Yesterday morning, I turned on the CNN news and watched it for a few minutes, then I switched to MSNBC for their perspective. I haven’t done this for a few weeks, although watching television news has been my go-to practice for several years. CNN’s broadcast featured a report on how the coronavirus was spreading, mostly due to President Trump’s refusal to wear a mask, a measure which made him primarily responsible for the increased number of cases, the speaker implied. MSNBC featured a host who reported on how Trump’s campaign was clearly on the ropes, losing badly, and how Biden’s effort was superior. She also pointed out the latest poll numbers, which greatly favored Biden, she said.
During the course of her interview, the host wasn’t shy about ‘leading’ the guest on, helping him come to conclusions that fit her blatant agenda. Instead of a dispassionate report on the subject, I heard an invective, in an accusatory tone that clearly showed her bias. This wasn’t reporting or conducting an honest interview. To me, it sounded more like propaganda.
This morning’s experience in viewing the news was typical rather than unusual and accounts for why I no longer listen to mainstream television news.
Television news, at its best, is immediate, informative, and appealing. Television news, at its worst, is biased, sensationalist, and untrue. I think we have received a high dose of the latter recently, especially as it applies to mainstream media like CNN and MSNBC.
When a news program presents a variety of news items, offering more than one side to the story and backs it up with dependable sources, we can believe most of it. But when it repeats a theme over and over, with an apparent objective to influence, as I’ve witnessed for the last while, the opposite is true. I’ve noticed that these two channels have focused lately, almost exclusively, on two themes, the corona pandemic and “Black Lives Matter”. There seems to be an inlaid agenda, hiding in plain view, around these two topics. Anything that might denigrate the US President, and reduce his chances of winning the November election, seems to be fodder for them.
I am not now, nor have I ever been a fan of Donald Trump—you can see, by the articles I have posted over the past five years, that I’ve held an opposite view, and have condemned him for many of his actions from the time he was elected. But I do dislike the type of slant and manipulation of the news that I have seen lately. The following points may explain how they get away with it:
- In 1984, only fifty independent media companies owned most media interests within the United States. In 2020, 90% of the media is controlled by four media conglomerates: Comcast, Disney, ViacomCBS, and AT&T.
- In the case of television media, CNN, an American news-based pay television channel, is owned by CNN Worldwide, a division of AT&T’s WarnerMedia.
- MSNBC was created by a 1996 merger between Microsoft and NBC. (MS for Microsoft and NBC from the other partner).
In America, every media outlet is owned by a business, with its own agenda and preferred point of view. Social media consultant Lon Safko, author of The Social Media Bible, laments that these business interests experience no guidance or consequences for misrepresenting the news. He says,
“Every newspaper is owned by someone or a group of ‘someones’ that have their own political and otherwise agendas. We also know that Google has had an inordinate influence on the upcoming Presidential Election by giving priority to liberal/Democratic news agencies like CNN and Yahoo. We will never have truthful reporting again until there are consequences.”
An excerpt in Google tries to explain the current bias exhibited by the mainstream media, saying,
“CNN is merely reporting. It’s the newspapers that do the investigatory work. They dig up the leads and clues, and they are the ones that are contacted by anonymous sources.”
I agree with that—print media is more responsible. It is more grounded. Printed news is backed up with a ‘hard copy’, or record, if you will. It can be fact-checked in real-time and traced. That’s not true for television. It’s true that a program can be taped and fact checked later, but that seldom happens. Television is a fleeting medium—once you see it, it is gone.
Those explanations are not enough for me. I believe that reporters are more than ‘talking heads’. They are immensely important in the battle for the hearts and minds of people, who ultimately have the power of the vote. They can determine who will or will not govern. It is crucial that they tell the truth.
But television is only part of the story. In discussing the media, and its influences over our lives, it’s essential to also address the long and illustrious history of print media, and the relatively new phenomena of social media, especially when, according to Pew Research Center, 68 percent of Americans use Facebook in general, with 44 percent receiving their political news primarily from that source. I intend to explore those avenues in follow up posts.
There is something about the current style of television reporting that irritates me. I’m not nearly done with it. The next few weeks, and beyond, will undoubtedly be a bitter period in news broadcasting. With the 2020 election fast approaching, the knives and swords will be out. I’m not looking forward to the anger and rhetoric that will undoubtedly be displayed by both sides. But mostly, I’d like to find a television news source that I can trust.
