With 2016 being a presidential election year, it’s probably safe to assume that everyone reading this post has encountered political news frequently over the past few months — it’s practically impossible to avoid if you have a Facebook or Twitter feed, watch TV, or listen to the radio, and truly impossible if you have friends or family. Amidst the slew of campaign coverage and talking heads that emerge during election season (which, as Danielle Kurtzleben observes at NPR, lasts six real seasons), rhetoric about media bias sort of comes as a package deal.

Most commonly, we hear about political media bias. There are countless books, articles, websites, blogs, studies, podcasts, and documentaries — by everyone from political scientists to armchair pundits — devoted to exploring it. Often, the people behind these efforts set out to prove once and for all whether the news media lean left or right. Yet, despite how much we talk about political media bias, it’s one of the least productive discussions to have for anyone who wants to better understand what they read, watch, or hear in the news.

I say this for three main reasons. First, it’s possible to find evidence that the media lean left, and it’s possible to find evidence that they lean right. If political bias is all that we care about, we end up entirely dismissing news sources just because of their apparent political slant, ignoring any quality reporting that may lie underneath. As we gravitate toward sources that reaffirm our own views, we become isolated from others with differing ones (see this chart from Pew Research Center, as well as their media polarization page). This makes it difficult to have meaningful conversations on complex and often subjective political issues, since we’re all starting from completely different facts and narratives.

Second, a news story can be politically biased and still be fair and/or true. There are plenty of examples where a certain way of presenting a story may seem to favor one political ideology over another, yet still involve completely accurate reporting.

For example, a journalist covering the recent COP 21 climate summit in Paris would include information about where and when it happened, which countries were involved, what they discussed and agreed to, and why the summit was convened. Answering the last question would involve giving readers at least some basic background information about climate science and why a climate summit is newsworthy. Since there is a consensus in the scientific community “that climate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research demonstrates that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver” (NASA), the reporter might cite that finding in her or his report.

At first glance, some may want to say that this reporter/news outlet has a liberal bias because the framing seems to align with positions and talking points typically espoused by Democrats as opposed to Republicans (Julie Kliegman at Politifact, a fact-checking project of the Tampa Bay Times, and Victoria Tang at Wired explore that divide). However, we shouldn’t dismiss their reporting as invalid just because it seems to support an argument for one party’s policy preference (or dismiss this post just because I chose that example).

A reporter’s adherence to factuality is a distinct metric from their adherence to a certain political ideology. The point here is simply that the presence of political bias doesn’t necessarily mean a news story is factually inaccurate, so we need to identify other factors that might be at play.

This brings me to point three, which is that there are other types of bias, called “structural” biases, that we are aren’t used to looking for when we read, watch, and listen to the news, and that significantly affect how journalists frame stories. There are too many for me to unpack in one post, so feel free to check out this post on Rhetorica (a site run by Missouri State journalism professor Andrew Cline) that features an impressive list of structural biases and reiterates some of the same ideas I mention here. For now, I’ll focus on two, and sum up a few others at the end of the post. These are biases that I’ve noticed frequently throughout the presidential race, so hopefully they will be easy enough to apply to actual stories you’ve encountered (or will in the future).

Sensationalism Bias

One of the most common and easiest ways for journalists to measure their success is to count how many people their story reaches, whether that means readers, viewers, listeners, or some combination of those. CNN never takes its eyes off the ratings, the same way the Wall Street Journal tracks circulation, NPR monitors total listeners, and BuzzFeed counts shares and likes. Too often, that comes at the expense of quality journalism. Imagine you’re an editor for one of these news outlets and reach is one of your primary metrics. Which headline below would you be more inclined to run with (these are actual headlines from early coverage of the San Bernardino shooting):

“Husband and wife died in gunbattle with police”

Or:

“A COUPLE HELL-BENT ON JIHAD? Husband & wife Muslim gunmen who carried out massacre that killed 14 left pipe bombs, ran ‘IED facility’ — will FBI now call it an act of terror?”

The second headline is clearly meant to evoke a strong response, and regardless of what that response is for you personally, you’re far more likely to click on it than the first one. The word choice plays up the event as much more shocking and scary, and we are naturally more drawn toward a shocking spectacle than a routine event. At the Washington Post, Shana Gadarian shows how sensationalist TV news stories about terrorism can affect people’s stances on foreign policy, but this concept applies with anything from crime to airplane crashes (for example, CNN’s relentless coverage of Malaysia Airlines flight 370).

This example may be hyperbolic, but the reality is that news is not always as exciting as the media make it out to be. They have various incentives (often understandable) for hyping up stories, whether financial or otherwise, but these can greatly distort how we perceive current events. On top of that, the media are much more likely to cover sensational stories over more important or representative ones. This causes us overestimate how common or “normal” certain things are, which can lead us to become overly fearful of them happening to us, as Micah Zenko notes at The Atlantic.

Also keep in mind that the media’s main currency is attention. Whether you’re a news junkie or couldn’t care less, you can only spend so much time consuming news. This means each outlet is constantly vying for your eyes and ears in a zero-sum game: every second you spend watching Fox News is a second you’re not watching MSNBC or CNN. And Fox doesn’t just have to compete with them, but also the New York Times and Buzzfeed, all content (news or otherwise) on Facebook and Twitter, The Daily Show and The Late Show, and Orange is the New Black and Game of Thrones (and the list goes on). In the face of our finite attention spans, news outlets face constant pressure to stand out from the crowd.

