Unbiased Media

“News is what somebody, somewhere, wants to supress. All the rest is advertising.” - Lord Northcliffe

It is now January and the Iowa Caucus and New Hampshire primary are approaching fast. As the election year progresses one thing is certain: news media coverage will be relentless, providing details such as shoe sizes where an absence of substance prevails. Also certain is that there will be accusations from all quarters that the various media outlets are biased in their coverage. These accusations will be true, of course, but what makes them amusing is that anyone would think it could possibly be otherwise.

We speak of lack of bias and objectivity in media as if they were not only essential for the sake of “fairness”, but actually possible under any circumstances. They are not. That is to say, objective, unbiased reporting of “news” and information would entail nothing less than reporting every fact of every event on earth at all times. An impossibility, of course, but anything less means editing, and editing means discrimination and discrimination means bias.

Newpaper and magazine editors and broadcast news editors decide what we will read, hear, and see. That’s their job. Also their job is to decide exactly how we read, see, and hear these things. Identical “facts” can be imbued with a wide variety of meaning with ease. Fox News’ reporting of an event and Al Jazeera’s are likely to leave one thinking two different events were being covered.

So, what is to be done if we want the ‘real” story? How do we balance the need for objectivity with freedom of the press? We don’t because we cannot. That said, I do believe there is one thing that can and should be done to reduce the ubiquitous nature of media bias and at the same time defend the public’s right to not be abused with its own weapons.

First, a distinction must be made. There are two categories of news media: private and public. By “public” I do not mean just government owned or sponsored media, but rather those media deemd to be owned by the public and licensed for operation by individuals or corporations - radio and television. On the private side we have newspapers, magazines, and internet sites. The owners of these latter outlets should be free to print whatever they see fit. It is none of my or your business.

As to “public” media, it is a totally different story. In my view there is only one workable and reasonable way to manage the question of bias in these media: excepting weather reports, ban all news and information reporting on television and radio. Excuse me! That’s right. I believe that, given the impossibility of eliminating bias from editing and reporting, the public should not be made to suffer the indignity of its property being used as a propaganda tool against itself. No news shows. No public affairs shows. No Sunday morning political pundits. No specials on global warming or the price of apples. Entertainment, period.

Let the public work a bit to stay informed. Hell, with papers, magazines, journals, the Net, and even cellphones, it isn’t that hard if you actually give a damn.!