HTT - News Edition

I'm riding on the coattails of last week's Hot Topic, when you all went criz-azy on the media, claiming it to be biased/slanted/(insert derogatory comment here). And while I'm fully aware that there are bad journalists and publications out there, I hate to see you all so jaded about newspeeps as a whole.

Mind you, I used to be a reporter, and I'm still a freelance journalist, so I suppose that makes me biased - hate that word; after all, some bias is inevitable by virtue of being human and having different life experiences.

Here's the deal: The coverage of any news organization is slanted towards the audience it is trying to attract. For example, if they know their biggest viewer demographic is women, ages 60-93, they are going to cover more stories on health care and retirement than the station whose viewers are typically 20-year-old males, and thus need constant coverage of exploding cars, hot girls with cool diseases and cheesesteak sandwich store openings. Or, likewise, if their audience is more conservative, the stories will be more conservative and vice versa. (Or vice-a-versa, which I've also heard.) It's a matter of ratings, profit and survival.

Also, a story is inevitably going to be slanted if your source pool comes from one side of the story. For example, if Brangelina's publicist won't talk to me about rumors that they used in vitro to conceive their holy twinnies, but their "friend" who saw the vitro go in will talk - my story is going to sound a bit slanted. I'll do my darnedest to clarify that it's all hearsay, but without an actual quote, it won't mean much. Don't blame me, blame the Jolie-Pitts. (And those crazy lips. They will eat you!)

However, beyond those reasons, content is going to be unbiased. Any legitimate news organization (New York Post and Star magazine and anything featuring Bat Boy not included) prides itself on ethics and objectivity. They will do their best to write the story from middle ground, although that's hard to pin down sometimes. What you may consider to be neutral territory could be far different than the general public's viewpoint - but you use your best judgment.

What I've found is that people take fault when a news story doesn't exactly agree with their opinion, which they pride themselves on being factually true. For example, if you think ice cream has healing properties, but read an article that is critical of fatty frozen desserts, you might think it's biased or slanted. You might be mad that a differing viewpoint is even mentioned, even though it's essential to present both sides of the story. You might get fixated on what you don't agree with, rather than recognizing a balanced representation of the issue.

Also, people expect journalists to be experts on any given topic. And while it is their job to quickly indoctrinate themselves, in an age of immediate news coverage, they aren't going to learn it all in a few hours. They are human, and yet journalists are expected to be perfect.

I'd also like to say that if you see a grammatical error, it's probably the copy editor's fault. So, no, do not send emails with links to grammar lessons and/or question my university degree. I will respond, and I will misuse "affect" intentionally.

Anyway, my whole point is that there is not a media conspiracy out there. When it comes to editorial coverage, there are obviously liberal and conservative news organizations out there, but when it comes to general news content, 99 percent of the time no one is lying or intentionally skewing something on purpose. (And they're not being told to do it, either.) If anything, I think journalists can be some of the most open-minded people out there because they have been exposed to a wide spectrum of people and ideas.

But what do you think?

Is the media biased?

Is it intentional?

If so, how do you know?

Write.


* Thanks flickr for that rad piece of radness seen above.