The Arizona Daily Star is Tucson, Arizona’s leading source of news and information, recognized for its comprehensive coverage of international news, crime, politics, entertainment, and business. Founded in 1877, the newspaper has built a strong reputation as a cornerstone of the community, offering a platform for various voices and perspectives. However, some readers and political figures have accused the Arizona Daily Star of exhibiting a liberal bias in its reporting and editorial decisions.
In this article, we will examine the newspaper’s coverage and editorial choices to identify any potential biases in their articles. By equipping you with these tools, we aim to provide a comprehensive analysis that will help you determine whether a news outlet is biased.
How Does Biasly Rate News Sources?
Biasly’s algorithms produce bias ratings to help provide multiple perspectives on given articles. Biasly has analyzed 200,000+ news articles from more than 3,200 news sources through our A.I. technology and team of political analysts to find the most factual, unbiased news stories.
Biasly determines the degree of political bias in news sources by using Biasly’s Bias Meter Rating, in which Biasly’s team analyzes media sources’ reliability and bias and produces three scores, a Reliability Score that measures the accuracy of media sources; an A.I. Bias Score, evaluated by A.I.; and an Analyst Bias Score evaluated by political analysts. These scores are rated based on seven rating metrics including Tone, Tendency, Diction, Author Check, Selection/Omission, Expediency Bias, and Accuracy. These metrics help our analysts to determine the political attitude of the article.
Our A.I. machine-learning system employs natural language processing and entity-specific sentiment analysis to examine individual articles and determine their bias levels. By analyzing the key terms in an article such as policies, bias phrases, political terminologies, politicians, and their nicknames, the algorithms can rate the attitude of the text. Bias scores range from -100% and 100%, with higher negative scores being more liberal and higher positive scores being more conservative, and 0% being neutral.
Is Arizona Daily Star Politically Biased?
Biasly’s rating for Arizona Daily Star gives the paper a Computer AI Bias Score of Center, a score generated by its AI-based algorithms. Biasly’s AI bias analysis focuses on the leaning of tone, opinion, and diction of the author, and their respective tendencies. For example, Biasly has rated its stance on policies such as Border Control and Death Penalty as centered. It also covers politicians with varied sentiments, such as projecting Marco Rubio in a positive light while painting Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez negatively. In these rankings, politicians are evaluated based on their policies and statements rather than their ideological beliefs.
Biasly has not yet assigned an Analyst Bias Score. Typically, alongside the Computer Bias Score, Biasly presents an Analyst Bias Score. This score is curated based on a review of at least 15 articles by a team of analysts representing liberal, moderate, and conservative viewpoints. Different types of bias in articles, preferences for liberal or conservative politicians and policies, all factor into generating these scores. The more articles the Biasly analyst team reviews and rates, the more precise the analyst score becomes.
Before we begin, we need to discuss bias. Bias is a natural function of humans, and we can express it both consciously and unconsciously. Bias is one of the most fundamental forms of pattern recognition in humans. This isn’t to lower the bar and say that “all things are biased,” but to explain the process in which we may come to trust certain news organizations that display patterns of coverage.
On the media’s part, there is an incentive to retain audiences, encourage them to purchase subscriptions, and rate products positively. Bias is a two-way street, people want to see news stories about things they care about, and the media needs viewers to continue their operations. This creates a positive feedback loop that influences what stories are covered and from what perspective. This also explains the actions of more liberal news organizations.
Analysis of Bias in Arizona Daily Star Online Articles
Understanding the Arizona Daily Star’s readership demographics is essential for recognizing how the publication tailors its content. It attracts a significant readership among older adults, particularly those aged 50 and above. Tucson is known for its cultural diversity, featuring a considerable Hispanic and Latino population and a Native American community. According to the United States Census Bureau, approximately 44.8% of Tucson’s population identifies as Hispanic or Latino. Given its specific audience, how does the Arizona Daily Star ensure its impartial content appeals to liberal and conservative readers?
When determining bias, some of the most common metrics used include Tone, Tendency, Author, Diction, and Expediency Bias, which are the primary metrics we’ll focus on below.
- Tone: This represents the attitude of the writing, formed distinctively but related to the author’s word choices or diction.
- Diction: The specific words chosen by the writer.
