Since it was founded in 1940, the Military Times has become the U.S. military’s go-to newspaper. It includes publications that address all the branches of the military and their families.
As a popular digital newspaper with a reputation for quality journalism, the question of whether the Military Times is biased demands close examination.
In this article, we will analyze the newspaper’s coverage and editorial decisions to determine if there is a discernible political bias in their reporting. Through our analysis, we hope to provide a comprehensive answer to whether the Military Times is biased and shed light on the factors that contribute to media bias in general.
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 the Military Times Politically Biased?
Biasly’s Rating for the Military Times is based on two scores, one from its computer algorithms which are based on A.I., and one from its Analysts. Biasly rated the Military Times with a Computer Bias Score of Somewhat Conservative, which means, overall, it provides political coverage from an American conservative political perspective.
The Military Times has faced criticism by liberals, independents, and conservatives alike for being biased in favor of conservative causes. Readers like you are more likely to have a strong opinion of the the Military Times based on your political leaning because of their tendency to favor republican causes and people as represented by Biasly’s “Somewhat Conservative” rating. In the remainder of this article, we’ll talk about ways to identify this bias so you can separate the opinions from the facts and become a more informed consumer of news.
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 the Military Times’ Online Articles
Similar Web has discovered that the primary audience of the Military Times tends to be males between the ages of 35 and 64, service members and families, and mostly interested in News and Media Publishers. Given that the Military Times is a highly trafficked news source, is it really biased? We’ll look at some of their articles in more detail below to identify the signs.
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.
Source: Military Times
For example, the image in this article is a courtroom sketch of former Massachusetts Air National Guardsman Jack Teixeira, who was charged by the FBI with leaking hundreds of classified Pentagon documents in violation of the Espionage Act of 1917. Though Teixeira pleaded guilty in March 2024, the portrayal of the defendant in the courtroom sketch as well as the fact that the author uses a courtroom sketch at all, instead of an actual photograph of the defendant, could prime readers into viewing the case in a particular way and falling victim to expediency bias.
The first article we’ll examine is entitled ”US to Revamp its Command in Japan Amid Renaissance in Defense Ties” by Noah Robertson. Biasly has rated this article “Medium Conservative”, the reason for which is that, though the author’s tone is, by our analysis, relatively neutral and dispassionate, focusing on the rationale for and potential consequences of a planned recalibration of the structure of the US-Japan security relationship, the tone and diction, in combination with the sources the author chooses, portray traditionally conservative orientations when it comes to his support for US military commitments and defense spending.
Right at the beginning, the author shows his support for Japan’s strengthening military presence, connecting the country’s “presence on the world stage” with their defense expenditure:
“In 2013, after years of political turmoil and crisis, Japan’s then-Prime Minister Shinzo Abe announced his country’s return to the world stage…. In the ensuing decade, the country has been following through on that pledge. They’re on track to double defense spending by 2027, buying missiles capable of firing into enemy territory and giving more freedom to its long-restrained Self Defense Forces.”
The author then goes on to write about the importance of reworking the U.S.-Japan security relationship:
“Speaking together, the two country’s top diplomatic and defense officials alternated between optimism and gloom. On one side, they repeated that U.S.-Japan ties have never been stronger. On the other, the threats they are responding to — from Russia, China and North Korea — are ‘increasingly severe.’… The meetings and subsequent announcements corresponded to that mood. The two countries pledged to better share classified information — long a problem in Japan, where intelligence standards are looser — and to build more weapons together. “
This was done to underscore the issue’s importance and make the facts known. This is emphasized by another paragraph, which reads:
“Lastly, the U.S. and Japan met to discuss extended deterrence — or Washington’s commitment to protect Tokyo, including with nuclear weapons, if attacked. For the first time, this topic was on the agenda for each country’s top diplomatic and defense officials, all concerned about China and North Korea’s nuclear buildups.”
Although the article’s diction is not necessarily extreme, it reflects the author’s preference for stronger security commitments. For example, the author describes the operational relationship between the U.S. and Japan as the relationship between a “shield” and a “spear”, and refers to the “long struggles” of the Japanese military when it comes to operating effectively with US forces. He describes the steps that the Japanese have taken to increase their defense spending as achieving “milestones” that presumably help ameliorate “years of political turmoil and crisis” in an “otherwise turbulent season.” He also demonstrates expediency bias in the headline of the article, with the word “renaissance” implying that the U.S.-Japan security relationship was stagnant and in need of revitalization.
In terms of the author himself, Mr. Robertson’s Twitter profile reflects his experience as the Pentagon reporter at Defense News, with a focus on defense contracts and procurement, US foreign policy and troop movements, and defense industry news.
For the last two years, following the war in Ukraine, the U.S. has been trying to speed up its system for selling other countries weapons.
Even though demand is through the roof — over $80 billion already this fiscal year — it’s not clear how much those efforts have worked.
— Noah Robertson (@noahjrobertson) August 12, 2024
New changes to America’s military posture in the Middle East, as previewed by the White House last night.
-The USS Abraham Lincoln will replace the USS Theodore Roosevelt.
