Entry 3: Biased reporting

Biased Reporting

Once considered one of the most trusted institution, the news media has fallen harder than Goliath against David. The political polarization in the country has set the predicament as party against party rather than the basis of neutral facts, to advocate and opinion, rather than have objectivity. There are now too many stories to cover, and not enough reporters to cover them.

Should you trust the press? 

Public trust in mass media has hit a record low.  The innate growth of "blogged" information has begun to spread wildly and instantly, where the quality of reporting is found on both ends of the spectrum.  It seems than many sites have begun to play the game of advertisements instead of pertaining objectivity.  The civic responsibility of keeping the public aware of current events. Lying by omission is used to push hidden narratives by both parties, where the spectrum of both liberal and conservative views are doubled down by "brainwashed" consumers.  The downplaying of certain cases such terror attacks and fatal police confrontations, including omission of motives by the news agency (Race, lack of criminal histories and open discussion of police brutality) has deteriorated factual reporting have has conceived a unfair game of pushing false narratives out to the public.

what can you do?

Being more critical of the media we consume, distinguishing between credible sources and making not of opinion vs fact are all ways to hold yourself accountable to understanding and overcoming media bias consumption in your daily life.

an example

http://www.newsweek.com/not-today-antifa-gun-company-ad-threatens-leftists-assault-rifles-774941

In the article, Hayden states,

Street-level politics, more specifically an ongoing conflict between white supremacist demonstrators and antifa, or anti-fascist counter protesters, has become a big news story following the rise of Donald Trump. Now a gun company is using anger over antifa to sell dangerous assault rifles to only one side. ... Spike’s Tactical, a gun company, previewed an ad on its Facebook page that depicts four heavily armed white men standing on the opposite side of a barrier and facing down a group of masked, unarmed antifa protesters. The ad mentions the sites of several political clashes that took place last year.

The language used is transparent with bias. Including "Donald Trump" automatically connects this store to party against party smear. The use of  "sell dangerous assault rifles to only one side" also paints the company in a bad light, aiming to make it seem like they are supplying one side with weapons purposefully. The Newsweek writer also went on,

 as a result, some gun owners were unhappy with the post.
“Thanks for showing everyone you stand with the fascists,” a commenter wrote under the post to Spike’s Tactical. “Good to know.”
“Something tells me your WWII Grandparents need to have a talk with you,” another commenter wrote to the company, referring to the Americans who fought against Nazi Germany.

This explains gross cherry-picking, where a few negative comments are presented like they are significant. Failing to do is provide any scale of the comments is omission by itself, not allowing fro proper representation of the majority opinion. In an official statement by Spikes Tactical, it was stated

the writer for Newsweek says that neither company responded for requests to comment, however, he attempted to contact the companies after business hours and published his article that evening.

This unfortunately is not an all too uncommon tactic. By reaching out after normal work hours, the  journalist knows that it’s unlikely the company  will respond. It’s very unlikely anyone will even get the request for comment until after the story is published, making sure only one side of the story is presented.