It is nearly impossible to find an objective television news source. News outlets such as Fox News Channel, CNN and MSNBC report in such a biased manner that the same story told by different networks can sound completely different. The difficulty with enforcing the standard for objective reporting is that these specific news outlets are privately-funded corporations that do not have to follow a certain criteria for what they can and cannot publish. This gives stations the ability to leave out or enhance information as they wish. As most Americans receive their news from television media, these stations have a responsibility to report factual information to the viewers. While more popular news outlets are entertaining and quite useful at times, American citizens need to take the initiative to do further research and strive to form their own thoughts independent of bias.
A perfect example of partial reporting in recent news is the series of events in Ferguson, MO. An unarmed African-American teenager, Michael Brown, was shot over nine times in the chest by a white police officer. The issue of police brutality has been an increasing concern in the United States and this shooting was the final straw for many people. Peaceful protests alongside violent riots broke out all across the country, the largest of those riots being in the city of Ferguson.
Conservative Fox News and liberal MSNBC both selectively reported two different sides of this event, creating a disingenuous picture of what was actually happening in the city of Ferguson. Fox News reported information to portray the protesters as criminals while MSNBC reported more on the issue of police brutality and racial tension. While Michael Brown may not have been completely innocent, does that mean he was rightfully killed? Was Brown an actual threat to the officer? Was it an abuse of power? The public needs the facts to answer these questions, not a reporter to answer for them without explanation. With the responsibility of being such a popular television news outlet, these channels should not be presenting information with an obvious bias or as a political strategy, but giving facts with the idea that people will form their own opinions.
There are media outlets such as NPR, PBS, and The Real News Network that come as close as possible to unbiased journalism in the United States. However, these news networks do not receive enough attention in comparison to biased networks. For example, in 2013 Fox News was ranked the most-watched cable news network among both total viewers and viewers age 25-54 for the 12th consecutive year with over one million total primetime viewers. MSNBC came in second with 640,000 total primetime viewers. In comparison, The Real News Network, has not yet reached its goal of 50,000 supporters, which it needs to become a live television show. If these outlets received as much attention as the more popular outlets do, then the presence of biased reporting wouldn’t be such a problem. Why do American citizens favor one-sided journalism? It could be the solidification of their previously formed opinions. It could also be that people do not know how to feel, so they let their political association choose for them.
A world with objective television media is an ideal worth striving for. Readers and listeners would be presented the facts without hearing someone else’s thoughts. Viewers would be forced to form logical explanations for why they believe what they believe, rather than simply repeating someone else’s thoughts. While Rachel Maddow may be a delight to listen to, one should be wary of letting her show be a first source of information for any issue, because of the obvious bias toward a more liberal stance.
Reporting objectively does not have to be uninteresting or dull. Reporters are still people and can still add their opinions, there should just be a clear distinction between when the reporters are giving factual information and when they are expressing personal opinions. For example, if reporters feel the need to express their opinions, the network should have a panel that is a completely separate segment from the reporting part of the show, to be clear that what is going to be presented is strictly the personal views of the reporters.
The University is full of the brightest minds across the state — across the nation, even — and if the University wanted to be the school to emphasize the importance of objectivity and start a movement of individualistic thinking, then we certainly could do so. The alternative to tuning into biased, for-profit news channels is viewing some of the less popular but more objective sources of media. Or even if students prefer the less objective networks, I encourage them to take the extra time to research the information presented on television before accepting it as factual.
We cannot accept the status quo that this is how media has to be. If people demand objective reporting, businesses will respond to the demand. The students here on Grounds are known for their intelligence and ability to use higher levels of thinking than the average college student. Those ideals and expectations should not cease at the academic level, but move into our personal lives and how we choose to think about the happenings of the world around us.
Lauren Horne is an Opinion Columnist for The Cavalier Daily. Her columns run Wednesdays.
Read More
WILLIAMS: Big donors are dominating the Board of Visitors
By Ryan Williams | 2 days agoSuch appointments being dictated by connections and donations creates a Board composed of big donors instead of members passionate about University goals.
EDITORIAL: Collectives are a misinterpretation of the mission of NIL
By Editorial Board | 4 days agoA large driver of this inequality comes in the form of collectives, the structures many schools use to organize their NIL payments.
CARTER: Data science without sustainability is insufficient
By Nathaniel Carter | November 9, 2024The University appears committed to a future defined by data, but lacks the dedication to meeting this future’s energy needs in a sustainable way.
