Visual Framing, Image Selection and Photographic Bias

A well-known phenomenon in media and communication studies is visual framing, image selection and photographic bias.

This does not necessarily involve manipulating the photograph itself. Bias can already occur when selecting one image from dozens of photographs of the same event.

For example:

• A right-wing politician is portrayed with an unflattering facial expression, half-closed eyes, an open mouth or unfavourable body language.

• A left-wing politician is photographed smiling, looking confident or appearing well-groomed.

• An editor selects a photograph of one politician in which they appear angry or aggressive, while choosing a calm or sympathetic image of another.

In this way, the media can influence the impression readers form of a politician, even when the accompanying text is entirely factual (although it is worth noting that framing can occur here too!).

And this is not merely a theoretical concept. It has been the subject of actual scientific research.

A few interesting studies:

1. American study (2005): Bias in Newspaper Photograph Selection. Researchers analysed 435 photographs of political candidates. They concluded that candidates whose political views aligned with a newspaper's preferences were generally portrayed more favourably than their opponents.

2. Research into German television (2021): Researchers examined how politicians were portrayed during televised debates between 2002 and 2017. Among other things, they analysed camera angles, facial expressions and editing techniques.

3. Dutch Public Broadcasting Ombudsman (2024): The Dutch public broadcasting system has also published extensive material on framing and the influence of image selection on public perception.

For example, this phenomenon could be measured objectively by analysing photographs of the same politicians over an extended period, looking at:

• Smiling versus frowning.

• Flattering versus unflattering facial expressions.

• Camera angles and perspectives, including tightly zoomed close-ups.

• Posture and body language.

• Which photograph is selected as the main image accompanying an article.

Textual Framing: Political Framing

Perhaps an even more important phenomenon than photographic selection is the way written content is presented. This has been extensively studied in communication science. It is known as political framing, although there are several more specific concepts.

Even when all the facts in an article are entirely accurate, the way they are presented can create a completely different impression.

There are several techniques:

1. Framing: The Same Fact, a Different Meaning

For example:

• About a right-wing politician: "Politician sparks controversy with hardline remarks."

• About a left-wing politician: "Politician speaks out forcefully on a controversial issue."

The statements may be substantively similar, but the first suggests trouble and controversy, while the second conveys determination and strength.

2. Selective Context

A journalist can report all the facts accurately while deliberately or unintentionally omitting certain information or placing greater emphasis on other details.

For example:

• One politician receives extensive coverage of mistakes made in the past.

• Similar mistakes made by another politician receive little or no attention.

• One policy is presented in terms of its negative consequences, while another is described in terms of its intentions.

3. Word Choice and Associations

Words evoke different associations, even when they refer to more or less the same behaviour.

More negative wording More neutral wording
Demands Requests
Lashes out at Responds to
Admits States
Escalates the conflict Takes a position
Controversial plan New proposal

Of course, the context determines which wording is most factually appropriate.

4. Agenda-Setting: Deciding What People Talk About

This goes a step further. The media help determine which issues appear important by giving certain topics extensive daily coverage while giving others very little attention.

5. Negativity Bias: A Consistently Negative Tone

Negative events, conflicts and controversies receive relatively high levels of attention. The tone used to describe an event can also influence public perception.

A 2025 study published in Scientific Reports, involving 2,141 participants, showed that different presentations of factually accurate information could influence readers' political opinions and emotional responses.

It is also interesting to note that the Dutch Public Broadcasting Ombudsman has addressed this subject.

In October 2024, the Ombudsman for Dutch public broadcasting published a dossier on framing. It discusses, among other things, conflict frames, responsibility frames and morality frames.

My main point is this: factual accuracy is not the same as objective reporting. You can publish facts that are one hundred per cent accurate and still create a strongly biased impression through word choice, selection, sequencing, context and tone.

It is possible to investigate whether media outlets consistently apply different journalistic standards.

To do this, articles covering comparable events can be placed side by side and analysed in terms of:

• Headlines and the adjectives used.

• The amount of positive and negative context provided.

• Which experts and opposing voices are given an opportunity to speak.

• Which facts are given prominence and which are omitted.

• The extent to which behaviour is explained or, conversely, condemned.

This provides a concrete way to identify and demonstrate media bias.

Opinion Polls: Influencing Public Opinion

An opinion poll during an election is not merely a measurement of public opinion. Its publication can also influence public opinion itself.

In political science, two well-known concepts describe these effects:

1. The Bandwagon Effect (Following the Winner)

When a political party rises significantly in the polls, people may become more inclined to vote for that party.

Possible reasons include:

• People want to be associated with the winning party.

• A party that is gaining support appears more likely to win.

• Voters get the impression that the party has momentum.

• Undecided voters may consequently change their preferences.

2. The Underdog Effect (Sympathy for the Underdog)

Some people develop sympathy for a party that is falling behind and may want to support it as a result.

The scientific evidence for this second effect is less conclusive.

There has even been Dutch research into this phenomenon.

In 2016, researchers at the University of Amsterdam investigated this through an experiment involving 23,421 Dutch participants.

The findings were interesting:

• Simply showing people poll results did not demonstrably change their voting intentions.

• When emphasis was placed on a party's growth in the polls, support for that party increased.

And this raises an important journalistic question.

Consider these two newspaper headlines:

• "Party X surges dramatically in the polls."

• "Party Y loses further ground in the polls."

They could refer to exactly the same poll. Yet the first headline creates enthusiasm, while the second creates a sense of loss.

The choice of which poll to publish, when to publish it and which developments to emphasise can also have an influence.

The key distinction is therefore this:

An opinion poll does not merely measure political preferences. The publication and presentation of that poll can also contribute to changing those preferences.

This is a self-reinforcing mechanism that is taken seriously and studied in the fields of communication science and political science.