If you’re out hiking and you come across a bear, do you assume that it’s dangerous or do you assume that the bear is friendly until it proves otherwise? You’re obviously going to assume it’s dangerous. There are numerous examples of hikers being killed by bears so clearly the potential is there for any bear to kill a hiker. Therefore, we must assume that all bears are dangerous. Because to do otherwise would be foolish.
However, if you see the same bear every day, and every day it avoids you, you’re likely to start trusting the bear a bit. You’ll still be wary, and rightfully so, but that particular bear will have earned a little trust. But, regardless of how nice it is, and how many times you interact with it, you will never fully trust the bear. You might let it get closer to you, but you’ll never turn your back toward the bear.
This week, I was commenting on a thread when one of the respondents said, “According to ABC News and The New York Times, among other reputable sources, summarized on Wikipedia…”.
My reply was, “That’s funny. You seem to actually believe that ABC News and The New York Times are reputable sources.”
Someone else replied, “Wow! A sign of fascism. Dismantle and make people believe that the news is fake.”
It’s not that I believe the news is fake, I just don’t trust that it’s accurate. I didn’t dismantle that trust, the news media did.
The news media is biased. They’re not even trying to hide it anymore so anyone who is paying the slightest bit of attention will find it obvious to see. It’s because of that bias that I don’t trust them to accurately and fairly keep me informed.
Years ago, the news would simply report the facts. They would tell me what’s happening in an unbiased manner. If a network (ABC, NBC, CBS) wanted to editorialize, they would put that at the end of a broadcast and clearly mark it as an editorial. Then, they would tell me what they wanted me to think. The main broadcast was fact, the editorial was an opinion.
Newspapers had a similar practice. They would report the facts in the main articles where I was told what’s happening without bias. Then, they put their opinions in the editorial section where I was told what they wanted me to think. The articles contained facts while the editorials contained opinions.
With the editorial disclaimer displayed, a viewer/reader would know that what they’re seeing is an interpretation of the facts biased by the viewpoint of the person doing the editorializing, presumably speaking for the entire network/newspaper.
But that’s not how it works any longer. Nearly everything you see in the media is tainted with a bias. It doesn’t matter what type of news media, (broadcast, Web, print, etc.), they’re all biased. Sometimes the bias is subtle, sometimes it whacks you over the head. The news media no longer tries to separate facts from opinion. Instead of simply giving you the facts so you can think for yourself, they manipulate what you see so you think what they want you to think.
The bias doesn’t only appear in what they tell you. It also appears in what they don’t tell you. If the media doesn’t want you to know something, they just don’t tell you. Sure, you could look for the information elsewhere but in order to look for what you’re not being told, you need to be aware of what they’re not telling you. It’s a Catch-22.
There are still other ways that the media is biased. Examples include:
- Misleading headlines whose misleading-ness is only apparent when you read the article
- Quoting someone without showing the context
- Using anonymous, unconfirmed sources.
- Improperly applying statistics
The use of any of these techniques impart a bias on the information being shared with me. And, the media uses them all.
There are numerous examples of multiple news media reporting with a bias. So, as with the bear, I must assume that all news media has the potential to show a bias and is dangerous.
It is possible for my trust to be earned back but that’s going to take some work on their part. In fact, it will likely take years for them to rebuild my trust in them. To do so, they’re going to have to consistently demonstrate the ability to report the facts in an unbiased and non-prejudicial way. But it is unlikely I’ll ever fully trust the media. And I will never turn my back toward them.
So, it’s not a matter of believing everything is “fake news”, it’s a matter of trust. Trust that the media had and frittered away. I didn’t dismantle the trust, they did.
When deciding whether or not to trust the media, I had to make a choice. I could either keep blindly believing everything they say and hope that some of it is accurate and unbiased, or I could be wary and question everything they say. I chose the latter. Because to do otherwise would be foolish.