Well said, Diane. Television news – all of it – has a slant most of the time. I trust print media more. These days, I try to stay up on what’s happening in the world, but television news is just exhausting. The Trump presidency is exhausting. I want to be a good citizen and I love my country . . . and I pray that our democracy will survive. Some of television reporting comes down to the 24/7 news cycle, which has created a kind of sensationalistic and toxic reporting. Today, I think I’ll just garden.
You hit the nail, Stephanie! It is toxic, isn’t it? The word fits, exactly! I’m a news junkie, and a visual person, so I do like television—but television news, not so much!
It’s interesting to read your take on tv v press in the US, Diane. And you managed it without mentioning the most biased one of the bunch! Here in the UK the opposite is largely true, I think. The BBC is accused of bias from both sides of the political divide, which probably means they’re generally getting it right. Most of the time, anyway. The other national tv broadcasters are generally fairly neutral too. It’s our press where the bias is blatant. We only have two left-leaning national papers – the Guardian and the Mirror – and the rest are unrelentingly right wing. The worst of them, the Daily Mail, makes Fox News look moderate!
I like a balanced approach, especially in the news. But the right side of things has been erased in the US, it appears. You need both to give you a complete picture, I think. Interesting about the press, Clive. I think I knew that, and also the famous names associated with it! Thanks!
By the ‘right side’ do you mean ‘correct’ or ‘right wing?’ If the latter, Fox News is about as far right as it gets, and is, I understand, the most viewed news channel, and not just in the White House. The perception I get is that other channels have moved towards the left to counteract Fox’s bias. Fair comment?
Our press is, generally, in the hands of vested interests who will do well out of Brexit, and have helped to get the current government elected. Not a good basis for objectivity!
I agree, Fox is rightist. Hmmm, I think the reference to rightist and leftist was included in the quote. Must go back and read it! Thanks.
Diane, I don’t watch cable news, having long ago decided that their primary purpose is to push an agenda and create lemmings who parrot their untruths. Even the nightly news with Lester Holt has become decidedly biased of late. The subtle, and sometimes not so subtle adjective interjected in an otherwise informative sentence is intentional. News is not news when laced with opinion. I look forward to hearing more from you on the subject. Hopefully, you will share some ‘print news options’ that are credible and can be trusted to disseminate facts. It is becoming more and more difficult to elect candidates who reflect the views of the majority and instead, we are left with options that were created for us by social media.
Social media is increasing its power base, that’s true. But television is watched by millions as well, especially my generation. So I’m concerned that, as you say, we are exposed to news that is “laced with opinion”. Thanks, Suzanne!
Dear Diane and Friends, when checking the weather page, i have to remind myself that mainstream news of any sort always has an agenda to instill fear – and, of course, to get people to buy stuff, whether or not the stuff is needed or within budget. Oh well, reprobates gonna be reprobates.
The fear communicated through mainstream media since corona hit has been palpable. I’m tired of it, which is why I’m switching to reading the papers! (also bad, sometimes)! Thanks, Sue.
Where do you get your news, Diane?
Good question, Barry. I read newspapers, Globe and Mail, my local paper (Times Colonist), I go online and type a subject I’m following into Google, and read and listen to a variety of vids and articles. I eventually form an opinion on the issue, and circumvent the danger of having a narrow view. It takes a bit of work, but worth the effort! Thanks, Barry.
Here’s a thought, Diane, and I wonder how you wrestle with it. All reporting is, because it is human, distorted. But all reporting is not equally distorted. And, while CNN, MSNBC, and Fox, along with the NY Times, The Washington Post, and the Wall Street Journal all lean into their ideological positions, I don’t think they are equally distorted. Saying so, I believe, falls into what can be called a false equivalence. In other words, some media presentations are more biased than others.
As I mentioned to Janis, I rarely come across Fox, which I can only access online, should I choose to (since I don’t subscribe to it). I really don’t have any basis for comparison until I do more research on the ‘right’ side of things. I’ve been ‘left-leaning’ all of my life, though, so if mainstream media is irritating me (as it is), then I suppose its bias is more pronounced than before. I’m very aware of where the NY Times and the Washington Post stand politically, since I read them online. And I love your comment, on how our values and attitudes are formed! Thanks, Barry!
