All News Media Is Biased
Those who follow me on Twitter might have seen me Tweet something like this: "It's not the media's job to inform you. It's their job to attract an audience" or "The media's job is to create content attractive to advertisers."If a news source is for-profit, they need to attract advertiser dollars, eyeballs, and in some cases, subscribers. Advertiser dollars will not flow if nobody's watching. Nor will they flow if the news reported falls too far outside of what the advertiser deems good and proper. That's why most news programs are so friendly to the political and economic status quo. To create sell-able content, they need to stay in the good graces of the powers that be. This is also why news programs tend to be alarmist and salacious. The old newspaper adage says "If it bleeds, it leads." Negative alarmism attracts eyeballs. When people are scared and/or emotionally stimulated, they'll keep watching. The news media wants to scare the crap out of people. It keeps them watching. Though perhaps not very rational or informed. News sources that desire subscribers or purchasers often have greater depth of coverage. More informative stories and expert opinion are what one pays for. Sometimes, this is less reliant on shock value. But other times, provocative content still rules the day. But this form of news media is still created to delight subscribers and advertisers, not provide an objective opinion. If a news source is not-for-profit, its motivations change but that does not make it unbiased. Not-for-profit is not synonymous with selfless or altruistic, and it definitely does not mean objective. Not-for-profit media is often created and/or underwritten by non-profit foundations. All of these foundations have an agenda and a specific worldview that will influence the content. Not-for-profit news sources also rely on viewer contributions and government funding. They're not likely to create news that will raise the hackles of either one. Though this probably goes without saying, there are plenty of intelligent and reliable news sources. I'm not calling them all liars. Nor am I equating The Economist with The National Enquirer. But the point remains, if you're looking for an unbiased news source, you won't find one. This realization might sound dreadfully cynical and hopeless. However, I think there's a lot of good we can get out of it. For one, we can stop yelling at each other over which news we watch. Discussions about politics, economics, and world events often devolve into battles over who's preferred news sources are more "true." Conservatives and Libertarians will often be derisively labeled a "Fox News viewer" by the Left. Conversely, MSNBC and the "Lamestream/Liberal Media" get scorned by the Right. We can agree that all sources are biased in some way, and argue over more substantive issues instead. The lack of objective media should also inspire us to seek out multiple perspectives. The Internet is wonderful for this, as we have access to media from all over the world at our fingertips.YouTube also has hundreds of hours of opinion from all kinds of interesting people. I would agree the Internet also allows people to get entrenched in their own echo chamber. But was it really any better before the Internet when only a few news sources were available? Exploring different perspectives on issues helps us evolve our critical thinking skills. The principles of logic and reason, and rhetorical tactics, are rarely taught properly in school anymore. Some would say this is purposeful. But many bright people I've met on the Internet have told me they've become better critical thinkers and debaters through online research and discussion. This is because the Internet invites participation rather than passive observation. Lastly, the lack of objective media should remind us that reality resists being put in a box. The truth of any matter is rarely easy to obtain. Even our personal experiences are filtered through our own biases. Exploring the ideas and perspectives around us should be more like dancing with multiple partners and less like marching in one direction. "I do not know what the spirit of a philosopher could more wish to be than a good dancer. For the dance is his ideal." - Friedrich Nietzsche
