Tyler Quiring On: Media Bias

I often hear people exclaim "but the media is so biased!" in response to many reasonable discussions about the role of media in society. I am a media professional in training, so it is understandable that my own opinions are weighted to some degree in favor of the role of the media. However, for reasons I shall share will you, I feel that this is a weight that is sorely needed to balance out the fervent opinions of the general public. The general statement that the media is unfairly biased is a fundamentally flawed statement, as evidenced by definition, by practice, and by context.

Allow me to get technical. Today's media is comprised of so many different facets that it is nearly impossible to make any sweeping generalization of "the media" without treating at least a few subsets unfairly. In public opinion today, the term "the media" usually refers to television news media, and while it may be apparent to some that the ethical standards of television news are melting away, there are other forms of news media that have even seen great strides in ethical development in recent years. One example would be the print news media, i.e. newspapers. Coming from a Seventh-Day Adventist background, there are other media entities that I feel must be protected from this sort of unfair, overly zealous treatment, even with such treatment being applied by Adventists themselves. One medium that comes to mind is Adventist satellite television broadcast. Surely those of us that accuse the media of being unfairly biased or coercive can't possibly be speaking of this particular subset. It goes without saying that any religious entity will be biased toward their message, something essential for survival in such a field. On the other hand, an aggressive and coercive stance would simply be a death knell to the organization. Religious broadcasts thrive on being open, caring, and wholeheartedly concerned about their consumers. Thus, not every medium can be expected to perform the same, or even to do so with the same goals. As such, we would be remiss to speak of them all as being within the same category.

Speaking generally of the media as a biased presence is itself a problem because of the volatile nature of opinion. Since television news is commonly cited as an example, I too shall use it. When a news package is watched, the viewer very quickly takes a stance on the issue being presented. Since it is the duty of professional journalists to present a fair and balanced set of facts, they most often do. The problem arises through the very nature of human opinion. When the viewer has a very strong disposition to either side of an issue being presented to them (even when the issue is presented fairly), then the natural reaction is to disagree with opposition. Since television news media is such a one-way exchange of information, often the closest thing to opposition is a simple and balanced presentation. The viewer might be shocked, for example, with the careless way a news anchor can handle a story on a brutal killing, while another viewer may feel that there was not even enough information given. You see, we want our media to know exactly how we are going to react to any given story, and then tailor-make that story to our specifications. However, it is not in society's best interest to allow this style of newsgathering, nor is it even possible. What's often left is a volatile story examined by an opinioned individual, and the result is the opposite of that viewer's opinions being projected on the media entity being consumed. Thus, since so much of what we perceive to be bias is, in actuality, fair and balanced news reporting, our own opinions can skew the often unbiased nature of media presentation and lead us to think of them as biased.

The correlation between societal wants and needs and how the media delivers on those demands grows more convoluted still. One main school of thought expresses distaste towards media content and portrayal, citing these as reasons for many of society's ethical and moral dilemmas and problems. However, the problem is that the demands of society give rise to the very nature of the content and presentation of the media. I am once again driven to use television as an example. Suppose a particular culture has a choice between nature-based television shows and car chase shows, and demonstrates through repeated and unwavering consumption that they prefer the car chase shows. As a result, the ratings of the nature shows will drop, the advertisements will generate less revenue, and the shows will be cut in order to fill the time with something more profitable. This is the basic principle of supply and demand. Conversely, the impressionism of society based on the content and presentation of the media is quite apparent. Hobbies, food and clothing choices, and a myriad of other decisions facing the greater population every day are, if not largely based on the media, to some degree influenced and driven by it. The logical conclusion is that media and society are in a constant state of give and take. The media relies very heavily on society to make choices as to the content and presentation of media material, and these choices are in turn mirrored back by the society consuming the aforementioned media. This is why, contextually, society cannot justifiably blame the world's problems on the media. Media is, after all, a creation of man. It is a creation of incredible cloud and power, but, nonetheless, it does remain a creation. If we want societal change, we must strive for it at the root of the problem. If media and its tremendous impact must be altered and tailored to more specifically suit the needs and requirements of the people, it is in turn the people's job to ensure that this happens.

Of course, everyone will have differing opinions on the value of today's media, and how biased it can be, but the point is that we each need to examine the media we consume on a daily basis and understand how different mediums work in different ways. The incredible power of the media we have created comes with an indelible responsibility that rests on the shoulders of each member of society, but in the end, we did create media, we do want it, and it is most definitely far more substantial than mere television.