The focus of media these days is absolutely disgusting. And to be honest, I'm not just talking about news in Western media, which has a worldwide reputation for being one of the most biased network of outlets, and an even nastier reputation of following news about Paris Hilton over the war in Afghanistan and Iraq that is decimating the local populace, thanks to the American government. I'm talking about media outlets all across the seven seas (four oceans, two gulfs and a sea) and the six continents that have human life on them (don't tell me about the lost tribesmen of Antarctica, because they don't exist anymore; 1). While I have addressed this issue on my blog several times, I haven't been able to get around elucidating, from my perspective, the reasons behind media bias, which are quite numerous indeed. Some of the factors that I will list and explain might surprise you, and some might not, considering that much of these reasons are derived from my ideals and outlook.
But why should we address this issue? It doesn't look that bad anyways, does it. Think again. In order to better our societies, economies, etc., we need to be well aware of and well-informed on what's shaping our world so we may eventually be able to shape it for the better, identiyfying every fault and asset. The importance of addressing media bias is exemplified by concerns from the Institute for Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting:
The first and probably the foremost factor should be all too apparent: human nature. It is in our overall nature to be biased. How? It is human nature to collectivize others and assume a tribal or nationalist identity over all else (3). Following that, it is also human nature to hate what is different than that group that one belongs to (4). These two characteristics are most evident at extreme forms of bias, when one also fails to hold oneself accountable for one's actions and at the same time seeks to put an end to what (s)he sees as against him or her. Also, in accordance with our own culture, beliefs, etc., we tend to have a bias as a result of our convictions and upbringing. A case in point would be Islam's disagreement with the Christian concept of the Trinity, or, in a more cultural/historical stance, the dual animosity between, say, many Tamils and Sinhalese, albeit not most. There's also culture-centricism and ethno-centricism, one of human nature's most detestable qualities, which could lead someone not to care about others in other parts of the world just because, apparently, they're not relevant to national politics (5). At the same time, it gives off the message that such people don't care about human sufferring in general and leads one to be as biased in the future. This form of self-isolation leads to more gruesome variables that would eventually increase, not decrease, the degree of bias.
Following human nature is nationalism, which is probably the taproot of all the evils that plague the modern world (6). Nationalism, by nature, is biased and lacks any maturity whatsoever. Nationalists would rush to point out the faults of the "other" side and at the same time quickly cover up their faults let alone ignore them altogether. This will undoubtedly lead to the propagandization of that nation's media agencies, reducing them to mere mouthpieces of nationalist interests. The biggest example to date is the Lebanese media's unflailing support for the Lebanese Army pounding of the Nahr-el-Bared refugee camp in northern Lebanon against the Fatah al-Islam radicals, regardless of the civilian lives and property lost to this ungiving onslaught, which goes about unabated in major news networks like LBC, Mustaqbal, NewTV, and others, even Al-Manar, the Hizbullah channel. Nationalists also have the tendency to draw other people to their cause; this is called the bandwagon technique. Noted examples include the Israeli Hasbara (7) and certain elements of the Palestinian Solidarity Movements, along with that of the United States et al. The list doesn't really end there.
The recent example on Hasbara and the U.S. leads us to the third factor of media bias, one which is inextricably linked to nationalism: governmental monopolization and control. However, in this context, monopolization is not necessarily an economic process, but rather an ideological one in that they steer news outlets towards a common goal; it does involve, though, bribery and the "selling out" of notably fair and balanced media outlets to the government as well as businessmen and parliamentarians alike who have certain business agendas. There's no doubt in my mind that Mid-Eastern governments have large holdings in many of most if not all Arab media stations. And then you have governments like Iran, that promotes an image claiming freedom of speech and media, while the actions speak for themselves (8); it's granted that we all know that Iranian media would rather address the Zionist conspiracy of Tom and Jerry rather than deal with economic and social issues in its own nation. And when governments aren't enough, big corporations like that of Rupert Murdoch are holding newspapers, television and radio stations alike (9). Autocratic governments have shown themselves over history to have a hand in propagandizing national media outlets, thus reducing their reliability as fair and balanced sources to the extent that much of what these outlets produce are lies used to control the public opinion in favor of the governmental power or, in the case of Rupert Murdoch, economical interests.
