No news source is infallible. Newspapers and broadcast networks make mistakes, they have their own agendas. But since Donald Trump came on the scene it has become unremarkable to brand news that one disagrees with as "fake", and elevate the reporting from outlets that support one's confirmation bias. With the internet facilitating anyone and everyone with wi-fi thinking that they're reporters, it's easy to get lost in the sandstorm of information - but how does anyone decide what sources are trustworthy?
A key to understanding the trustworthiness of the media is that there is no "The Media", or even "The Mainstream Media". Meaning that media isn't a monolithic entity that marches in lockstep. The various broadcast outlets and newspapers with national reach are competitors, not subsidiaries of the same uber-media. Another important aspect of what we call the mainstream media is that the various outlets are staffed by professionals. Reporters are people who have been trained to look for and disseminate facts. Editors will insist that a reporter has their facts straight and can substantiate them before going to press. This sometimes means that, while rumors are swirling around, and accusations are being bandied about, a national news outlet may be silent about "what everybody knows", while the keyboard warriors and partisan blogs and podcasts are shouting from the rooftops what later turns out to be false. All the while screaming that "the media won't report on this". If I had a choice between a newspaper with a decades-long reputation and track record for accuracy and a neophyte with an axe to grind, I'll take the track record.
Another thing that confuses many people is the difference between the news and opinion sides of any news organization. "News" is what happened. "Opinion" (or editorial) is why it happened (according to the columnist) with some crystal ball gazing thrown in for good measure. Yes, sometimes they get the facts wrong or jump the gun before all the facts are in, but you would be hard-pressed to find an actual lies, or even major errors in the reporting of the big dogs of mainstream media. Editorial or opinion pieces are another story since they are presenting...opinion. "Senator 'A' is a disgrace" is opinion. It's subjective and you could argue that Senator 'A' isn't a disgrace. "Senator 'A' voted for XYZ legislation" would be an example of a fact. Various conclusions can be drawn from that fact, and those conclusions are...opinion. An argument can be made that a news outlet shows bias by spending time identifying problems with one politician while ignoring issues with another. It very well might be bias. Or it might just be that one of them has a lot more problems than the other. Showing bias doesn't mean that the information being presented is wrong, just that the choice of what to publish is a function of what the outlet believes is important.
The confusion between news and opinion could be attributed to the popularity of the opinion side of Fox News. As much as I dislike Fox News, my dislike stems from the way their opinion shows have served to mild the thinking of much of the right wing in the last decade. Their news reporting is, in my opinion, as accurate and unbiased as anyone else's, but it's hosts like Hannity and Tucker Carlson who get the most attention, while the actual news team is virtually ignored.
Speaking of bias - no one is free from bias. While a reporter or editor should recognize their own biases and work to minimize them, we as consumers of news should be aware of any bias present in a news organization's reporting and allow for that. I think you'll find that in a reputable news outlet bias manifests itself mainly in (1) The opinion columns and (2) The choice of what stories to cover. We already discussed the opinion pages. One might question why some things are covered and other things ignored, but that doesn't mean that what is covered is false.
The proliferation of blogs and podcasts has become real competition for where people get their information. But is it information? Or is it just opinion? Are we to believe that Steve Bannon, who worked for Losin' Don and is a full-throated supporter of him, is an unbiased news source? Or any of the other podcasters whose mission seems to be to elevate Trump and get us to believe that President Biden wants to intentionally destroy the country? Should you listen to alternative sources of information? I think you should - and apply the same level of critical thinking you would apply to mainstream media sources.
The advantage of having a vibrant and independent free press is that they have resources that most ordinary citizens do not. They often have access to political figures and have the time and ability to really "do the research" to determine if our government is telling us the truth. They have access to experts that they can interview in order to compare what the politicians are saying to what the data are saying. A disturbing trend over the last few years has not only been the denigration of the press and its characterization as "enemies of the people", but the habit of barring the press from events and meetings so that there is no independent set of eyes verifying what the government is telling us.
We have organizations that are staffed with men and women whose mission in life is to shine a light on the shadows in the corners, it's foolishness to reflexively and without thought reject the wealth of information they bring us.
No comments:
Post a Comment