Measurable Anti-POC Candidate Bias in Portland Mercury Political Coverage, Data Survey Documents
A Breakfast Data Survey led by Team Bagel
In Brief: A media item mention survey of the Portland Mercury’s coverage of Portland’s 2020 Mayoral contest reveals strong indicators of anti-POC candidate bias as well as a disturbing correlation between the volume of media item mentions and candidate payments made to the alt-weekly.
DATA link: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1j6KNZcZNy1PZwBrl_1b7an5_FPDr5pD42ErV8XUKfXg/edit?usp=sharing
Invited Q&As
Before publishing, we shared our data survey and our early thoughts about its indicators with a small group of invited mailing-list subscribers. Below are their initial questions about the data survey, its context, and our collaborative answers. If you would like to participate in future Invited Q&As, please use the sign-up field at the bottom of this article.
What is media bias?
In the media industry, bias is the skewing of coverage to favor or disadvantage specific individuals or groups. While biases aren’t always conscious decisions made by the participants, they are often considered unfair, unethical, and uncreative signs of media corruption.
What is Anti-POC media bias?
Anti-POC media bias is a specific type of media bias that disadvantages people of color in media ecosystems. Anti-POC bias can manifest in many different ways. A few examples of anti-POC bias include: over coverage of negative portrayals of people of color, under coverage of positive depictions of people of color, refusal to cover news items or community issues important to people of color, patterns of commercial or prejudicial prioritization of news items to the exclusion of people of color, and more.
What is systemic racism, and how is it connected to anti-POC media bias?
Systemic racism is “when individual [and organizations] attitudes of prejudice and bigotry are baked into the operations of cultural institutions.” Anti-POC media bias, whether intentional or not, harms entire communities by delegitimizing candidates of color, dismissing ethical standards in journalism, denying realities of democratic processes, and diminishing communities’ of color contributions to civic discussions.
What was the survey’s media item cataloging process?
Our objective was not to measure the media advantages of incumbency but survey the measurable difference in coverage among challengers. We checked City of Portland public records for all registered candidates then searched the Portland Mercury for media items mentioning non-incumbent candidates. Using this process, we were able to identify 65 media items that mentioned Mayoral challengers over the entire course of the campaign, from “Hall Monitor: Starting Line” published on 7/18/19 to “TONIGHT! Don’t Miss the Mercury’s LIVE ELECTION Coverage!” on 11/3/2020. We cataloged the number of media items that mentioned at least one non-incumbent candidate, the total number of candidates mentioned in each article, the total number of non-POC candidates mentioned in each piece, the total number of POC candidates mentioned in each media item, and the credited writer(s) of each media item.
So this study did not catalog total candidate mentions?
That’s correct. We qualified media items as either containing or not containing at least one mention of a non-incumbent candidate. As a team, we did not catalog the number of times candidates’ names were repeated in each media item.
Why did you exclude mentions of the incumbent from your survey?
We didn’t actively exclude anything. Instead, our objective was to survey the measurability of challenger coverage.
On the datasheets, you obscured the names of the candidates and the writers. Do you think we can’t figure out who you are talking about?
While all the data surveyed is public, it’s much easier to process, analyze, and accept the data’s indicators by anonymizing the data and doing our best to remove any personal bias about the writers and coverage surveyed.
Could you provide one of those “by the numbers” type summaries of interesting insights found in this data survey?
Sure, check this out:
16 = # of Mayoral candidates registered with City of Portland
6 = # of Mayoral candidates mentioned by Portland Mercury
4 = # of White Mayoral candidates mentioned by Portland Mercury
2 = # of POC candidates mentioned by Portland Mercury
50% less = Likelihood of POC candidacies being mention by the Portland Mercury compared to White candidacies
~79% = Percentage of media items that included most mentioned White challenger
~32% = Percentage of media items that included most mentioned POC challenger (this number includes post-primary media items)
65 = Total number of media items cataloged
55 = Total number of media items mentioning white candidacies
51 = Number of segregated media items that failed to mention white and POC candidacies together (this includes post-primary media items)
38 = Number of media items missing an ethical disclosure of the Portland Mercury’s financial relationship with a candidate
32 = Total number media items mentioning POC candidacies (this includes post-primary media items)
14 = number of media items that desegregated mentions of POC and white candidacies
0 = number of media items containing a disclosure from Portland Mercury about any financial arrangements they have with candidates
Are you trying to say the Portland Mercury is a “racist news outlet”?