Then there are your lobbying groups and groups that pressure the newscasters not to report certain things for their own sake. I'm rather surprised that such reputable news outlets give way to their demands and stray away from their mission of unbiased media coverage. I guess us humans as tribal animals tend to be responsible for the media bias as well. Although lobbyists and pressure groups tend not to be as effective as governments and corporations, they would be effective if such groups are headed by corporate sleazebags who have governmental influence.
Addressing the factors gets us closer to the reasons for media bias. National interests tend to dominate this big list of reasons. Giving the populace a perspective or insight into what the government is really up to would spoil these interests; it's even more saddenning that there actually are large flocks of supporters who would dismiss unbiased media coverage for the sake of their own petty ignorant nationalist interests. Corporate political agendas follow closely behind. The most significant example of this is the shameful debacle of the over-coverage of the Hamas Mickey Mouse clone (oh, for sure, that would have been the anti-Christ, just like how Barney was thought by Seventh Day Adventists as the Beast; 10, 11, and 12). What made this undignifying farce a true sham was the lack of coverage on the issues that were affecting Palestinians and Israelis on the ground, more notably the Palestinians who have sufferred at the hands of the Quartet, Israel and the P.N.A. Of course, such deliberate misinformation is not hard to catch if you've got a clear on-the-ground perspective that accepts the facts at the expense of national antagonisms and interests. There's also the fallacious obsession with the status quo, and the status quo, while stable, is not necessarily for the benefit of all mankind. It is therefore in the interests of big corporations, etc. to keep the status quo maintained. Also, biased media narrows the range of debate, and seeks to make us not only gullible, but misinformed about what is happening around the world. This needs to change, and believe me: this change is not going to be easy, considering how much power we have versus the power they have. Despite these obstructions, it will take one person to make a difference.
A reliable, independent outlet is hard to find these days, but in that case, it's best to keep your news sources varied. Also, try to separate propaganda and deliberate misinformation from what is verifiable. Digesting the news is a process, and it involves more than just reading what you see in front of you on a T.V. or computer screen or in the newspaper, or what you hear on the radio. The key here is to be eclectic. Such a path would lead to more understanding rather than less, and would eventually reduce national interests and substitute them for human interests and a sense of social justice, something that media bias, beyond a shred of doubt, doesn't adhere to.
Salaam, from Saracen
But why should we address this issue? It doesn't look that bad anyways, does it. Think again. In order to better our societies, economies, etc., we need to be well aware of and well-informed on what's shaping our world so we may eventually be able to shape it for the better, identiyfying every fault and asset. The importance of addressing media bias is exemplified by concerns from the Institute for Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting:
Independent, aggressive and critical media are essential to an informed democracy. But mainstream media are increasingly cozy with the economic and political powers they should be watchdogging. Mergers in the news industry have accelerated, further limiting the spectrum of viewpoints that have access to mass media. With U.S. media outlets overwhelmingly owned by for-profit conglomerates and supported by corporate advertisers, independent journalism is compromised.2)It is therefore critical that we be wary of who and what controls public opinion and point out all criminals and cover-ups. But let's move on, now...
The first and probably the foremost factor should be all too apparent: human nature. It is in our overall nature to be biased. How? It is human nature to collectivize others and assume a tribal or nationalist identity over all else (3). Following that, it is also human nature to hate what is different than that group that one belongs to (4). These two characteristics are most evident at extreme forms of bias, when one also fails to hold oneself accountable for one's actions and at the same time seeks to put an end to what (s)he sees as against him or her. Also, in accordance with our own culture, beliefs, etc., we tend to have a bias as a result of our convictions and upbringing. A case in point would be Islam's disagreement with the Christian concept of the Trinity, or, in a more cultural/historical stance, the dual animosity between, say, many Tamils and Sinhalese, albeit not most. There's also culture-centricism and ethno-centricism, one of human nature's most detestable qualities, which could lead someone not to care about others in other parts of the world just because, apparently, they're not relevant to national politics (5). At the same time, it gives off the message that such people don't care about human sufferring in general and leads one to be as biased in the future. This form of self-isolation leads to more gruesome variables that would eventually increase, not decrease, the degree of bias.