We’ll just have to keep our dialogue going, Diane.
Yes, lets. Thanks, Barry.
Journalistic analysis and presentation has always been biased, in my opinion.
I came to this conclusion during my high school years. Two significant experiences with journalists and editorial practise alerted me to the dangers of believing in unbiased presentation in the media, then newspapers, television, and radio.
The first was a detailed written report in the newspaper about a riot at my high school. It outlined the date, when I was at school, the time, my lunch hour, the place, the cafeteria where I sat on that day to eat my lunch. There were about 20 students eating their lunch in that room that day, not much movement as everyone was eating, no raised voices, I could see the whole room from where I sat. There was no riot, no protest, no confrontation, nothing in the article actually happened. This was not lost on me.
The second was a perverted reporter who was allowed into the school to photograph the Cheerleading Team, of which I was a member. Lets just say the suggested poses were NOT acceptable for publication, and I was the only one who stood out to the side, unwilling to participate. I don’t know what the other girls were perceiving, but I do know those photographs never made it into the media.
And so experience and an open mind allowed me to develop a healthy skepticism about social media presentation, it wasn’t all it it was cracked up to be.
My academic career provided me with constant confirmation that skepticism was astute when it came to any kind of journalistic interpretation of reality.
It is much more blatant now, and that has been slowly building over the last 50 years, obvious bias becoming ever so slowly more acceptable in the mainstream. It seems that every year it gets harder and harder to tease out any descriptive, rather than interpretive, information from media sources.
And now we have what is going on in the media, and all forms of social media, Twitter, Instagram, Facebook…
I research family history, and am repeatedly shocked at how relatively unbiased the reporting was in days gone by. Certainly the bias was there, but it seemed a commentary on the presented facts, rather than a colouring of the actual facts, the lines between opinion and description were not blurred.
I love your stories, Maggie! I agree slant and manipulation are much more blatant now.There doesn’t seem to be a line at all between opinion and description. Thank you!
Trust seems to have gone out the window.
That’s why we garden, Derrick. Voltaire said it best, but it’s in French, so I’ll have to dig it up. Hope your day is going well!
We are having a good day, Diane. Thanks.
I don’t watch cable news but I am aware that FOX (extreme right, very biased) is the #1 cable news channel in America so I’m surprised that you didn’t mention it. I imagine the many (most?) Trump supporters watch it exclusively. I prefer to get my information from our public broadcasting network (a media outlet not owned by big business). I find that it is the best source for non-biased information and support it financially as much as I can.
I know of Fox, and have come across it when looking for videos online. I also know that it is’s right wing perspective is exclusive. I don’t subscribe to the channel, and don’t intend to. I don’t subscribe to a public broadcasting channel (HBO?) either, but will look for it online. I believe it is expensive for us here in Canada. I’ll look into this, and thanks, Janis.
PBS (Public Broadcasting Service) and NPR (National Public Radio) are not HBO (corporate-owned, mostly movies and made for streaming series), they are publicly-funded, non-profit TV and radio local and national broadcasting stations. I don’t know if you have something similar in Canada, but they a godsend for well-researched, in-depth stories and unbiased news. They also have a website that you should be able to access if their signal doesn’t reach you.
Thank you for all this, Janis! I’ll look into it.
I ditto this response. PBS and NPR try their best to be neutral and report research and interview some very smart people.
Hi Diane! I too was surprised that you didn’t mention the bias of FOX know when is extremely right wing. I think if you did watch it you would see how it makes CNN and MSNBC seem moderate in comparison. This website shows how many watch which: https://www.statista.com/statistics/373814/cable-news-network-viewership-usa/ For that reason I NEVER watch TV news broadcasts and instead get my news from print sources. Here is how you choose that if you really want something unbiased I recommend this chart: https://www.allsides.com/sites/default/files/AllSidesMediaBiasChart_Version1.1_11.18.19.jpg While I appreciate the Atlantic…if I want the news most moderate I go to BBC, NPR or Christian Science Monitor. And you are absolutely correct that it will get worse from here on out until November. Hopefully sanity will prevail and things will calm down some. ~Kathy
Things will calm down after November, not before, I’m sure. I’ve listened to short clips of Fox, only those I could access online, when I remembered to do so. I love the chart, and will use it, maybe for my next post, which will look at print sources. CNN and MSMBC are more sophisticated than Fox, but my experience is still that they are extremely biased, especially if you catch shows like Brian Williams and Rachel Maddow (both MSNBC) My husband likes them, so I indulge him from time to time, and listen with him. Other times I MUTE them! Thanks, Kathy. Always nice to hear from you.
