Can We Trust the News? Exploring Media Bias and the Definition of Truth

In a world flooded with information, the quest for truth often feels like navigating a labyrinth with no clear exit. But what is ‘truth’? This simple question opens a Pandora’s box of complexities. Truth, in its essence, is a multifaceted concept, layered with both objective and subjective interpretations.

Let’s start with the objective truths. These are truths that stand steady, regardless of personal beliefs or perspectives. For instance, the heat of the sun or the coldness of snow — these are sensory experiences validated by scientific understanding, universally acknowledged as truths.

However, as we drift away from physical truths, we enter the more intricate domain of subjective truths. This is where relativism takes the stage. In this realm, truth becomes a reflection of individual perceptions, experiences, and biases. It’s a dynamic landscape where facts are often interwoven with personal narratives, cultural backgrounds, and societal influences. Here, truth is not a static entity but a fluid concept, shaped and reshaped by the lenses through which we view the world.

In the context of news and media, this duality between objective and subjective truths becomes particularly pronounced. The news, ideally, is a conduit for facts, a medium through which objective truths are communicated to the public. However, the reality of news delivery is hardly ever so straightforward. While journalists play a key role in shaping news stories, they are often not the only architects of the narratives we consume.

Behind every news piece, there are layers of influence and decision-making that extend beyond the individual reporter. These include editorial boards, media owners, advertisers, and even political or corporate entities. Each of these players can have a significant impact on what stories are told and how they are presented. Their perspectives, biases, and the narratives they prioritize can heavily color the news, sometimes overshadowing objective truths with more subjective or commercially driven angles.

Heck, even the truths presented in this article deserve scrutiny. The fact that I am the author inevitably introduces certain biases. This article will, consciously or unconsciously, be tainted by what I perceive as objective truths, but they will be influenced by my cultural background and personal opinions. Just my choice of topic for this week’s article is a conscious choice I’m making to push a certain narrative. I aim to tell you a story with this post, using carefully selected sources and examples. However, it’s important to recognize that alternative examples might exist which could completely counteract my arguments. That’s why I urge you to question my writing. My ‘truths’ might not resonate as truths when viewed through your lens.

This realization might seem like a brain twister, but it’s an important reminder. It underscores the importance of approaching media, including this article, with a critical mind. With this perspective, let’s continue our journey to unravel the layers to truth, challenging the foundations of our understanding of the world around us.

The Harsh Reality of Media Distrust

The stark reality today is that most people don’t trust the news they read. A comprehensive study by the 2023 Reuters Institute Digital News Report, surveying over 93,000 people in 46 markets, offers us a window into this global perspective. In countries like Finland, trust in media still stands remarkably high, with 69% of the population placing their confidence in news outlets. This high level of trust is echoed in other European nations such as Portugal, Denmark, Norway, and Sweden.

However, the picture is not uniformly rosy. The report points out significant variances, especially in countries riddled with political polarization. For example, in Hungary and Greece, trust in the media is considerably lower. The case of Greece is particularly noteworthy, where debates over press freedom and media independence have significantly eroded public trust, with only 19% of the population trusting the news.

Even within individual countries, there are notable differences in trust levels among various news outlets. In the UK, overall trust in the news is at a modest 33%, yet the BBC enjoys a trust rating of 61%. This disparity illustrates that specific media entities can maintain, or even bolster, credibility in an otherwise skeptical environment.

The situation in the United States presents a unique picture. A Gallup and Knight Foundation survey reveals that 50% of Americans think national news organizations intentionally mislead or misinform, casting a shadow of skepticism over national media. This distrust extends beyond mere skepticism about bias. It reflects a profound disbelief in the intentions behind news stories, with 52% of respondents doubting that national news outlets have their audience’s best interests at heart.

In this climate of doubt, however, local news emerges as a more trusted source. American trust in local news organizations outstrips their confidence in national outlets, suggesting a more personal and perhaps more credible connection with local journalism.

But can Americans genuinely rely on their local news anchor, with that charismatic million-dollar smile, to deliver objective truths, founded on ethical and honest journalistic work?

Let’s take a look…

Unraveling the Reality Behind Local News in the US

Many of us have likely come across this viral YouTube video posted by the sports blog Deadspin, raising alarming questions about the independence and integrity of local news in America. The video features a montage of news anchors from across the country, all reciting the exact same script. At first glance, it might strike one as a strange but humorous coincidence. However, the deeper implications are far from amusing; they’re deeply unsettling.

This video is more than just a synchronized recital of words; it’s a stark revelation of the manipulation in news. The anchors, known for their warm and familiar presences, deliver the script with an unnerving stiffness. The scene eerily mirrors a hostage video, where the subjects seem compelled to speak words not their own. This is not only unsettling but also raises serious questions. Do these anchors, trusted figures in their communities, fully grasp the political and corporate schemes that drive such messaging?

Enter the Sinclair Broadcast Group, the architect behind this orchestrated media play. Unlike major national networks like Fox News, CNN, and MSNBC, Sinclair remains relatively obscure, yet it wields significant influence. Owning 185 local TV stations and covering more than 40% of American households, Sinclair operates through channels affiliated with familiar national brands like ABC, NBC, and CBS. However, they subtly inject their parent company’s agenda, often unnoticed.

