Just The Facts Ma'am

News organizations, whether newspapers, cable networks or online providers, are made up of people, and as such bring with them the tendencies and biases of those people. It has been my experience, however, that most reporters are aware of their own biases and work hard to keep them out of their reporting. Individual reporters know that their continued employment is based on their reputation for unbiased and accurate reporting. At the corporate level, newspaper publishers and network CEOs, who are mainly concerned with profits, understand that long-term profitability is based on their readers' perception that reporting is accurate and unbiased. Publishing stories that are attention-getting yet based on unsubstantiated information, or worse, lies, may bring a short-term ratings or circulation boost, but is reputation damaging in the long term.

This is not to say that news organizations don't have a point of view. The point of view can manifest itself as being partial to one party or the other, or being pro-business or pro-labor. In a newspaper, the point of view is expressed on the editorial page, as well as in opinion pieces, where contributors give their views on various subjects. Point of view can also show up in what news is printed, since obviously you can't print everything. But in the news section of a newspaper, facts are king. Printing clearly biased information, slanting coverage, or outright lying is not in the newspaper's long-term interest.

This is not to say that one should believe without question everything that you read in the newspaper or hear on television or radio. Get your information from multiple sources. Educate yourself on the difference between the opinion or analysis that a news organization offers and the facts that they are reporting. Learn to spot signs of bias in news reporting and allow for it.

One of the things that you hear from Trump and his supporters is how the mainstream media "has it out for Trump" and that an overwhelmingly high percentage of articles are negative. Back in December 2017 a Pew Research study concluded that only 9% of articles about Trump that expressed a positive or negative tone were positive vs. 91% negative.  This does not say that 91% of articles about Trump were negative, it does not say what percentage expressed a positive or negative tone. If only 20% of articles expressed a "tone", then only 18.2% of the total were actually negative. The study also doesn't  define "negative". If an article reports that President Trump has made a statement but pointed out that what he said was factually inaccurate, is that negative? If he announces new tax law changes but the article points out how they're not cuts for most Americans or disputes his prediction of how the economy will be affected, is that negative? I don't think it's inaccurate to say that much of what Trump says betrays at least an ignorance of the subject, or that he often makes up "facts" on the spot, or not infrequently out and out lies. Pointing this out is not negative. Pointing this out is not an attack.

Newspapers and other news organizations are not constituent parts of the checks & balances system envisioned by the founders, but they are an important, independent, source of information; so important that the very first amendment to the Constitution guarantees freedom of the press.

Our current President has done more to undermine the credibility of the free press in this country than any previous chief executive. His constant cries of "fake news" whenever something is reported that he does not like has carried over to many of his supporters, who will echo his "fake news" label at all critical reporting. A large percentage of Americans believe that most of what is reported by the mainstream media is "fake news". Where does that leave us? Are we really ready to rely on one politician for our facts? Do we want a situation where only the words of one man are deemed reliable? Many Americans have no problem with this.