Nigerian Christian death data shows newsroom bias. Here’s how it works.

The media has always played a critical role in how the world understands international conflicts

When violence breaks out, the world turns to the news for information and for the truth

But what happens when the news is selective in which information it gives and which data it ignores

When outlets only rely on selective sources, facts can easily be construed into a narrative

We're seeing that now in the media's coverage of what's happening in Nigeria

Today's episode is going to feel a little bit different. I'm bringing in an outside perspective, Julie Mastrini, director of media bias ratings at

all sides. Now, if you're familiar with this show, then you know how often I reference this media

watchdog group. I shared with them the patterns of bias I found in the coverage of Nigeria and how it

fits into a bigger global problem. How media can distort the truth in times of conflict

This conversation is one I feel is really important. Not just for understanding this Nigeria story, but also for how we view media coverage of the war in Gaza, the Russia-Ukraine war, and any other conflict past or future

Welcome back to Bias Breakdown. Last week we took you on the ground in Nigeria through the perspective of a Nigerian Christian journalist

Christians in Nigeria are living under a big cloud of terror. While the world widely acknowledges the horrific violence happening in Nigeria

where the world disagrees is why it's happening. Are Christians being targeted and killed because of their faith

Or are terrorists indiscriminately killing anyone in their way of seizing mineral-rich territory

These are very serious claims. And you might think this should be easy to prove

Just show me the data. The data proves Christians are and are not disproportionately being killed

It all depends on the source of information and the news source that you turn to

Because we found left and right leaning media are citing completely different data sets, leaving their audiences with a distorted view of reality

Here are the patterns among partisan news outlets. The Associated Press, NBC News, The Washington Post, CNN and ABC News

All of these news outlets labeled by all sides and others as left-leaning either cite or quote from just one source of Nigerian Christian death numbers

In their write-ups, they are citing the Armed Conflict Location and Event Data Project

This U.S.-based nonprofit reports this. Between January 2020 and September 2025, there were 20,409 deaths

317 of them were Christians who were targeted and killed because of their Christian identity

During that same time frame, 417 Muslims were targeted and killed because of their faith

All of the other deaths are deemed indiscriminate and not faith-based killings, according to the ACLED

This data would suggest Christians are not often targeted by terrorists. Now here are the data patterns among news coverage deemed right-leaning

The New York Post, Fox News, The Daily Wire, Blaze Media, and The Federalist

These news outlets all cite other sources. The Nigerian-based non-profit InterSociety and a Christian non-profit Open Doors

Open Doors' most recent data shows 3,100 Christians in Nigeria were targeted and killed between October 2023 and September 2024

A recent inter report shows from January to July the first seven months of this year more than 7 Nigerians were killed for being Christians These figures would suggest Christians are being targeted over their religious beliefs The sort of clear pattern and divide in what sources news outlets

selectively picked for their audience fits several forms of media bias. It's media slant

and bias by omission of information. And this is where we bring Julie Mastrini from All Sides

into the conversation because the media watchdog group helps define and identify these types of

media bias. This is a really good example of slant because you have the news media choosing

to present information from one source and not another instead of giving you both and saying

you know, there's some disagreement over the numbers here. Here's what these two sources are

saying and letting you decide. And when these news outlets choose just one data set over others

even though multiple sources are easily found with a quick Google search on Christian deaths in Nigeria

This reveals a clear bias by omission. The bias by omission serves the purpose to slant the story

So we often see them kind of holding hands in news coverage. So bias by omission is exactly what it sounds like

It's when information is omitted to slant the story. In this case, we have bias by omission of different data

So the reader can't get the full story, is probably not going to understand that there's some dispute over the actual numbers if they only read news on one side of the political spectrum

While news outlets on the left and right side were selective over their data sets

news outlets rated as being center did offer multiple data sets that are critical to the heart of the issue over Nigeria violence

The Hill, NewsNation, Newsweek, and in our own coverage from last week

These outlets all cited more than just one data group. And some even cited more than just the groups we've talked about so far

Some center write-ups also cite numbers from a Dutch-based non-profit, the Observatory for Religious Freedom in Africa

The group reports 36,000 civilian deaths between 2019 and 2024. It says 2.4 Christians were killed for every Muslim during this period

a rate more than five times higher than Muslims when population size is factored in

This data subset would suggest Christians are disproportionately dying in terror attacks

The common theme for center news outlets was citing more than just one data source

By doing so, these news outlets offered a more balanced approach to telling the story

It's very important for media outlets to give the full story, especially if there's conflict within that story

If there's conflict about the facts, if there are different sources providing different facts, it is most noble for a journalist to provide all that information

Because the goal of the journalist should really be not to slant your perception towards the conclusion that they want you to reach, but to provide you with all the information so that you can decide for yourself

News outlets on the left and right also weaved their selective data talking points in a way to fit a left and right narrative

The New York Times wrote there is no clear evidence to show that Christians are attacked more frequently than any other religious group in Nigeria

citing unnamed ysts and not providing the data that would show Christians are attacked more frequently

So for the journalist to come out and say there's no evidence or this is baseless

somebody else could just as clearly say, but there is evidence. See, look at this data set, right

While Fox News also inserted its own takeaway, stating as a matter of fact that the situation for Christians in Nigeria is reaching an alarming level

Fox News is doing the opposite of the New York Times and coming right out and saying this is alarming I going to interpret the data for you I going to interpret what going on for you and present you with a subjective opinion And that is also straying from neutral journalism

