General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: On the media "conspiracy." [View all]The Velveteen Ocelot
(115,673 posts)With respect to a few media outlets (Fox News, the Wall Street Urinal) there is obvious bias. We can ignore Fox and WSJ because they are, in fact, "in the tank" for Romney even when they claim to be reporting news. The evening MSNBC shows are liberal and they don't claim to be otherwise; but they are editorialists, not straight news reporters.
As to the rest - those that claim to be delivering unbiased news - one might perceive some bias on the part of individuals, but it's interesting, for example, that the righties didn't like Candy Crowley even before she fact-checked Romney; they claimed she was a liberal. Meantime, on our side of the fence, we assumed she leaned toward the right and wouldn't be fair to our guy. Turned out she was very fair (except that the righties thought she wasn't).
I think a lot of journalists have become a bit lazy - they report on what somebody else has already reported instead of doing their own investigation and checking facts. And they echo the opinions that are already "out there." This might have to do with the intense demands of the 24-hour news cycle, and/or with the fact that many news outlets have cut their reporting staff, forcing them to rely on what someone else has already done.
There is also the desire to seem important. "Pundit" is Sanskrit for "wise man," and the cable news yakkers now designated as pundits seem to feel obligated to comment on everything, and not just report, even if they don't know what they are talking about. Exhibit A: Wolf Blitzer. I'm not sure he's actually biased, but I am pretty sure he pulls stuff out of his ass because he wants to seem wise.
But the other thing is what happens at the receiver's end. We are also biased - all of us. Everyone sees the world through their own prism. We perceive information through the prism of our belief system, whatever that may be. We are all subject to "confirmation bias," the tendency to accept information that confirms what we already believe, and to reject that which does not. I prefer some cable shows and newspapers to others because they tell me what I would rather know. If someone reports news that is contrary to what I believe, I might be inclined to assume the reporter is biased against my position because I don't want my belief bubble to be popped.
We have little control over what others report to us, but we do have the ability to step back and question how we perceive it. It's too easy to assume a biased source of any information that does not square with what we believe. Yes, some sources are biased, but it's up to us to figure out if a particular source has an agenda or if they are just offering up something we don't want to hear.