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

My own view is that it isn't possible to be unbiased but some sources have higher journalistic standards and integrity. All media and all language carries values and assumptions within it, often unacknowledged and sometimes at a subconscious level. However, not all media is the same. Some tell outright lies and some insinuate things which the readership are intended to take as fact. If I don't trust a source then I read through to find the quotes and the verified details.

I have confirmation bias too and everyone does, though I think it is a healthy thing if you can be critical of friends and allies from time to time.

This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »

SW-User

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.

jackjjackson · 61-69, M

@SW-User

Good points. I might add that some views / readers enjoy doing “opposition research” lol.

SW-User

@jackjjackson As they should....it's probably the best way to come out of it with any semblance of an informed opinion.

Ynotisay · M

@SW-User Media doesn't only pertain to viewers. And the word "media" means different things to different people. Some succeed because they offer accurate reporting.

SW-User

@Ynotisay How do their viewers know it is accurate?

Ynotisay · M

@SW-User I'm not sure what you're saying as the premise is a little flawed. A lot of television media is driven by print media. Many print outlets go through an exhaustive vetting process. They succeed because they get it right. As it pertains to television news reporting that's called "hard news."
The issue is so many will flip on FOX or CNN and not differentiate between news and opinion. VERY different things. That becomes a situation where belief often supersedes fact. Given the right environment I'm quite sure people could be convinced the sky is really green.

SW-User

@Ynotisay And that's exactly the point I was trying to make....the viewers/readers are what will always make there be media bias. Even if it doesn't truly exist it will always be perceived to some degree simply because what's being reported won't justify the opinions of the person reading it.

jackjjackson · 61-69, M

@SW-User

You’re trying to sell the concept that the media is neutral and the viewers, listeners and readers superimpose the bias?

SW-User

@jackjjackson Not at all. Simply stating that would be the case IF the media was somehow totally neutral. I already expressed in my initial comment my belief in media bias existing.

Ynotisay · M

@SW-User Thanks for the clarification and I get what you're saying. You're right. But I don't think holding the "media" responsible for public ignorance is the best call. Bias exists everywhere other than science. The decision of an editor or producer to run a piece or not could be considered bias as the decision is often influenced by the audience. But there are plenty of outlets that just report the facts and go to great lengths to be accurate. Unfortunately, today it seems that for some anything that isn't in line with their personal belief is considered bias or "fake news." That's entirely inaccurate.

SW-User

@Ynotisay I agree with you. Personal bias gets attributed as media bias all the time. Shifting of labels makes the issue of bias as a whole very cloudy.

jackjjackson · 61-69, M

@SW-User

It’s extremely rare that the media disseminates anything not filtered with bias.