We are not determining whether the alt-weekly could be labeled as a “racist news outlet.” We have not established a working definition of the term “racist news outlet,” nor have we assessed a process to measure the accuracy of the term’s application to Portland Mercury’s larger body of work. We assert it would be fair and accurate to say the Portland Mercury has a significantly measurable Anti-POC candidate bias in their 2020 Mayoral Campaign coverage. That behavior is in alignment with the perpetuation of systemic racism.
But hasn’t the Portland Mercury amplified the voices and ideas of extremist alt-right figures with connections to white supremacy? Couldn’t that indicate they are a “racist news outlet”?
Again, we have not established a working definition of the term “racist news outlet,” nor have we assessed a process to measure the accuracy of the term’s application to Portland Mercury’s larger body of work. Its possible anecdotal evidence could point to patterns of the Portland Mercury playing a significant early role in amplifying the voices of dangerous alt-right figures. At this point, the Portland Mercury’s level of alignment with violent and extremist figures currently remains unexamined by us in measurable detail.
Come on, why won’t you call them racist?
Our position is that there exists a difference between behaviors aligned with hate like racism and behaviors aligned with ethical inexperience or exhaustion like bias. It would be irresponsible to assert that there is evidence the Portland Mercury has consciously behaved in alignment with hate. It’s worth mentioning that the Portland Mercury has also produced media items that likely contributed to increased public awareness of inherent bias, systemic racism, and local corruption.
Does that mean they should have known better then?
Maybe, this knowledge creates a troubling dissonance between the Portland Mercury’s ability to perform awareness of systemic racism and their established pattern of reinforcing it through compromised campaign coverage.
If it’s not hate or racism, what other factors may have contributed to their documented anti-POC candidate bias?
In 2021, all known journalists are human, including those employed by the Portland Mercury. Unfortunately, it’s not uncommon for nonminority majority groups to fail to maintain self-awareness of their own biases and consistently miss golden opportunities to set community precedents on how to counter them. Factors beyond overt hate and racism that could contribute to a measurable level of anti-POC candidate bias in media coverage could include: personal bias, inexperience managing ethical challenges, financial anxiety, overinvestment in social media alternative realities, the difficulty of maintaining objectivity in a mixed sponsorship environment, perceived social pressure, a failure to maintain relationships with minority communities beyond a few tokenized representatives, hyper-targeted local and foreign disinformation campaigns, and others.
Are you saying the Portland Mercury’s behavior is harmful to communities?
We assert it’s fair to say we’ve documented behavior aligned with anti-POC candidate bias. This behavior is measurably harmful to communities.
Is it reasonable to expect Portland Mercury writers to be aware of those payments?
Yes, we choose to maintain an assumption that the Portland Mercury staff are smart individuals. These competent journalists have demonstrated an awareness of the activities of the campaign they covered the most. There are also interesting correlations between the timing of payments and significant increases in particular candidate mentions. It’s reasonable to assume journalists would have read each issue online or in print and had some level of awareness of who was “advertising” with their company. If the journalists did not see any “advertising,” that would raise other questions.
Could it be that the POC candidates mentioned were less qualified, and there was no compelling public need to discuss their candidacy?
Woah. Full Stop. Absolutely not!
It’s offensive and definitively racist to suggest that the POC candidates were somehow less qualified to defeat the incumbent in the primary or general election.
Political qualifications are always subjective to each voter; that’s why journalists have a responsibility to keep the public informed on a diverse set of issues and candidacies. The data survey clearly demonstrates the Portland Mercury consistently favored white candidates over POC candidates. They mentioned white candidates in 55media items during their coverage while only mentioning POC candidates in 32 media items. The Portland Mercury also clearly favored a white candidate with whom they had, at the time undisclosed to the public, a financial relationship.
Some may argue that the white candidate favored had the best chance to challenge the incumbent due to their social and financial connections to a former mayoral administration. However, the insider advantages of one candidate would NOT explain the Portland Mercury’s consistent failure to mention POC candidacies, qualifications, and views on the issues at reasonably equitable levels of coverage compared to white candidates.