While we have independent ownership there will be bias as there always has been. Depending on what political philosophy you follow determines which paper you choose to read. Similar to social media. People tend to pick the posts that align with their own way of thinking. We have the ABC in Australia which is govt funded but they too are vulnerable to whoever is in power because funding gets cut at the drop of a hat. They are however, the most neutral of all our television channels. What gets me with the reporting in newspapers is the use of language that is biased and emotive. The articles written don’t allow the reader to draw their own conclusions. As for the current time – I think coronavirus dominates the airwaves which I guess is a fair thing in some respects as if it didn’t would we treat it as the serious pandemic that it is with worse to come. It makes you go one of two ways – either incredibly depressed or a person who chooses no longer to watch the news. I have tended toward the latter.
That’s exactly what I have done, Irene. At first, I was memorized with the numbers, but for the past two months, I’ve followed the rules, and taken note of the changes, but generally ignored the daily run down. We have a television channel which used to be funded by the government, but I think is now more privately owned. With that, of course, comes advertising, and quite a bit of bias. Thanks for your comment!
Hi, Diane – I don’t watch mainstream television news – I haven’t for years. When I do pass by a television set that is switched on, the news can drive me totally insane – especially for the reasons that you have cited here. I do hope that we can all find a news source worthy of our trust. Very thought-provoking post.
Thanks, Donna. I’ve been watching more lately, especially since I decided to write about it. But must be careful…my blood pressure goes up!
Other news offering hard statistics, I ignore all other opinions and reports on the pandemic. There is simply no real knowledge about it anywhere yet. I don’t watch Television anyway and depend on my newspapers for news.
The jury is certainly not out on the virus yet. I suspect we will find out in due course, since I think it will be a favorite topic for pundits and writers for years to come! Thank you, Rummuser, as always.
I am a “news junkie” as well and although I am employed full-time, I work from home and between essential tasks and conference calls, I keep the news going almost all day. I watch MSNBC, CNN, PBS and BBC America and, in the evening, a half-hour of local news until I get sick of the in-depth analysis of the weather. I look forward, every evening, to what I consider the brilliance of Rachel Maddow. I am a left-leaning liberal and make no apologies for that, so I am very pleased with the “slanted” analysis and presentations that I see on the news shows that I choose to watch. They tend to support my belief that the crude, immoral, ignorant bufoon currently occupying our White House is dangerous and an embarrassment to our country. The key word here, I believe, is “choice.” Since MSNBC and CNN are too biased for your own viewing, you probably are not among these networks intended audience. I encourage you to keep seeking out other sources, but I suspect that straight-forward “just” news reporting might be a thing of the past, especially in these ugly, contentious times.
TV news is bad enough, since it’s mostly opinion and not news at all, but it’s really scary that 44 percent of Americans receive their political news primarily from Facebook.
We can only hope that there are some ‘gems’ in social media, somewhere!
My habits have changed. I open the door, feel the air and then look at the sky for the weather. I have conversations (virtual, of course) with friends and family to get the news. I read headlines to sense political storms but, like the weather, they come and go. I stand and read about causes that are important to me (minority support, violence, health crisis, etc.) but I basically tune out the rest. My piece of mind and sense of humor is too important to waste on crazy emotion. I just want to live to cast my vote in Nov. I’ll crawl backwards carrying rocks in a backpack if I have to.
I haven’t watched TV news in years, but I do subscribe to a lot of newspapers that respect facts. https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/ is a great place to check that. I love history and the world is going through massive changes right now, so I’m not about to miss it. Human nature in action, unfortunately it’s not always pretty.
Afternoon, Diane. I don’t watch TV news too much. But when I do I often turn on BBC World News or France24. I like those networks. I’m glad my cable company carries them.
Comments are closed.