-More cruisers and destroyers going to EUCOM/CENTCOM
-And another fighter squadron pic.twitter.com/69yCcXWWPT
— Noah Robertson (@noahjrobertson) August 2, 2024
In the article, Robertson consistently demonstrates his leanings when selecting quotes and sources. Almost every source is in favor of this defense revamp. No source used questions the decision or the need for defense commitments of this scale in the first place. While the sources the author uses are by and large primary (that is, officials who are directly involved with the proceedings), every source either supports the security commitment or is pressing for even more decisive action. As Robertson quotes one unnamed US official:
“We’re cooperating in ways that many experts would never have anticipated a decade ago, even five years ago… The scale of (U.S. Forces Japan) is likely to grow over time… We will need support from Capitol Hill to make this happen.”
Again, although the article’s structure and reporting of the events are neutral, Robertson’s choices in selecting his sources and arranging his material make it clear that he has a right-leaning bias.
To sum it up, the author strives for objectivity for the most part and sticks to the facts of the proceedings, but his bias emerges in some of his word choices and in the sources which he chooses to use in his article. All of this suggests that, while some elements of this article were neutral, the article was found to be right-leaning overall, which aligns with our analysis of the Military Times as an outlet with a tendency to lean right in its biases.
Even though this article falls on the rightward end of the spectrum, article bias can differ between articles and authors, even when they come from the same organization. This shows the importance of looking for the signs of bias — including (but not limited to) tone, tendency, diction, author, atbnd expediency bias — in any article you come across.
To demonstrate, here’s one more article that demonstrates little to no bias throughout and also comes from the Military Times: “Civil War Soldiers Awarded Medal of Honor for Confederate Train Raid”. Biasly gave this article a rating of “Center” as the article is about the recognition of a historically significant event and recognizing those who participated in it; there is no political content or spin in the article; it simply reports on the fact that these posthumous medals are being awarded and provides some context as to why.
“More than anything else, it is the story of American soldiers far from home committing extraordinary acts of service and bravery on behalf of their country,” said Dr. Shane Makowicki, a historian from the Army Center of Military History.”
What’s more, nothing about the author’s social media presence indicates tangible bias.
Analysis of the Military Times’ Opinion Articles
Before we answer this question, we need to draw the distinction between opinion and reporting. While reporting is intended to be neutral, giving the reader the facts and quotes from primary sources to let them form their own opinion, opinions are an outlet for columnists to express their personal views on the issues of the day. While we saw elements of factual reporting in the analysis above, the Military Times’ opinion pieces don’t seek objectivity but prioritize putting forth an opinion instead.
Consider the opinion article “Time is Running Out to Recognize, Compensate Aging Atomic Veterans.” The title is loaded with bias because it contains language suggestive of a negative opinion or judgment about the Veterans Affairs intentions or actions. Specifically, the word “recognize” implies that the VA is refusing to even acknowledge “atomic veterans”, and it is used demeaningly to influence the readers opinion before they read the article.
The preemptive criticism of the Veterans Affairs and the bias present in the title suggests that the author does not intend to provide a fair and objective reporting of the facts. This bias partly influences the leaning of the article to be a right leaning article.
However, the article “Remembering Saipan: The Battle that Reshaped the Pacific” has a more objective title, focusing on informing the reader rather than pushing an agenda. Reliable articles are marked by neutral language and facts from credible sources. Based on the title alone, it could be safely assumed that this article would be less biased than the one previous.
These articles, in addition to those above, are only a small representation of all of the Military Times’ content, but they indicate that the outlet is often characterized by a great deal of opinion — further underscoring the importance of knowing how to distinguish subjective writing from genuine reporting.
Who Owns the Military Times?
The Military Times is owned by the Sightline Media Group. David Steinhafel is the current CEO of Sightline Media Group, with Mike Gruss as the editor-in-chief. Steinhafel describes Gruss in a press release by Sightline:
“‘Mike has been a thoughtful, deliberate and strategic editorial leader over the years he’s spent with Sightline. He quietly and calmly displayed his expertise, integrity and dedication to his craft and team of reporters and editors during the pandemic. We are confident that his leadership will continue to drive the newsroom to even greater heights.’”
How to Evaluate and Uncover Bias
It can often be difficult to tell if the news you watch is biased. If you have settled on a news channel, it’s usually because you trust the information you are gaining. Unfortunately, many trust the information they are hearing because it confirms what they already believe. This is referred to as “confirmation bias.” It is important to challenge your beliefs and get third-party verification that what you are hearing is the full story. This is why we recommend using Biasly to compare different news stories side-by-side using our bias ratings to figure out what both sides think of a political issue.
Even though Biasly gave the Military Times a Somewhat Conservative bias score, remember that bias varies by article, and the Military Times does not exclusively publish republican thought pieces. In fact, it is known to have produced some centrist and left-leaning articles before. Additionally, some article types will inherently have more or less bias; general news articles are known for being less biased than opinion pieces. And while every article you read will be biased to some degree, some stick to the facts better than others, which is why it’s so important to use Biasly’s News Check to help you determine the bias of what you read.