Of the two POC candidates mentioned by the Portland Mercury in their coverage, one had received commendations for their community work from national figures such as Bernie Sanders and Michelle Obama. The other candidate had a deep 15-year connection to the community, including; community-endorsed experience on housing issues and direct experience with key regional transportation organizations. Unfortunately, the Portland Mercury established a clear pattern of ignoring the news and communications from POC candidates to bolster their coverage of white candidates.
One analyst suggests audiences could reasonably interpolate the Portland Mercury made a decision to frame their Mayoral race as an opportunity to elevate a specific white anti-incumbent candidate with whom that had a financial arrangement. In that process, they would have participated in the further marginalizing and dismissal of duly qualified POC candidates for public office.
Wait, but I’ve heard POC community members, civil rights lawyers, unelected leaders, and others tweet that this data survey is bullshit and that the Portland Mercury is an anti-racist outlet. So didn’t you cherry-pick the survey to attack the Portland Mercury and the small cadre of Portlanders they repeatedly feature?
There are differences between anecdotally informed opinions and data-informed opinions. We invite examinations of these groups and individuals’ political, social, financial, and historical relationships to the Portland Mercury. We would also invite examinations of these groups and individuals’ relationships with the candidate who made payments to the Portland Mercury and received what can be qualified as an unfair advantage in coverage volume. We welcome thoughtful criticism and community collaboration while cautioning reactionary decision-making. We fully welcome community conversations on the cherry-picking of data and news coverage in local media ecosystems.
Wouldn’t undisclosed pay-for-play media coverage be illegal?
We do not provide legal opinions or advice.
Who should we credit for the data survey and analysis?
The data survey covers public information and is easily replicable. The data, analysis, and knowledge shared is provided freely and without reservation for any and all to use or not use however they see fit.
What do you expect the Portland Mercury and community to do with this knowledge?
This brief survey confirms knowledge that has been obvious to many and should be uncomfortable to all. We expect the community to; Steal it, Challenge it. Put it to the test. Attempt to replicate it. Attempt to improve it. Reproduce to more granular detail. Apply its methods and lessons to other media outlets.
What’s next?
We’ve shared this initial review with Alex Zielinski the News Editor of the Portland Mercury and included a link to the Society of Professional Journalists Code of Ethics. Should they read this, we invite the Portland Mercury Team to provide a response that we’ve agreed to publish up to 500 words of unedited and uncensored as quickly as we‘ve confirmed its receipt at our bagel at breakfastdata.org email address.
(Insert Portland Mercury Response Here, If Applicable)
Recommended and Referenced Readings
Media bias delegitimizes Black-rights protesters (nature.com)
SPJ Code of Ethics — Society of Professional Journalists
Researchers Find Everyone Has a Bias Blind Spot (cmu.edu)
We can probably measure media bias. But do we want to? — Columbia Journalism Review (cjr.org)
Being Anti-racist | National Museum of African American History and Culture (si.edu)
How to Uproot Systemic Racism in the Media | City Journal (city-journal.org)
How Implicit Bias Works in Journalism — Nieman Foundation (harvard.edu)
Factors That Influence False Consensus Effect (verywellmind.com)
https://mediahelpingmedia.org/2019/08/22/unconscious-bias-and-its-impact-on-journalism/
What it means to be an anti-racist company (cnbc.com)
https://www.today.com/tmrw/what-systemic-racism-t207878
Systemic racism: How to really define it (usatoday.com)
Explainer: what is systemic racism and institutional racism? (theconversation.com)
Explainer: what is casual racism? (theconversation.com)
UH Study Finds News Media May Influence Racial Bias — University of Houston
Study Reveals Americans’ Subconscious Racial Biases (nbcnews.com)
Ongoing Q&A:
Email your tips, insightful questions, and critical comments on this report to bagel at breakfastdata.org with the subject line MERCURY SURVEYED ANTI-POC. We’ll review, research, and respond to some of those inquiries below in our next update.
(INSERT ONGOING Q&A CONTENT HERE)
Sign-up at the Mailchimp link below if you would like to stay up-to-date with our latest surveys or participate in future projects.