Following human nature is nationalism, which is probably the taproot of all the evils that plague the modern world (6). Nationalism, by nature, is biased and lacks any maturity whatsoever. Nationalists would rush to point out the faults of the "other" side and at the same time quickly cover up their faults let alone ignore them altogether. This will undoubtedly lead to the propagandization of that nation's media agencies, reducing them to mere mouthpieces of nationalist interests. The biggest example to date is the Lebanese media's unflailing support for the Lebanese Army pounding of the Nahr-el-Bared refugee camp in northern Lebanon against the Fatah al-Islam radicals, regardless of the civilian lives and property lost to this ungiving onslaught, which goes about unabated in major news networks like LBC, Mustaqbal, NewTV, and others, even Al-Manar, the Hizbullah channel. Nationalists also have the tendency to draw other people to their cause; this is called the bandwagon technique. Noted examples include the Israeli Hasbara (7) and certain elements of the Palestinian Solidarity Movements, along with that of the United States et al. The list doesn't really end there.
The recent example on Hasbara and the U.S. leads us to the third factor of media bias, one which is inextricably linked to nationalism: governmental monopolization and control. However, in this context, monopolization is not necessarily an economic process, but rather an ideological one in that they steer news outlets towards a common goal; it does involve, though, bribery and the "selling out" of notably fair and balanced media outlets to the government as well as businessmen and parliamentarians alike who have certain business agendas. There's no doubt in my mind that Mid-Eastern governments have large holdings in many of most if not all Arab media stations. And then you have governments like Iran, that promotes an image claiming freedom of speech and media, while the actions speak for themselves (8); it's granted that we all know that Iranian media would rather address the Zionist conspiracy of Tom and Jerry rather than deal with economic and social issues in its own nation. And when governments aren't enough, big corporations like that of Rupert Murdoch are holding newspapers, television and radio stations alike (9). Autocratic governments have shown themselves over history to have a hand in propagandizing national media outlets, thus reducing their reliability as fair and balanced sources to the extent that much of what these outlets produce are lies used to control the public opinion in favor of the governmental power or, in the case of Rupert Murdoch, economical interests.
Then there are your lobbying groups and groups that pressure the newscasters not to report certain things for their own sake. I'm rather surprised that such reputable news outlets give way to their demands and stray away from their mission of unbiased media coverage. I guess us humans as tribal animals tend to be responsible for the media bias as well. Although lobbyists and pressure groups tend not to be as effective as governments and corporations, they would be effective if such groups are headed by corporate sleazebags who have governmental influence.
Addressing the factors gets us closer to the reasons for media bias. National interests tend to dominate this big list of reasons. Giving the populace a perspective or insight into what the government is really up to would spoil these interests; it's even more saddenning that there actually are large flocks of supporters who would dismiss unbiased media coverage for the sake of their own petty ignorant nationalist interests. Corporate political agendas follow closely behind. The most significant example of this is the shameful debacle of the over-coverage of the Hamas Mickey Mouse clone (oh, for sure, that would have been the anti-Christ, just like how Barney was thought by Seventh Day Adventists as the Beast; 10, 11, and 12). What made this undignifying farce a true sham was the lack of coverage on the issues that were affecting Palestinians and Israelis on the ground, more notably the Palestinians who have sufferred at the hands of the Quartet, Israel and the P.N.A. Of course, such deliberate misinformation is not hard to catch if you've got a clear on-the-ground perspective that accepts the facts at the expense of national antagonisms and interests. There's also the fallacious obsession with the status quo, and the status quo, while stable, is not necessarily for the benefit of all mankind. It is therefore in the interests of big corporations, etc. to keep the status quo maintained. Also, biased media narrows the range of debate, and seeks to make us not only gullible, but misinformed about what is happening around the world. This needs to change, and believe me: this change is not going to be easy, considering how much power we have versus the power they have. Despite these obstructions, it will take one person to make a difference.
A reliable, independent outlet is hard to find these days, but in that case, it's best to keep your news sources varied. Also, try to separate propaganda and deliberate misinformation from what is verifiable. Digesting the news is a process, and it involves more than just reading what you see in front of you on a T.V. or computer screen or in the newspaper, or what you hear on the radio. The key here is to be eclectic. Such a path would lead to more understanding rather than less, and would eventually reduce national interests and substitute them for human interests and a sense of social justice, something that media bias, beyond a shred of doubt, doesn't adhere to.
Salaam, from Saracen
Comments
Post a Comment