Is it any wonder people think the media is biased — Part Two
Disclosure: I’ve been a journalist in the business of TV news at local stations for 30+ years.
The thing I find disturbing is that it seems people have become so divided politically that even when we report as objectively as possible and stay neutral on issues, it’s not good enough for a lot of people.
We can’t ever report a positive story about Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump without people saying we’re biased for or against whichever we report on.
When Donald Trump came to town
Trump is running a whole different campaign, attacking the media. When he held a rally here, we reported the attendance numbers, which we sourced to the Fire Marshal who had staff at the door counting. It was the most accurate source for the information. Trump called the local media liars because he said it was much larger than that. His supporters attacked us because the picture we published on our website showed a few empty seats in a large crowd. Trust me, we didn’t go out of our way to find a picture with empty seats.
In our attempt to provide balance to our coverage of Trump’s speech, we had a political commentator with us to provide an opposite viewpoint. We were vilified by Trump supporters. How dare we have someone who wasn’t on “Team Trump” on “his day!”
Since it was the primary and a nominee hadn’t been decided, we also included in our coverage that day our one-on-one interview with Marco Rubio, Trump’s opponent at the time, who had been in town the day before. Trump supporters took issue with that because, again, it was “his day” and he shouldn’t have to share the spotlight. So, they said, we were showing bias by not being all in on Trump.
When we fact-checked the speech to show several statements were incorrect, we were told we were just part of the “liberal media establishment.” When we pointed out we did the same thing during Obama’s state of the union speech, we were told that we didn’t do it.
Public trust in media has eroded
To me, it’s all a sign of how public trust has eroded in the media. I understand how we got here and that it is what it is, but it’s a sad state of affairs. And people paint with a very broad brush these days. A lot of people don’t want to hear anything except their viewpoint parroted back to them. Talk radio, cable news, and partisan websites have played a huge role in leading people to the “all media is biased except for us” viewpoint.
We’ve blurred the lines between “news” and “commentary” in cable and talk radio. The name calling has reinforced positions people already had in an effort to create trust only with the person calling the other side names.
I remember when people use to seek out differing views. Not so much anymore. I don’t see any way that’s good for society or public discourse.
Props to Medium
The big reason I am using Medium these days is that I find smart people here. Even when they disagree with me, they are doing it with logical, rational arguments. That’s the essence of public discourse and we all benefit from it. On other platforms, it seems that the counter-argument is usually reduced to “You’re an idiot!!!”
I learn from the comments people make and it helps me to shape, temper, or expand my viewpoint. Isn’t that what informed citizens are supposed to be do? What surprises me is how some people will refuse to accept facts as facts, because someone on the radio told them it’s not true and attacked the people telling the facts… instead of proving it wrong.
@jimbalter gave me this example:
If one party says the sun is hot and another party says its cold, and the media just reports what the parties say without reporting that the sun is actually hot, that is biased towards the “sun is cold” party.
He’s right, of course. We all know the sun is hot. But isn’t reporting that some people think the sun is cold also providing insight into how certain groups think so you can make up your mind about them?
Which viewpoints are valid?
The media has always struggled to include differing viewpoints. We talk about getting “both sides” to a story, but stories typically have multiple sides. How do include every viewpoint on every story? It’s not realistic to do so. Nothing would ever get reported. And even more difficult — and this is where we get in trouble with people — is what viewpoints are valid.
So if we’re reporting the “sun is hot” vs “sun if cold” story, do we need to include the guy who says the “sun doesn’t exist.” I’d vote no, but do we have a duty to report his viewpoint so we include all sides to a story? And do we have a right to exclude one viewpoint just because we believe it to be incorrect… even when it obviously is?
No easy answers
There are people who still think 9/11 was an inside job or that NASA faked the moon landing.
I’ve often said to our newsroom that it’s not about reporting all sides to a story, it’s about reporting the truth. It’s just that sometimes the truth is hard to find when everybody seems to be spinning or promoting an agenda.
Imagine if you’re in a room where everybody believes the same thing… and you do, too. I mean, it’s so obvious right? Why should we even entertain an opposing view? I do think that happens at some media organizations. The media itself attracts a certain type of person and I’ll be honest, there are a lot more liberal thinking folks than conservative folks in every newsroom I’ve ever worked. That’s where I see the subtle bias creep into news. If you have been brought up believing something to be true and you’re constantly surrounded by people who think like you do, you’re going to tend to favor sources that align with your core beliefs.
That’s why diversity is critical in newsrooms
That’s why it’s so important to have a diversity of voices in a newsroom — not just racial diversity, but a true diversity of backgrounds and viewpoints — and strong managers that actively search for bias and will put the public good ahead of their own beliefs. That’s not easy.
I cant’ speak for the networks, talk radio, and the cable channels. Yes, I see an agenda there sometimes just like everybody else. At the local level, when I see a false narrative, it’s not some big conspiracy. It’s less about bias or an attempt to sensationalize than one of these three things:
- Laziness — not thinking things through
- Deadline pressure — not enough time to think things through
- Ignorance — not understanding there’s another side to an issue
@MyOtherCoat gave me this example:
My distrust in the media stems from reading and hearing stories like this: Hospital Cafeteria Refuses Food to Patient.
Only to learn over subsequent reports from various sources that:
The mistreated person was actually a fellow in the waiting room whose wife was the patient.
The man was drunk, high, and disorderly.
The man demanded fried chicken.
The cafeteria doesn’t serve fried chicken.
The man threw a coke at the cafeteria worker who could not provide the non-existent fried chicken.
After threatening a doctor, clerk, and security officer, the police hauled him away.
Yet the story will still be promoted as:
Hospital Cafeteria Refuses Food to Patient.
In my newsroom, the person who wrote this story would get disciplined and likely fired. We’d published an updated story and point out our errors.
On too many websites, they’d celebrate how they created a “viral story” that pumped up their web visits and look for ways to do more stories that “tweak” the facts — just a bit, they’d justify — in an effort to create more traffic.
But is that really anything new?
While in line at the supermarket, we use to look at some of the tabloid magazines there and laugh about alien sightings and the latest juicy rumor that we just knew was BS. It was entertainment. We knew who to trust and who not to trust. Part of the problem now is that people aren’t sure who to trust anymore.
You may not know this, but at some places, reporter’s pay checks are based, in part, by the traffic their stories bring. It’s a very isolated thing — I only know for a fact about one place that does that in the traditional media circles. While I understand the underlying premise, it gives someone a reason to pump things up that may or may not distort the underlying truth.
Like I said, no easy answers.
Let the comments begin. That’s how I learn and think. I love the discourse!