- Author: A metric related to the article’s author, taking into account their history of stance on issues based on past articles and social media posts.
- Tendency: measures how consistently an author shows bias in their work, including factors like their tone and perspective.
- Expediency Bias: relates to the immediate impression created by elements like the article’s headline, images, or summary, indicating if they favor a particular viewpoint.
An example of this is “Proposed commission would investigate abuses at Native American boarding schools”. The expediency bias is evident in the 1900 photograph of Native American girls at the Phoenix Indian School, where they are seen praying beside their beds while dressed in white clothing. This image underscores the erasure of Native American identities and traditions as boarding schools sought to eliminate Indigenous cultural practices and replace them with those considered acceptable by colonial society.
The author’s tone is solemn and urgent as they address the dark history of Native American boarding schools and the need for accountability and healing. The tone also conveys empathy and support for the survivors and their families.
A recent Washington Post investigation identified 122 priests and student workers at 18 schools alone who had been accused of molesting Native American children under their care. The perpetrators rarely faced repercussions and were instead often moved to other schools. The Catholic Church sent priests to facilities such as the Servants of the Paraclete in New Mexico, set up for clergy with “personal difficulties.”
The author’s diction is formal and informative, aiming to convey the historical and ongoing impact of Native American boarding schools. Phrases such as “forcibly removed,” “genocidal policies,” “impassioned floor remarks,” and “remaining survivors” indicate the seriousness and gravity of the subject matter. Using robust and evocative language, the author seeks to raise awareness of the injustices in Native American communities and the need for awareness and justice.
The author consistently shows bias in their work by presenting a tone of empathy and outrage towards the historical mistreatment of Native American children in boarding schools. The perspective supports the proposed “Truth and Healing Commission” and emphasizes the urgency of allowing survivors to tell their stories. The author’s language and choice of details consistently convey a critical view of the federal government’s past actions and the lasting impact on Native American communities.
Brianna Chappie is a multimedia journalist for The State Press and a digital reporter focused on Indigenous Communities for Cronkite News, based in Phoenix, AZ. Her X (Twitter) account features posts about her articles covering Indigenous news and U.S. politics, along with mentions of her alma mater, Arizona State University (ASU). The only political commentary she makes is criticizing Kari Lake for not speaking to students from ASU’s Cronkite School of Journalism who were waiting for her. There are no other signs of personal political bias in her posts.
White Mountain Apache members led the “Ride to the Polls” event in Whiteriver, where voters were encouraged to walk, ride or skate to cast their ballots and make their voices heard.
MORE: https://t.co/xPvxkgfg3X pic.twitter.com/aBIQ09Knda
— Cronkite News (@cronkitenews) November 6, 2024
“You destroyed that poor guy,” former president Donald Trump said about Kari Lake’s debate with Ruben Gallego during his rally in Prescott Valley, AZ. “You gotta make that into a movie or something.” @KariLake @realDonaldTrump
10.13.24 pic.twitter.com/9T5TQQCnqf— Brianna (@Brianna_Chappie) October 15, 2024
Analysis of Arizona Daily Star Opinion Articles
Before addressing this question, it is essential to distinguish between reporting and opinion. Reporting is intended to be neutral, focusing on presenting facts and quotes from primary sources so that readers can form their own opinions. In contrast, opinion articles provide columnists with a platform to express their personal views on current issues. While Arizona Daily Star strives to maintain neutrality as a publication, it features an Opinion section where columnists can share their perspectives.
Consider the Opinion article, “Arizona Daily Star editorial: The cynical and dangerous Prop. 134”. The title uses provocative and confrontational language, employing words like “cynical” and “dangerous” to capture the reader’s attention. The tone expresses strong disapproval of Proposition 134, suggesting that the issue is contentious and potentially harmful.
In the article, the author argues:
“Arizona has the unfortunate distinction of leading the assault.”
“For years, Republican legislators in our state have been irritated with pesky voters who have used ballot measures to do things like raise tax revenue for funding schools, health care and childhood development programs.”
“But that’s not enough for our anti-direct-democracy crowd.”
“It’s bad enough to try to obfuscate the meaning of initiatives by using tortured syntax in ballot language. But we find it particularly repugnant for legislators and special-interest groups to try to use the initiative process to effectively eat itself.”
