11-26-2020, 01:22 AM
Are there objective means of determining the credibility of media? Yes.
h![[Image: Media-Bias-Chart-2018.jpg]](https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Cynthia_Frisby/publication/326557348/figure/fig1/AS:651547327352841@1532352396791/Media-Bias-Chart-2018.jpg)
Yes. At the top are such entities as the AP wires and Reuters, news often reported in a 'blitz' style in which reporters relate what they see or transmit official statements. This is almost stenographic reporting which says nothing more than the story at hand. This is minimal news, news at its purest. Putting bias into such reports is practically impossible because the reporter has little time in which to analyze or spin what he* gets. This is no zone for any crusading journalist out to change the world. There is no possibility of bias other than from cited sources.
So what is the fault of such reporting? If you can do your own thinking, you can do your own analysis. Few people are able to do that effectively. ABC, CBS, and NBC might have ongoing coverage of a story that has some moral concerns. The three main broadcast networks, PBS, and NPR might ride a story longer than AP or Reuters. At best one gets more depth to stories as the result of a continuing effort to get more detail on a story. Because these are mass sources of news they are generally closer to the political mainstream than would be those media that have smaller constituencies. Fact reporting is still significant, but analysis enters. The green rectangle is precious. Differences in constituency may lead to obvious bias: because the Wall Street Journal pays more attention to issues relevant to investors (and that is a legitimate objective in reporting) it has validity for that. It may not be as relevant to people who are not investors or to people who either do not see business activity as the driving force in the economy or think it out of their league... well, Scientific American has a very different clientele than Seventeen. At the bottom of this rectangle, but toward the middle, is Time Magazine, arguably shallow -- but accessible.
The yellow rectangle offers more analysis but little original reporting, The Economist and Financial Times do excellent work at this but are seen slightly right of center while the Guardian is slightly Left. In this zone polarization between Left an Right becomes marked. Personal values largely dictates what sort of media one would read in this category. People who read Slate generally do not read the Weekly Standard.
You will notice that at the bottom of this category is CNN. From here down, the best advice is "read at your own risk". Maybe one reads the Huffington Post or Daily Kos because it isn't behind a pay-wall. I would not trust anything close to original reporting from either. Journalistic quality deteriorates rapidly as one goes down into the orange rectangle, and polarization between Left and Right becomes more severe. News stories here are highly selective in fitting readers' or viewers' biases.
The bottom, red rectangle typically does more harm to one's credibility than good. Here is extremist bilge such as the Palmer Report and Info Wars... or the sorts of media such as the National Enquirer that educated people contend that "the maid reads" -- the "Man bears lion cub" stories.
*Any use of male pronouns of course can include females unless there is a specific reference to a male.
h
Yes. At the top are such entities as the AP wires and Reuters, news often reported in a 'blitz' style in which reporters relate what they see or transmit official statements. This is almost stenographic reporting which says nothing more than the story at hand. This is minimal news, news at its purest. Putting bias into such reports is practically impossible because the reporter has little time in which to analyze or spin what he* gets. This is no zone for any crusading journalist out to change the world. There is no possibility of bias other than from cited sources.
So what is the fault of such reporting? If you can do your own thinking, you can do your own analysis. Few people are able to do that effectively. ABC, CBS, and NBC might have ongoing coverage of a story that has some moral concerns. The three main broadcast networks, PBS, and NPR might ride a story longer than AP or Reuters. At best one gets more depth to stories as the result of a continuing effort to get more detail on a story. Because these are mass sources of news they are generally closer to the political mainstream than would be those media that have smaller constituencies. Fact reporting is still significant, but analysis enters. The green rectangle is precious. Differences in constituency may lead to obvious bias: because the Wall Street Journal pays more attention to issues relevant to investors (and that is a legitimate objective in reporting) it has validity for that. It may not be as relevant to people who are not investors or to people who either do not see business activity as the driving force in the economy or think it out of their league... well, Scientific American has a very different clientele than Seventeen. At the bottom of this rectangle, but toward the middle, is Time Magazine, arguably shallow -- but accessible.
The yellow rectangle offers more analysis but little original reporting, The Economist and Financial Times do excellent work at this but are seen slightly right of center while the Guardian is slightly Left. In this zone polarization between Left an Right becomes marked. Personal values largely dictates what sort of media one would read in this category. People who read Slate generally do not read the Weekly Standard.
You will notice that at the bottom of this category is CNN. From here down, the best advice is "read at your own risk". Maybe one reads the Huffington Post or Daily Kos because it isn't behind a pay-wall. I would not trust anything close to original reporting from either. Journalistic quality deteriorates rapidly as one goes down into the orange rectangle, and polarization between Left and Right becomes more severe. News stories here are highly selective in fitting readers' or viewers' biases.
The bottom, red rectangle typically does more harm to one's credibility than good. Here is extremist bilge such as the Palmer Report and Info Wars... or the sorts of media such as the National Enquirer that educated people contend that "the maid reads" -- the "Man bears lion cub" stories.
*Any use of male pronouns of course can include females unless there is a specific reference to a male.
The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated Communist but instead the people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists -- Hannah Arendt.
