Opinion: American Mass Media Is Biased Garbage, And There’s Not Much You Can Do About It

With few shining exceptions, American mass media is biased garbage, and media in the rest of the world sucks too.

And – while I may be uniquely qualified (two collegiate-level journalism/communications degrees, plus 20-ish years of experience in the field) to make that statement – I am far from alone in that assessment.

Public trust in mass media is at an all-time low. And not without reason.

Studies show that misinformation gains more traction, gets more clicks, and permeates the public consciousness to a greater degree than truth does.

And while this is by no means a new phenomenon – Mark Twain famously said that “A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is putting its shoes on” – a litany of factors are compounding the problem.

Among them: algorithms, the proliferation of biased news, social media, the infiltration of journalism schools by ‘ideologies,’ and mass media’s increasing reliance on unqualified or unvetted sources.

As previously touched upon, biased news is not new. Yellow Journalism famously started the Spanish American War, and that’s not the only catastrophe caused by the desire to sell papers. (The Leo Frank lynching is another.)

In 1949 The Federal Communications Commission tried to reign in this “Who cares if it’s true, so long as it sells” media strategy by implementing The Fairness Doctrine. Put simply, The Fairness Doctrine required that radio and television broadcasts present a balanced, ostensibly “fair,” view of controversial issues that were of public importance.

Its requirements – that equal time and equal expertise be given to each side of a contentious issue – meant that radio and television waves carried well-reasoned and fact-checked arguments into American households. The result? While Americans still disagreed on policies, we at least agreed on the underlying “facts of the case.”

This was the oft-lauded Walter Cronkite era of journalism. 

The Fairness Doctrine was struck down in 1987 and, when Congress tried to codify it into law, President Reagan vetoed it. 24/7, largely unchecked, partisan media followed soon afterward.

This is an oversimplification of history, of course. Numerous instances of media hiding or outright lying about issues during the time of The Fairness Doctrine are well known… but the loss of the Doctrine paved the way for the overtly partisan media we now “enjoy,” and limited the government’s ability to regulate what’s being pushed on radio/airwaves, even if that information is demonstrably false and dangerous.

Pretty soon experts were replaced by pundits, whose opinions on issues were taken as fact by followers. Partisanship among our populace grew. Bipartisan actions in Congress shrank.

Today the divide is vast, and, if you compare/contrast liberal and conservative coverage of pretty much any controversial topic, you’d be forgiven for thinking the two “sides” are living in entirely different worlds.

Social media has made this problem so much worse. Now, not only is there definitely a media outlet out there somewhere that will tell you exactly what you want to hear – the algorithm will lead you right to it! And right to the various social media influencers who are echoing that belief around the world.

The Truth in all this? Still tying its shoes.

How dangerous are algorithms and social media echo chambers? That’s a metric that’s difficult to measure, but, studies have found that demonstrably bad things – rises in extremist hate group membership, upticks in the espousal of patently false conspiracy theories (ie. Flat Earth and “The moon landing was a hoax!”), and cyberbullying to a degree heretofore unimaginable – can all be traced to social media and algorithmic rabbit holes.

One study I recently came across said 80% of the content found on social media can be traced back to 10% of content creators. This means that a handful of “influencers” are having an outsized “say”/impact in what’s being said, adopted, and believed across a range of topics.

Perhaps more frighteningly, studies have also shown that algorithms “reward” (ie. show to more people) contentious content. What results is that the most extreme of voices – be they Far Left or Far Right – are given the widest audience.

In sum, algorithms and socials are ensuring that what’s presented as the majority opinion is actually anything but. In many cases, it’s the fringe opinion of the most vocal, controversial minority.

Knowing the failings of social media and algorithms, many look to experts in their fields for better, less biased answers.

University professors are often experts in their respective fields (and, when compared to listening to @InternetStrangerWithOpinions, they’re definitely a better way to go), but university professors, like all people, have their own conscious and unconscious biases. Those play out in what they teach and how they teach it. (There’s also a lot of monetary influence at the collegiate level, but I only have so much space here, y’all.)

In my higher ed career, I studied under dozens of professors at two highly regarded universities. And some of my professors were openly biased: history professors whose commentary on past U.S. Presidents and policies made it obvious which political party they vote for, literature professors who would promote readings by authors of a “group” they personally supported, while negating or fully neglecting writings by groups they don’t support… I even had one anthropology professor berate our class with claims that “monogamy is a joke” and that “no one with an ounce of intellect believes there’s a God.”

This man’s job was/is to study human culture through an unbiased lens, yet in one tirade he managed to offend members of most of the world’s cultures!
Perhaps the last – though definitely not least – concerning trend presenting itself in journalism today is its reliance on unqualified or unvetted sources.

I’ve lost count of the times I’ve seen entire articles dedicated to a pundit’s take on an issue in which he/she has no authority – people who are not doctors or medical researchers whose opinion is presented as if it were medical fact; people who’ve never left the United States or drafted legislation whose opinions are presented as fact on foreign policy; people who say what the outlet wants to hear to generate buzz and clicks, whether or not that person is in any way qualified.

Mass media also repeatedly fails the test of vetting its “experts” or properly advising reader/viewership when said expert has a known bias – doctors who are doctors but who have a known history (or easily discovered history) of promoting medical conspiracy theories; foreign policy workers who are foreign policy workers but have a known history (or easily discovered history) of promoting terroristic regimes; experts who say what the outlet wants to hear to generate buzz and clicks, whether or not that person is actually telling the unvarnished truth.

This is why Americans’ trust in mass media is low.

And it should be low.

One of the lessons I was taught in journalism school was the importance of what we do: we inform the masses of things they need to know, we hold power to account, we bring facts and truth, in the hopes that those things will inspire others to usher in a more educated, fair, and just world.

Being a journalist is a huge responsibility.

And this journalist is telling you that her industry is, frequently and without much apparent remorse, failing to live up to that responsibility.

It makes me sadder and madder than you could possibly know.

Note: This is an opinion article as designated by the the category placement on this website. It is not news coverage. If this disclaimer is funny to you, it isn’t aimed at you — but some of your friends and neighbors honestly have trouble telling the difference.