Close your eyes. Let the darkness surround you. Eat you. Consume you.
That darkness you had just experienced is what 3% of our population view their world to be. It's rather unsettling to imagine living a blind life, where there's no choice but to accept that everything you believe to be true is only based on instinct and what you are told. Who are you supposed to trust? Well, I'm here to say that we, as the remaining 97%, are also unknowingly wearing a blindfold and left asking that same question. With the evolution of technology, newspapers have turned into a multi-billion dollar media industry where a simple "click" will entangle you in a web of bias, lies, and manipulation. Though it's difficult to accept that we are essentially puppets to the news, it is undeniable how revenue and views are the key drivers for media companies. The intense competition in this industry causes the media to fabricate versions of reality to promote their strong political bias, and exemplify their stance as a company that "delivers". This thus leads to the cycle of unjust manipulation and control. Like the blind, we are left asking the question: who are we supposed to trust? Regrettably, the short answer is, no one. Therefore, although there is high competition in the news media industry, it remains unjustified for media companies to let their political bias interfere with the information that is being produced.
A result of the opposing political biases media companies portray has given rise to partisan press that promotes political polarization. In order to have a functioning society, both, agreed-upon social institutions and healthy skepticism on societal operations are vital. However, the United States is an example of a society where conflict and emotional drive are more common as compared to actual actionable efforts to solve problems. But is the media to blame for this? To put the media's role in perspective, it is important to note its responsibility in the United States' partisan voting culture. The Iyengar & Hahn (2009) study was conducted to understand the relationship between a news organization and the consumer of that organization's political preference. The results yielded that a Republican participant would be 25% more likely to view a story with the Fox News logo than someone on the Democratic end of the spectrum. If individual media corporations only resonate with a certain like-minded group of people, the issue is posed by a lack of compromise that disrupts what is required for a successful democracy. Accordingly, this lack of compromise brings about the idea of only one party being the "right party", consequently promoting an unhealthy polarized society. Just imagine how different elections or society, in general, could have turned out if Republicans and Democrats sought to find compromise rather than to prove their stance holds greater value.
A common learning we develop as we grow is to be cautious about where we receive information to avoid the risk of fake news. Therefore, we tend to trust information coming from big media corporations like CNN or Fox News. But these large corporations are rooted in their strong political biases, thus requiring most of what they produce to support that line of thinking. These corporations tactically steer clear from blatantly obvious misinformation to rope even the most educated demographic to fall victim to trusting their propaganda. As an example, on the one-year anniversary of 9/11, a report by Fox Memphis depicted how efforts from the United States aided the liberation of Afghan women. The whole report, though somewhat modestly, aligned with the foreign policy of the president of the time, George Bush. However, the reality of this report was a sly collaboration between the government and Fox News where the State Department tampered with and fabricated interviews in order to depict the government in a positive light. Since Memphis is a blue-leaning city, this went against most of the commonly held views and manipulated residents to follow a political bias that wasn't demonstrated through the full truth. While this could have been executed in such a way to allow for healthy political discussion, the broadcasted information was not the full truth. So while the government and Fox were high-fiving each other, the Blue-leaning city of Memphis was misled into believing a false story, simply a result of Fox allowing their pro-government bias to interfere with the report. In defense of these media companies, it can be argued that news corporations producing biased and subjective news are justified through the reasoning that it helps them stand out amongst their competition. As an example, CNN saw its largest audience rate increase in 2020 simply due to its content being more emotionally driven. This demonstrates that news appealing to emotions increases rates of viewer engagement, allowing more people to be aware of current events. While this may be a fair argument, it completely destroys the core purpose of broadcasting news. A CNN reporter, Sara Sidner, was crying while delivering an important report on the rising deaths by COVID-19. Yes, the story had higher viewer engagement, but why? For the actual report or for the fact a CNN reporter was bawling on live television? So despite gaining more viewer engagement (which means more revenue for the company), subjective news not only distracts from the information being delivered but also reduces the potential severity of the subject at hand.
To conclude, the implications of news companies interfering with bias and subjective views are dangerous to society. The news causes a lack of compromise and individually formed opinions that are both necessary for a functioning democracy and society. Through these arguments, it appears clear that the sole priority of media companies is to earn profit from their tailored propaganda. Beneath your blindfold are two big eyes that hold the capability of changing everything. You are not part of the 3%, you can open your eyes and see. So, take off the blindfold. Open your eyes. See.
Works Cited
Bail, Christopher A., et al. “Exposure to Opposing Views on Social Media Can Increase Political Polarization.” PNAS, National Academy of Sciences, 11 Sept. 2018, https://www.pnas.org/content/115/37/9216.
Barstow, David, and Robin Stein. “Under Bush, a New Age of PREPACKAGED Tv News.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 13 Mar. 2005, https://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/13/politics/under-bush-a-new-age-of-prepackaged-tv-news.html.
Benveniste, Alexis. “CNN's Sara Sidner Cries During Covid-19 Report: 'We Are Literally Killing Each Other'.” CNN, Cable News Network, 12 Jan. 2021, https://edition.cnn.com/2021/01/12/media/sara-sidner-cnn-cries-covid/index.html.
Carothers, Thomas, and Andrew O’Donohue. “How to Understand the Global Spread of Political Polarization.” Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 1 Oct. 2019, https://carnegieendowment.org/2019/10/01/how-to-understand-global-spread-of-political-polarization-pub-79893.
Markus PriorWoodrow Wilson School and Department of Politics. “Media and Political Polarization.” Annual Reviews, 2013, https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/10.1146/annurev-polisci-100711-135242.
Комментарии