The strategy of Sinclair is both clever and deceitful. By infiltrating local news markets across America, they exploit the trust placed in local news anchors — individuals who have become integral to their communities for years. These are the people who not only report on local events and engage in community activities, but they are also familiar faces you might bump into at your grocery store, solidifying their reputation as trustworthy sources of day-to-day news. Sinclair’s approach is to use these trusted figures to spread their own messages, thereby manipulating the public discourse.

This tactic blurs the lines for viewers, making it increasingly challenging to distinguish between independent local journalism and a hidden, alternative narrative. It’s a betrayal of the audience’s trust, using the credibility of local anchors to push a larger agenda.

Such manipulation at the local level calls into question the integrity of the news we consume. It forces us to confront an uncomfortable question: Are our local news sources truly independent, or are they mere puppets in the hands of a larger corporate entity?

Ghostwriters in the Newsroom: The Unseen Hands Shaping Media Stories

Imagine you’re a journalist at a reputable news agency in your country. Your workday is filled with assignments that seem straightforward: report on these specific events, focus on this particular angle, investigate various stories. You carry out these tasks diligently, under the belief that you’re contributing to the world of factual journalism. However, unbeknownst to you and everyone reading the news that you and your colleagues are covering, there’s a startling reality lurking beneath the surface — your editor, the source of these assignments, doesn’t actually exist.

You’re simply part of an elaborate scheme, a cog in a sophisticated disinformation machine orchestrated by a deep avatar, an ingenious creation of a company known as Percepto*.

Percepto’s business approach is both groundbreaking and concerning. They offer services where anyone with enough money can create and launch their own disinformation campaigns. This practice is emerging as a significant part of a growing and rather secretive global market. It makes us question just how much the media around us could be manipulated.

Operating legally and appearing legitimate, Percepto market themselves as “masters of perception”, offering a variety of services within the field of creating artificial narratives that benefit their clients. One of the ways they do so is by utilizing what they call “deep avatars.” These avatars are more than digital creations; they can act as full-time journalists or even chief editors, contributing to the widespread creation of fake news. They manage counterfeit news sites, making it hard to distinguish between what’s real and what’s fabricated in our media. Take, for example, Anita Pettite, one of these avatars. She runs a news blog, “Pour la Vérité” (for the truth) and for the last 4 or 5 years she’s been reporting on events in 7 or 8 countries, convincingly masquerading as a real journalist. She looks so real that she even became the target of a cyber attack, after writing on her blog about Burkinabe political leaders.

In Burkina Faso, Percepto’s activities are even more audacious. They’ve set up an entire newspaper called Burki News employing around 15 actual journalists. In the first 6 months of its creation it quickly grow to the top 5 most influential newspapers in the country. These journalists believed that they were working for a real news outlet, but in reality, their assignments and directions come from a digital avatar, an entirely fictitious figure. This scenario might sound strange, but it’s a real example of how far companies like Percepto can go in shaping and controlling media narratives.

*This revelation about Percepto’s operations was brought to light by the Story Killers project, an initiative by Forbidden Stories. Forbidden Stories is an NGO dedicated to continuing the work of journalists who face threats, imprisonment, or murder. The uncovering of these details was primarily achieved through an undercover investigation involving false identities, led by TheMarker, Radio France, and Haaretz.

Deciphering Truth in Today’s Media Landscape

In an era where the lines between news and narrative are increasingly blurred, the declining trust in mainstream media is hardly shocking. Repeatedly, we witness the ways in which stories are shaped, not just by facts, but by the interplay of influence and financial power. This emerging trend points to a significant transformation in the role of journalism and its impact on public perception.

The journey of a journalist in today’s society, as outlined by Kovach and Rosenstiel in “The Elements of Journalism,” is not just about reporting events but involves a complex process of shaping “truths.” This process is inherently subjective, involving the careful selection and portrayal of information to the consumer. The manipulation of news we consume is embedded in this very journalistic process of seeking and depicting the “truth.”

This process makes it nearly impossible for news stories to truly mirror reality. As in the metaphor of a mirror, a news story shows only what the journalist chooses to present. The journalist, holding this mirror, has complete control over what is included and what is left out. Thus, news is not simply gathered; it is carefully selected and framed for consumption.

In conclusion, recognizing the inherent subjectivity in journalism is crucial for consumers of news. Awareness that news is a curated narrative, rather than an objective mirror of reality, empowers consumers to critically evaluate the information they encounter. The power to find the actual truth rests in your hands. As consumers, it’s our responsibility to sift through these narratives, understanding that ‘truth’ is often a complex, multifaceted concept.

In our collective pursuit of clarity and truth, tomiNet emerges as a vital tool. Rooted in the principles of free speech, tomi aims to empower journalists globally, by enabling them to express themselves freely and safely. The tomiNet, as an alternative internet, will be an integral part to this vision. It is crafted to uphold privacy, self-governance, and decentralization, offering a space where both journalists and the public will be free to share their stories. Crucially, it will offer a safe haven for expression in regions where free media is suppressed or non-existent, allowing voices to be heard without fear of government censorship or retaliation. This aspect of tomiNet is especially vital, as it will empower individuals to speak up and share their stories, even in environments where such freedoms are typically restricted.

In the end, the journey through the landscapes of news and narrative is not about finding a single, unchanging truth, but about having the freedom and resources to construct your own understanding. With platforms like tomiNet, we edge closer to a world where every voice can be heard and every perspective considered, allowing you, the reader, to paint a clearer picture of the truth as you see it.

Follow us for the latest information:

Website | Twitter | Discord | Telegram Announcements | Telegram Chat | Medium | Reddit | TikTok | YouTube