In the immediate years after I graduated from college, BS Mass Communications (Honors) a sea change happened in American Media. Broadcast licensees were released, by the FCC, from the Fairness Doctrine a policy that those who held such licenses were to provide a generally fair and balanced presentation of content especially in regard to politics. Newspapers were basically exempt from this, and you can still find local papers named the “_______ Republican” with an advertised point of view. Newspapers have, can. and do often endorse candidates and take editorial positions but before 1985 these things were rare in broadcast. The theory behind this was that the airwaves belonged to the public with stations purchasing a license, subject to review, while newspapers were private entities with no larger responsibilities. Very partisan magazines such as Mother Jones and National Review were sold, and newspapers were free to editorialize with their only responsibility to the potential purchasers.
After the repeal of the Fairness Doctrine broadcast media began to take on an increasingly partisan tone and where the requirement to be as neutral as possible had once been the rule they began to fragment into serving specific audiences not unlike magazines and newspapers. The proliferation of networks via cable and satellite furthered this fragmentation. Three major networks have become dozens and perhaps hundreds if you include internet and other forms of media. No longer required to be balanced or appeal to a broader audience each began to support themselves by catering their content to a specific audience as a way of surviving because news operations are not charities and require income to continue. So, for example, to keep its target audience watching Fox will have stories its audience wants and skewed to the “right.” CNN does the same but to the left and so forth. By agreeing with the biases of their audience, they try to keep eyes on the screen and clicks on their web pages both of which they use to raise revenue and make profit.
What has happened is that Americans have become residents in news “ghettos” where they choose to only listen to, watch, or click on information that feeds their own biases regardless of the spectrum and, in effect, create an “echo chamber” where complete stories, nuances, or information not part of the preferred narrative are simply not available. Confirming the target audience’s biases, rather than presenting information for them to make their own decisions, is now the business model, has been for decades, and the impetus behind it isn’t good journalistic practice but rather financial return for the major corporations that own most of the national media in the US.
Added to this challenge is the 24-hour news cycle. I’m old enough to remember when TV stations simply went off the air at midnight and resumed broadcasting just before breakfast. Now information is instant, global, and to compete its often presented without the safeguards of time and editorial oversight. In the rush to be the first to the most the normal caution to get the facts straight often gets sidelined over the commercial interest in being first to present and keep those revenue generating eyes on the screen. Released from the obligation to at least try to present balanced information and encumbered by the rush to fill airtime with content stories get presented in fragments with an emphasis not so much on quality information but rather the most eye catching or emotion provoking content over and above context and a larger view. We Americans are naive in accepting that just because something is on a screen it is therefore truth in the best sense of that word and we too often forget that the purpose of the presentation is revenue from the target audience with accuracy and breadth often being impediments to, rather than the purpose of, news
So always ask “Am I getting the whole story or at least most of it?” when digesting media. Then, when you choose to react, and reaction should be a deliberate choice and not just an impulse, you’ve taken the time necessary to know whether you’re doing so on reasonably solid information or a carefully developed script whose goal is the financial wellbeing of the broadcast entity rather than the common good. Wherever you find yourself on the political spectrum give at least the same kind of attention to your news sources as you would to the ingredients for the things you eat, have the intellectual courage to ask even your preferred news sources “Is this the whole story?” and make your decisions accordingly.
Please know that the people on your TV news programs are not necessarily chosen for their journalistic acumen but rather on whether they’re physically pleasing to an audience. They actually have customer surveys and ratings for this and it’s why you seldom see average looking people on TV newscasts. The old joke is that some people just have a “face made for radio” and that’s truer than you might imagine.
Please also know that, exerting the same caution, you may also get information from non-US news sources that can provide larger balance and context. Just be aware that some of these “sources” can be official organs of governments.
The Beautiful Path 