuller, Yunqing Xia, and Catherine Havasi. 2013. New avenues in opinion mining and sentiment analysis. IEEE Intelligent Systems 2 (2013), 15--21. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. Dallas Card, Amber E. Boydstun, Justin H. Gross, Philip Resnik, and Noah A. Smith. 2015. The media frames corpus: Annotations of frames across issues. In Proceedings of ACL (2). 438--444.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Abhinandan S. Das, Mayur Datar, Ashutosh Garg, and Shyam Rajaram. 2007. Google news personalization: Scalable online collaborative filtering. In Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on World Wide Web. ACM, 271--280. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. James W. Dearing and Everett Rogers. 1996. Agenda-Setting. Vol. 6. Sage Publications.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. Stefano DellaVigna and Ethan Kaplan. 2006. The Fox News Effect: Media Bias and Voting. Technical Report. National Bureau of Economic Research.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. Nicholas Diakopoulos, Amy X. Zhang, Dag Elgesem, and Andrew Salway. 2014. Identifying and analyzing moral evaluation frames in climate change blog discourse. In Proceedings of ICWSM.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. James N. Druckman and Michael Parkin. 2005. The impact of media bias: How editorial slant affects voters. Journal of Politics 67, 4 (2005), 1030--1049.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  21. Jill A. Edy and Patrick C. Meirick. 2007. Wanted, dead or alive: Media frames, frame adoption, and support for the war in Afghanistan. Journal of Communication 57, 1 (2007), 119--141.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. Robert M. Entman. 1993. Framing: Toward clarification of a fractured paradigm. Journal of Communication 43, 4 (1993), 51--58.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  23. Rong-En Fan, Kai-Wei Chang, Cho-Jui Hsieh, Xiang-Rui Wang, and Chih-Jen Lin. 2008. LIBLINEAR: A library for large linear classification. The Journal of Machine Learning Research 9 (2008), 1871--1874. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. William A. Gamson. 1989. News as framing: Comments on Graber. American Behavioral Scientist 33, 2 (1989), 157--161.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  25. R. Kelly Garrett and Brian E. Weeks. 2013. The promise and peril of real-time corrections to political misperceptions. In Proceedings of the 2013 Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work. ACM, 1047--1058. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. Matthew Gentzkow and Jesse M. Shapiro. 2011. Ideological segregation online and offline. The Quarterly Journal of Economics 126, 4 (2011), 1799--1839.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  27. Alex Graves and Jürgen Schmidhuber. 2005. Framewise phoneme classification with bidirectional LSTM and other neural network architectures. Neural Networks 18, 5 (2005), 602--610. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  28. Stephan Greene and Philip Resnik. 2009. More than words: Syntactic packaging and implicit sentiment. In Proceedings of NAACL. Association for Computational Linguistics, 503--511. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  29. Tim Groseclose and Jeffrey Milyo. 2005. A measure of media bias. The Quarterly Journal of Economics (2005), 1191--1237.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. Michael Halliday, Christian M. I. M. Matthiessen, and Christian Matthiessen. 2014. An Introduction to Functional Grammar. Routledge.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  31. Sepp Hochreiter and Jürgen Schmidhuber. 1997. Long short-term memory. Neural Computation 9, 8 (1997), 1735--1780. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  32. David W. Hosmer Jr. and Stanley Lemeshow. 2004. Applied Logistic Regression. John Wiley 8 Sons.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  33. Shanto Iyengar and Adam Simon. 1993. News coverage of the Gulf crisis and public opinion: A study of agenda-setting, priming, and framing. Communication Research 20, 3 (1993), 365--383.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  34. Dan Jurafsky and James H. Martin. 2014. Speech and Language Processing. Pearson. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  35. Ron Kohavi and others. 1995. A study of cross-validation and bootstrap for accuracy estimation and model selection. In Proceedings of IJCAI, Vol. 14. 1137--1145. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  36. Klaus Krippendorff. 2004. Content Analysis: An Introduction to its Methodology. Sage.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  37. Juhi Kulshrestha, Muhammad Bilal Zafar, Lisette Espin Noboa, Krishna P. Gummadi, and Saptarshi Ghosh. 2015. Characterizing information diets of social media users. In Proceedings of the 9th International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  38. Christopher D. Manning, Prabhakar Raghavan, Hinrich Schütze, and others. 2008. Introduction to Information Retrieval. Vol. 1. Cambridge University Press. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  39. Maxwell E. McCombs and Donald L. Shaw. 1972. The agenda-setting function of mass media. Public Opinion Quarterly (1972), 176--187.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  40. Arturo Montejo-Raez, Eugenio Martínez-Cámara, M. Teresa Martin-Valdivia, and L. Alfonso Urena-Lopez. 