Is it truly possible to have a non-biased media?

My mantra is "Consider the Source." Every time. Not only the outlet but the byline.

My issue is what is now considered "the media" as well as the inability many have to recognize the difference between hard news and opinion.

Big outlets, (AP, Reuters, NY Times, etc) go through a seriously in-depth vetting process. If they get it wrong they'll retract or cop to it. And in the case of wire services at least, there's a typical format they follow. I trust that reporting.

I know a bit about this world given my work and it disgusts me that so many have bought in to the "lame stream/ Lib media" nonsense. "Fake News" goes without saying.

I don’t think it is.

In the States, we used to have the Fairness Doctrine - which meant that equal time was supposed to be given to different viewpoints. When Reagan stole that, news outlets turned into nothing but marketing machines. When the only thing that matters is ratings and money, quality goes down the tubes.

I think you're right, and I'm a big fan of freedom of the press conference and don't think the govt should be able to yank the licenses of stations that portray it unfavorably.

However, I'd support some sort of industry based system for discriminating between those that actually try and report accurately and those who publish political propaganda and call it news.

I'm glad you have time to check every article for sources, but most people don't, including myself.

Instead, I'm falling prey to the trap of seeing if a story gets repeated by what I consider to be a reputable news outlet and assuming if it isn't, it's Fake News.

Sadly, I realize that a large portion of the population now does the same thing, just with different ideas of what is reputable.

We need standards, I think, or were forever going to be stuck with the idea that Alternate facts aren't falsehoods.

I would agree that there are huge differences regarding media's intellectual rigor and veracity of truth claims.

I would also agree that all media has ideological biases and that not all are the same as some are intentionally deceptive and manipulative.

I would also agree that all media would have confirmation and story bias.

And I would also agree that forraging across media food groups is a good way around that.

That said...

I think modern media, in particular TV, radio, and internet media are inherently toxic.

These short format forms of media require click-bait to get people to interact with content to generate revenue. So we are constantly triggered, primarily by anger, fear, and outrage, and remain in a state of emotional excitation.

This also uncalibrates our sense of risk and priorty. Media click-bait is unlikely to be something relevant in terms of real daily risks. Also low in terms of actual priority in our lives.

And the requirement to generate click-bait for revenue generation demands very hard forms of confirmation bias. Not only are alterative views not possible, but presentation, formatting, tone must be uniform. And the short format makes any real discussion of issues impossible. So we are subject to extreme story bias. Things need to have a ribbon around them.

When I unplug from short format click-bait and jump back in it's really jarring and clear how it scrambles my brains.

There used to be more integrity in journalism, some media is far to profit driven these days.

I don't think that any individual or organisation can be unbiased. In fact, I believe that any attempt to be completely unbiased is unhealthy. But, as firefall points out below, bias is very different to prejudice.

In recent years, we have seen a number of things which have compromised the credibility of the media industry. Some of which have been self-inflicted. Primary of these self-inflicted wounds is the consolidation of media companies into global conglomerates which have destroyed any competition in the industry. In America, for example, six corporations control 90% of the media.

Then there is the advent of the internet and, in particular, social media. Now, everybody can be a journalist. And the more unscrupulous exploiters of this phenomenon can foist their views on an unsuspecting public.

You're right in that not all media is the same. Long may that diversity continue because, if we continue down this path of monopolisation, we will end up with little more than propaganda.

I suppose the only way to guarantee impartiality is to have it written into the charter under which it operates. That is , to my knowledge, only the case for public service broadcasters who depend for their funding on taxpayers money. (Something the US sadly lacks.)
All other outlets operate under an editorial policy which obviously reflects the ownership so no matter their claims to impartiality they will always exercise a certain bias.

No, there will always be a point of view on the news reported, but some publications actually don’t post the facts of certain events. I know firsthand that Breitbart isn’t above [b]lying[/b] (legacy of Andrew) because it reported a rally in which I actually participated last November, as a “riot”. Nobody rioted or was in the least disruptive. And if I hadn’t been there, I might’ve believed what they wrote. Enough people did.

There has never been, nor never will be a non-biased media. However, it used to be that mainstream media made the attempt to be unbiased. Also, there were competitors that encouraged the media to report the news and leave interpreting to the audience.

Today, it seems more try to put a spin on the news rather than just report it. After decades of contraction in the media, today new forms of media are creating unrest within it as they compete for the audience.

I dont think you can avoid bias, everyone writes from their own presumptions. But bias isnt the same as prejudice (i.e. pre-judging something), and that can & should be avoided.

Of course not. Media thrives off ratings. Ratings are gained by having viewers. Viewers carry bias. If the viewer doesn't like the slant of the outlet they are watching, they will find one that better justifies their opinion. Partisanship is just as prevalent in the media as it is in government.

I agree. Virtually everything and everyone has bias and filters with perhaps the exception of live streaming C-Span and who watches they or would want to.

It’s all in how you listener / reader interprets that bias and uses it for his or her own benefit if smart taking into account his or her own biases and filters.

Overall ny a well done process on SW 😜

Well the "greater media" will usually back the government because of money and such.

Smaller companies "seem" to be more willing to speak their mind as they have "nothing to lose"

These observations are very generalised however.

I guess said in another way, I'm good with ideological biases. I can read my way through those. I am not good with cognitive biases innate in media forms. I reject consuming that media.

Agreed. It can never be non biased.