The author uses emotionally charged and persuasive language to sway the reader’s opinion against Proposition 134. By using words such as “assault,” “irritated,” and “repugnant,” the author seeks to portray Proposition 134 and its legislative supporters as threats to democratic principles. This choice of language indicates a clear bias, which may hinder readers from forming an independent opinion based on objective facts. Emotionally charged words can lead readers to respond more with their feelings than with logic, potentially obscuring a balanced understanding of the issue. This rhetorical strategy may prevent readers from fully engaging with the complexities of the proposition, influencing them more through rhetoric than through substantive analysis.
Another example is the opinion article is “Arizona Daily Star editorial: Indictments good for democracy in Arizona and across nation.” The article’s language indicates a strong belief in the integrity of the democratic process. It employs persuasive and optimistic language to suggest that holding individuals accountable through indictments can enhance public trust.
Using phrases like “good for democracy,” the title conveys an optimistic view of the legal actions taken and implies a belief that accountability through indictments strengthens democratic processes.
In the article, the author claims:
“Which is a good thing for democracy, and for the recalibration of the polarized, MAGA-stained politics of Arizona and ultimately the nation.”
“It’s bad enough to try to obfuscate the meaning of initiatives by using tortured syntax in ballot language. But we find it particularly repugnant for legislators and special-interest groups to try to use the initiative process to effectively eat itself.”
“No, actually, “pure election interference” defines a scheme to use fake electors to overturn the results of an election.”
“In the future, political parties on the losing side of elections will think twice before hatching an illegal scheme to subvert the will of the voters.
The author’s language is assertive and confident, adopting a tone that blends persuasion with optimism to emphasize the importance of accountability in a democracy. While the article’s optimistic tone highlights the potential benefits of indictments for democracy, it also suggests possible biases from the author’s point of view. Phrases like “MAGA-stained” and “pure election interference” indicate a solid opposition to certain political ideologies, which may shape the author’s perspective on accountability measures. This bias could result in a one-sided portrayal of the issue, focusing on the positive aspects of indictments while ignoring or minimizing any negative consequences.
Both articles suggest that an author’s bias can impact readers by offering a distorted view of the issue of indictments. When an article uses emotionally charged language or strongly aligns with a specific political stance, it can influence readers’ opinions by highlighting certain viewpoints while minimizing others. This approach can result in a polarized audience, where readers either agree entirely with or reject the presented perspective, potentially overlooking a more nuanced understanding of the topic.
Who Owns The Arizona Daily Star?
Lee Enterprises owns the Arizona Daily Star. Founded in 1890 in Davenport, Iowa, it is a prominent media company that provides trusted, high-quality newspapers in 26 states. The company operates over 75 daily newspapers and digital media platforms to deliver relevant content to communities.
Kevin D. Mowbray is the President and CEO of Lee Enterprises. In this role, he oversees all aspects of the company’s operations, focusing on digital growth, revenue expansion, and business transformation. Before acquiring his current position, Mowbray was the publisher of Lee’s largest newspaper, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, starting in 2006. During his tenure there, he advanced the company’s digital initiatives and launched several significant digital products and projects. In recognition of his strong financial performance and leadership in developing company-wide sales and audience initiatives, Mowbray received the prestigious Enterprise of the Year award in 2012. He also serves on the Board of Directors for the News Media Alliance and is the Chair of the Board of Trustees for the American Press Institute.
How to Evaluate and Uncover Bias
It can be challenging to determine whether the news you consume is biased. When you choose a news channel, it is often because you trust the information. Unfortunately, many people trust sources that simply confirm their preexisting beliefs, a phenomenon known as “confirmation bias.” It is essential to challenge your beliefs and seek third-party verification to ensure that you are getting a complete understanding of the story. We recommend using Biasly to compare news articles side-by-side, utilizing our AI bias ratings to understand the perspectives surrounding a political issue.
Although Biasly has given the Arizona Daily Star a Center a bias score, the bias can vary from article to article. Arizona Daily Star does not exclusively publish content that favors one side; it has produced leftist and conservative opinion pieces. Consequently, some articles will exhibit more bias, with general news articles typically being less biased than opinion pieces. Every article you read will have some degree of bias. Some articles adhere more closely to the facts than others, so it is crucial to use Biasly’s News Check to assess the bias of what you read.