Media Bias
Photo by Vox_Efx on Flickr
The vast majority of the news we consume cannot be described as “impartial.” During the past year, subtle or overt bias appeared in almost all of the news coverage of the upcoming election that I’ve seen. It’s disturbing, it’s unfortunate, and it’s impossible to avoid. In what’s become an exceedingly rare occurrence, I agree with the main premise of one of Joe’s recent political blog posts.
Varying degrees of left- or right-leaning bias can be found on all of the major media outlets, whether it’s print, broadcast, online, or radio. It’s difficult to determine when such comprehensive bias hijacked our news sources, but I think the cause is easier to pinpoint. Let’s blame it on the Internet.
A medium itself is impartial technology, generally invented for altruistic purposes, but as soon as a printing press or broadcast gains an audience, there will be an effort to sway the masses that consume it. Mass media bias is not new and has many possible sources and causes. However, for the past century or so, we’ve enjoyed many major media organizations that strove for—and prided themselves on—having as close to impartial coverage as possible. Claiming to be “fair and balanced” while actually being anything but does not count. It’s difficult to maintain neutrality on controversial topics and doing so requires unceasing vigilance, so it’s unsurprising that there are many notable failures in that struggle.
In an era when daily newspapers are bleeding subscribers, when TV stations are losing viewers to the Internet, and when the big money of classifieds has been lost to Craigslist, it’s no wonder that mass media is looking to compete with what’s available online. And it’s no secret that most bloggers have not attended the Columbia School of Journalism. If a blogger can say whatever they wish, they are bound to be more entertaining than an unbiased report; inflection and voice can go a long way. Here’s the problem: mass media has forgotten that they need to be informative first, entertaining second, and the public has forgotten that this order of priorities is ultimately for the best.
Blatant, widespread disregard for neutrality seems to be a recent development: something that’s surfaced in the past few years. Like Christians before the lions, liberals are often called to appear on Fox News, but their purpose is merely to serve as anvils to the hosts’ hammers. While Fox is an easy target for their blatant Republican love, the fact is that no network is untainted. It’s my choice to scoff at John McCain or Sarah Palin after their latest gaffes—most appropriately when assembled in a fantastic Daily Show segment; it’s frightening when respected news anchors are snickering along with me.
Rather than wax on about how Obama is the Second Coming of Christ—though he may, in fact, be the Savior of American Politics—I want the media to ask tough questions and demand answers of all politicians so I can make the most informed choice possible. That’s your job in a nutshell: report facts in a coherent and digestible manner.
Disclaimer: I am one of those ivory tower, far-left wing, liberal elitists.
Steve,
Although I definitely agree that in an ideal world news sources should be completely objective, I believe this may be impossible. Therefore, I look at newspapers and news source’s endorsement of candidates as a form of disclosure. How much better is it for a newspaper come out and say we endorse this candidate rather than continually pretending to be non-biased but really endorsing a candidate. At least the NYTimes admitted that they can not possibly be unobjective with such controversial topics and lifted the veil. At least you know what you are going to get when you read their material the same way I know when I read your blog how you stand on an issue.
Every writer and organization is going to have an opinion and when you write your consciousness or subconsciousness is going to come through in your reporting unless you are simply writing bullet lists of points.
My criticism is actually of all the other organizations that clearly take a biased approach to reporting the news and have not admitted where they stand on a issue.
In the world of the internet, transparency is king and disclosure is necessary.
Glad to see we agree on something. Dan- while you make a good argument, I’d say that it’s the NYTimes and Other news organizations’ job to be unobjective. If they want to have an opinions section (and all news sources do), present people on both sides of an issue- that way they are letting the people decided and not deciding for them.
Dan, I think you’re right in that it’s impossible to be impartial on sensitive topics. Unfortunately, I neglected to mention that in my post. What bothers me the most is not the subtle bias that makes it onto the air or to print, but the blatant bias that should be obvious to any editor that now seems to appear everywhere.
Seeing political endorsements as disclosures is an interesting take; I never really saw it that way before. Joe, I don’t think many people vote based on MSM endorsements, but who knows? Generally by the time the big endorsements happen, I’ve made up my mind already.
Thankfully, we all seem to be in agreement that media organizations should at least strive for neutrality in their normal reporting.