So both of these sides are just doing the same things, landing the story in different directions

Something I think we do well here is identifying bias in the media and breaking down why a story

is biased. What I want to get better at is helping viewers understand why left and right-leaning

outlets frame stories the way they do. This part of the story is more of a political ysis

We're bringing in all sides to help explain how the political left and right see an issue

differently and how those different perspectives may shape the way left and right media cover a

story. This is about interpreting the bias patterns and the media divide over Nigeria

violence. And using their expertise in political narratives, All Sides offers one interpretation

of why this media discourse over the issue exists. I said it before, the atrocities and horrific

nature of these killings is not disputed. The difference is one side sees this as a serious

systemic persecution of Christians and the other sees it as indiscriminate killings

There's a very clear difference in the media coverage here with one side seeming to play up

that there are a lot of Christian deaths and the other side sort of trying to throw cold water on

that claim. So the reason for that is ideological and religious differences in the West. So

progressive leaning audiences in the West feel less identification with global Christianity

They tend to not be Christians and they see it as culturally dominant rather than vulnerable

Whereas Christian conservatives in the West see Christianity as vulnerable domestically and globally

Left-leaning journalists see Muslims as a marginalized or misunderstood group that doesn't hold entrenched power

So they might unconsciously or consciously downplay what they see as an Islamophobic narrative

So a story framed as Muslims are killing Christians risks in their mind reinforcing Western Christian dominance

even if the facts are accurate. And then on the other hand, the conservative media is more

Christian sympathetic. It probably even contains Christians. Same with the Trump administration

So they're more willing to highlight Christian persecution. They are concerned about Christianity's

decline in the West or the threat of Islamic dominance globally or domestically. So they

would be more willing to select data sets that would reinforce that concern

While this is one of the more recent examples of media malfeasance when it comes to presenting the full picture of data to its audience, this is far from the first time we've seen this

We saw the same death toll discrepancy in the war on Gaza

Nearly a year into the Israel-Hamas conflict, some revisions in the count made headlines

All sides wrote the United Nations recently updated how it shows data on the Palestinian death toll in Gaza

making some figures appear to decrease by nearly half. Days later, Israel released its first estimate of the death toll in Gaza as 16,000

which is more than 50 percent lower than the toll kept by the Hamas-administered Ministry of Health in Gaza

Media on the left tend to accept the numbers from the UN and Ministry of Health

and in some cases criticized them as possibly underestimating the true toll

Meanwhile, outlets on the right tend to suggest that Hamas may be intentionally inflating the death toll

We see conflicting death tolls with international conflict all the time. And it makes total sense, right

The entities that are meant to collect data they themselves might have loyalties to one side or another We would hope that they be neutral but that might not be the case Some of these are you know government entities that might

have entrenched interests. It's a similar story in the Russia-Ukraine war. About a year and a half

into that conflict, all sides wrote, there are no universally agreed upon statistics for casualties

on either side, as both the Kremlin and Ukrainian government have been tight-lipped about reporting

casualties of their own soldiers. While these are of our most recent wars, difficulties in covering

death toll data, it's nothing new. A war studies researcher told the outlet Al Jazeera during World

War II, each side under-reported their casualties by half and exaggerated enemy casualties by two to

three times. And the 1994 Rwandan genocide, where estimates would later show 800,000 to 1 million

Tutsis were killed over their ethnicity in a span of about 100 days. An International Press

Institute piece reported early published death counts were gross underestimates. On April 16th

The Guardian still reported only an estimated 20,000 deaths. Two days later, The New York Times

repeated the same statistic, underestimating the actual carnage at that point by about tenfold

Data is hard to verify, especially coming from conflict zones where news outlets have little to no presence

When death count and data reports conflict, like the numbers from Nigeria, the media should just be transparent about that

Journalists are always going to have to be overcoming their own bias and being truthful and honest about differences

Instead of just avoiding or ignoring conflicting data or sources that they don't agree with

the journalist's role is to kind of overcome their own bias, to be honest about differences, and to present both to the reader

And when the media fails to do so, readers should recognize it as bias

This is not new. It's unfortunate, but it's really just another way that bias and loyalties and different perspectives are shown in the media

And it's really on the reader to always be approaching things with a critical eye

And that's your bias breakdown. This is different than any of our other previous episodes, and I hope you were able to get a really good understanding of the subject matter

I'm really happy with this collaboration that we did with All Sides, and I really hope that you have the same takeaway

that it was refreshing to just hear some truth and maybe even a little educational

as we expose some of the left-right media bias. A big thank you to Julie at All Sides

She was so great to work with. Remember to find past episodes of Bias Breakdown

All you got to do is search for us on any of your favorite podcast platforms

and be sure to find us over on YouTube where I can join in on the conversation with you in the comment section of our posted episode

I read through last week's comments, but I forgot to go back and respond to you

so forgive me on that one. This week, I will for sure be seeking out your comments and feedback

Say hi and let me know what you think of this sort of format. It is definitely time for me to go ahead and wrap up now, but I just want to say one thing

I went down a rabbit hole researching this Rwanda genocide. It is a very interesting part of world history, especially reading about how the U.S. government later apologized for not intervening sooner and how using the term genocide was so widely debated for so long

So I highly recommend researching that topic if you're looking for something historic to learn more about

Okay, it's time to go. A big thank you to Ian and Allie for the edits and huge graphics lift this week

Thanks again to Julie for her time and perspective on this story. Of course, thank you for watching, and I will see you next time