Bias, Bias, Everywhere

This entry was inspired by reading and responding to a fellow classmates blog earlier today covering bias in the media.  Some of the questions presented in her blog were to what extent the media was biased, and how that bias comes across and registers with consumers.  As I find this topic very interesting, I thought I might discuss it more here in my own EIB.

To begin, I would like to establish that humans are biased.  Mother Teresa, Ghandi, the Dali Llama, Martin Luther King Jr., Dale Earnhardt Jr., Sean Hannity, and Piers Morgan are all biased.  I know, I know, I probably upset some of you by saying that.  Oh well, it's my blog.  Anyway, every individual to have ever walked, crawled, or rolled the earth is inherently biased in one form or another.  As news is written, directed, and produced by humans, the news in biased as well.  Surely we can all agree on this fact in order to move on to more entertaining subjects, namely, just how much bias is present in the media and the affect that said bias may have on the population.  Just as Ghandi and Mother Teresa were more open minded than Hannity or Morgan, some media outlets are more apt to cover a variety of stories and interests; others still elect to remain firmly entrenched on one side of the aisle.  But so what?  Isn't it the citizens responsibility to consume the information available and then make an informed, rational decision based off of their research?  While this may be an ideal situation, it is highly unlikely.  Based off of real world observation, people often seek out news sources that validate their personal opinions, and then accept those sources as trustworthy and either unbiased or less biased than they may be.  This behavior leads to citizens voting based off of potentially flawed information and carries the potential to chip away at the foundations of democracy.  So, if bias is impossible to avoid as humans and at the same time a negative influence, how do we mitigate it?

I believe the situation calls for a varied approach, one where a major media outlet maintains bias, yet presents it evenly.  Each side is given the same operating budget and airtime, with equally capable journalists and reporters to deliver the message.  Shows such as FOX News' The Five hint at this type of reporting, but it is still presented as four members ganging up on one most of the time. The show Crossfire also comes to mind, but in that show the underlying premise is to argue and cause conflict.  I imagine more of separate shows that compliment each other, with one side presenting its case for the first 30 minutes then the other presenting its case in the next 30 minutes.  While this methodology would still allow viewers to tune in at certain times to hear their viewpoints validated, it would also increase the likelihood that they would be exposed to the other side of the coin as well.  If both sides presented at the same time I imagine more often than not it could result in a shouting match and more demagoguing.

In addition to offering a better opportunity for non straight-ticket voters to gather facts about a variety of issues, this method could also appeal to the news outlets themselves by potentially drawing in a larger base for advertising.  If we accept a general rule of liberals watching MSNBC and conservatives watching FOX, then it is plausible to think that a show offering both sides nearly simultaneously could potentially capture a large market share as well.  Or not.  I don't have any information other to validate or dispute my theory as it has never been attempted to the best of my knowledge.  Regardless, bias is alive and well in the media, and it is our responsibility to continually think of new and innovative ways to mitigate its negative influence while acknowledging its existence.