2012. Random walk weighting over sentiwordnet for sentiment polarity detection on Twitter. In Proceedings of the 3rd Workshop in Computational Approaches to Subjectivity and Sentiment Analysis. Association for Computational Linguistics, 3--10. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  41. Sean A. Munson and Paul Resnick. 2010. Presenting diverse political opinions: How and how much. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, 1457--1466. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  42. Vlad Niculae, Caroline Suen, Justine Zhang, Cristian Danescu-Niculescu-Mizil, and Jure Leskovec. 2015. QUOTUS: The structure of political media coverage as revealed by quoting patterns. In Proceedings of the 24th International Conference on World Wide Web. International World Wide Web Conferences Steering Committee, 798--808. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  43. Eli Pariser. 2011. The Filter Bubble: What the Internet is Hiding from You. Penguin UK. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  44. Souneil Park, Seungwoo Kang, Sangyoung Chung, and Junehwa Song. 2009. NewsCube: Delivering multiple aspects of news to mitigate media bias. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, 443--452. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  45. Souneil Park, Minsam Ko, Jungwoo Kim, Ying Liu, and Junehwa Song. 2011. The politics of comments: Predicting political orientation of news stories with commenters’ sentiment patterns. In Proceedings of the ACM 2011 Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work. ACM, 113--122. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  46. J. Ross Quinlan. 1993. C4.5: Programs for Machine Learning. Morgan Kaufmann. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  47. Delip Rao and Deepak Ravichandran. 2009. Semi-supervised polarity lexicon induction. In Proceedings of the 12th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics. Association for Computational Linguistics, 675--682. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  48. Marta Recasens, Cristian Danescu-Niculescu-Mizil, and Dan Jurafsky. 2013. Linguistic models for analyzing and detecting biased language. In Proceedings of ACL (1). 1650--1659.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  49. Reporters Without Borders. 2015. 2015 World Press Freedom Index: How We Compiled the Index. Retrieved February 20, 2017 from http://fr.rsf.org/IMG/pdf/methodology-en.pdf.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  50. Diego Saez-Trumper, Carlos Castillo, and Mounia Lalmas. 2013. Social media news communities: Gatekeeping, coverage, and statement bias. In Proceedings of the 22nd ACM International Conference on Information 8 Knowledge Management. ACM, 1679--1684. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  51. Dietram A. Scheufele and David Tewksbury. 2007. Framing, agenda setting, and priming: The evolution of three media effects models. Journal of Communication 57, 1 (2007), 9--20.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  52. Yanchuan Sim, Brice D. L. Acree, Justin H. Gross, and Noah A. Smith. 2013. Measuring ideological proportions in political speeches. In Proceedings of EMNLP.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  53. Mitja Trampuš, Flavio Fuart, Daniele Pighin, Tadej Štajner, Jan Berčič, Blaz Novak, Delia Rusu, Luka Stopar, and Marko Grobelnik. 2015. DiversiNews: Surfacing diversity in online news. AI Magazine 36, 4 (2015).Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  54. Oren Tsur, Dan Calacci, and David Lazer. 2015. A frame of mind: Using statistical models for detection of framing and agenda setting campaigns. In Proceedings of ACL.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  55. Amos Tversky and Daniel Kahneman. 1981. The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science 211, 4481 (1981), 453--458.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  56. Shaomei Wu, Jake M. Hofman, Winter A. Mason, and Duncan J. Watts. 2011. Who says what to whom on Twitter. In Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on World Wide Web. ACM, 705--714. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Identifying Framing Bias in Online News

      Recommendations

      Comments

      Login options

      Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

      Sign in

      Full Access

      • Published in

        cover image ACM Transactions on Social Computing
        ACM Transactions on Social Computing  Volume 1, Issue 2
        June 2018
        102 pages
        EISSN:2469-7826
        DOI:10.1145/3234932
        Issue’s Table of Contents

        Copyright © 2018 ACM

        Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

        Publisher

        Association for Computing Machinery

        New York, NY, United States

        Publication History

        • Published: 27 June 2018
        • Accepted: 1 April 2018
        • Revised: 1 March 2018
        • Received: 1 June 2016
        Published in tsc Volume 1, Issue 2

        Permissions

        Request permissions about this article.

        Request Permissions

        Check for updates

        Qualifiers

        • research-article
        • Research
        • Refereed

      PDF Format

      View or Download as a PDF file.

      PDF

      eReader

      View online with eReader.

      eReader