Media bias causes distrust in news outlets

Media bias is the act of allowing your personal views to influence how you cover the news. Every media outlet and individual journalist is influenced by their views on the issues. It is impossible to completely separate personal views on some issues and report accurately.

The objective of every journalist should be to give as much accurate information as possible showing all sides of the issue being discussed. Unfortunately today’s journalists and media outlets are allowing personal bias to dictate how stories are covered.

Michael Schudson wrote in an article for Columbia Journalism Review that discusses the influence of personal views upon the stories and warns them against such practices.

It may also be time for journalists to acknowledge that they write from a set of values, not simply from a disinterested effort at truth. This will not be easy, since journalists have spent decades denying that their personal values have anything to do with their news reporting.

The line between commentary and hard news has been blurred by today’s media companies. They have learned there are ratings benefits to adding shock value to stories which tend to get more shares and clicks online.

Media bias covering politicians

One of the media’s intended purpose is to hold government accountable to the people by keeping the people informed about the issues. Journalists of the past would speak truth to power and keep elected representatives in check.

In today’s political environment media bias has been taken to an entirely new level. Instead of keeping the public informed about the issues of the day, the media now picks which side of the issue they support.

The views people hold on the political issues of the day can be swayed to favor one side or the other. Most people do not have the time to spend investigating all of the issues of the day. However, if the media doesn’t give the people all of the relative information about an issue, people won’t be able to make an informed decision.

Media companies openly supporting one political party over the other

A growing trend in today’s political coverage is entire media companies are actively promoting one side over the other. One of the best examples of the bias is comparing the coverage of the Obama administration to the coverage of the Trump administration.

Media bias against conservatives is a serious issue that is acknowledged by NBC, an outlet often accused of committing it themselves. An article posted on their website highlights several examples of bias including how the media covered the Obama administration.

The lack of acknowledgement of actual scandals that were investigated by Congress perfectly encapsulated how the vast majority of the media would not challenge Obama and had a bit too much of a cozy relationship with him.

Throughout the Obama years the media refused to cover many of the scandals within the administration. Issues that reached the level of congressional investigations such as the IRS targeting of conservatives got little to no coverage by many media organizations.

During the Trump administration the media actively promoted scandals without evidence and often became the bullhorn of the democratic party’s attempt at impeachment.

Legendary reporter Ted Koppel has recently spoken out against the bias in today’s media.

Polls show public believe media company bias during impeachment inquiry of President Trump

National polls conducted clearly showed the public believed that media coverage of the impeachment proceedings was clearly biased against President Trump. According to The Hill:

A plurality of voters say that the media’s coverage of the Democratic-led impeachment inquiry into President Trump is biased, according to a Hill-HarrisX poll released on Thursday. 

Forty-six percent of Americans said the media’s coverage of the ongoing probe was biased against Trump, compared to 12 percent who thought coverage was actually biased in favor of the president.

The New York Times published an article about the difference in coverage between different media organizations and the American people seemed to be overwhelmed and uninterested in the proceedings.

Technology changed media coverage

Before the internet there were only a few media companies who easily controlled the narrative of the issues. In today’s technological age there are an almost unlimited number of outlets at your fingertips.

When a media outlet covers a story inaccurately they are easily fact checked by anyone with a smartphone.

During 2004 an event involving a segment on the CBS program 60 Minutes by Dan Rather showed a breaking point in blindly following the mainstream media narrative.

“Rathergate“ as the event became known was over a story covering documents supposedly written by the former commanding officer of President George W. Bush in the early 1970s.

The documents were shown to be fake once they were published online. The scandal forced Dan Rather into retirement once evidence was released showing the network itself questioned the reliability of the documents.

The future of journalism

The future of journalism will certainly become more technology centered. The way we receive the news today will continue to evolve as more people are given access to technology that allows them to publish online.

The existence of this website is a testimony of the advantages of having technology that allows anyone to reach out into the world of the internet.

There are numerous examples of media bias that could be discussed in this article. It would take entire books to cover all of them within the last decade. Various factions will continue to fact check each other as more and more people begin sharing content from them.