This isn’t to say that every news story will be overblown. Many outlets do an outstanding job of keeping their headlines and reporting in an appropriate tone while still telling engaging stories. It also doesn’t mean that a “clickbait” headline won’t lead to a piece with great reporting. It just means that we need to be aware of the role sensationalism can play in influencing our news, and actively examine stories through this filter.

Conflict Bias

For some of the same reasons that they’re sensationalist, the media are also obsessed with conflict, especially when covering politics. Politics is inherently a deliberative process, so of course there will be arguments about the right course of action, and the media should cover those arguments. One of the main purposes of the media is to hold those in power accountable, so we the people need them to expose when and how our public officials disagree so that we can make informed decisions about which candidates and policies to endorse. That said, not every political occurrence involves a fight, or at least not to the extent that we are led to believe. However, by portraying it that way, the press has something to talk about where it otherwise might not. Here’s another example using headlines that show how conflict bias can influence reporting:

Versus:

“Cruz, Rubio miss chance to fight massive budget bill”

By pitting multiple people, groups, parties, etc. against each other, not only do the media give more weight to the conflict than it probably deserves, they also encourage the “other side” to respond and defend themselves. This is called “he said, she said” journalism, and essentially involves the various sides duking it out while the media reports from the sideline, safe from the crossfire, until another conflict arises and steals the show.

A huge consequence of this process is that both sides’ arguments are made to look equally valid, which is often far from the case (see this fascinating post from NYU professor Jay Rosen at his blog PressThink about an exchange he had with NPR). If you’ve ever watched commentators spar with each other on a political talk show (such as the Kelly File or the Rachel Maddow Show), then you’ve seen this in action. Just by placing two commentators on either side of the host, it gives viewers the appearance that it’s an even matchup.

Granted, doing solid, original reporting is expensive, especially as journalism tries to navigate the financial challenges presented by going from print to digital (Pew Research Center briefly examines those challenges). It can be costly, impractical, or even impossible for a news organization to commit the time, energy, resources, and staff that are required to really get to the bottom of a story.

Additionally, because journalists derive their authority largely from how much their audience and/or the public trust them, their pursuit of “fairness” and fear of being labeled as biased often makes them reluctant to claim that one argument or side has more merit than another. Instead of evaluating the quality of either side’s points, the journalist simply passes the conflict along, leaving the audience to interpret it on its own.

Other Structural Biases

I could (continue to) ramble on about these all day, but if you’re intrigued by the biases I’ve talked about in this post, here are some brief and oversimplified descriptions of additional ones with links to more information:

• Racial and gender bias: this refers to the lack of diversity within the profession of journalism — reporters, editors, managers, owners etc. — which affects how and which issues get covered (Riva Gold discusses this at The Atlantic). It also refers to inconsistencies in how the media treat subjects of news stories based on their race or gender. A recent example of this is the stark difference in how unarmed Black Lives Matter protesters were portrayed by the media compared to armed protesters in Oregon, which Rep. Donna Edwards (D-Md.) drew attention to (reported by Rachel Weiner at the Washington Post).
• Medium bias: news stories reach us through a variety of literal “media,” including TVs, radios, newspapers, magazines, search engines, websites, blogs, and social media. Each comes with its own inherent set of biases. For example, because tweets are limited to 140 characters, everything we read on Twitter is presented via headlines, quotes without context, and (often unfair) summaries of news stories. Cable news has time limitations that leave its stories with little depth, which Pew Research Center unpacks. And in Politico Magazine, Robert Epstein looks at Google searches and their influence on how people view politicians.
• Confirmation bias: as mentioned earlier, we gravitate toward sources that support what we already believe to be true (see Tomas Chamorro-Premuzic’s article at The Guardian). Social media perpetuates this feedback loop, since friends in our network are far more likely to look like us — racially, socio-economically, ideologically, etc. — us than a random sample of the general population (Public Religion Research Institute conducted a study on this, which Britni Danielle summarizes on TakePart).
• Geographical bias: there is a massive disparity in the amount of media coverage received by various geographical locations. Wherever you may live, events that occur halfway across the world get far less attention than local news. While this intuitively makes sense (a ten-car pileup on I-395 may be relevant for me in Washington D.C. but not someone in California), it can also cause us to have a disproportionate concern for events that happen near us, or to domestic over international news. Catherine D’Ignazio of MIT’s Center for Civic Media has a phenomenal post showing how that played out in the context of the Boston marathon bombing, and points out that coverage is also biased in favor of urban areas and countries with a higher GDP or geopolitical standing.

Where to Go From Here

If you’ve watched any of the Republican primary debates (or Democratic ones, which are apparently harder to find than a geocache), then you’ve endured the politicking and pandering that goes along with it. While at times painful to watch, politicians’ jobs inherently involve trying to persuade people that they have the best ideas, plans and credentials, and so we expect them to cherry pick facts, make misleading claims, and even outright lie. It’s not always easy to tell what isn’t on the up and up, but we at least know to look for it. However, when watching the news, we aren’t actively looking for some underlying bias that might influence a report (with the possible exception of political bias). When we aren’t aware of them, structural biases can have an even greater effect on the opinions we form about current events.

So, next time you watch a story on cable news, listen to a radio program, or read an article, ask yourself why the outlet chose to present it the way they did. Did they use that chart because it accurately represents the story or because they knew it would get people all worked up? Why did they use those sources? Did they choose that footage to evoke a certain emotional response or pander to their audience? Did they interview those people to make it appear as if there’s a major dispute?

Consciously and critically thinking about the decisions that reporters, editors, and producers make with regards to presenting the news can go a long way in helping us decipher their motivations and how that affects what we read, watch, and listen to in the news.