"Resolved: That the American media work against the best interest of the
American public."
In the debate, there maybe some dissension on what "the best interests ..." are.
Of course, I expect that we agree that it is access to unbiased report
of the facts, but as no one can be entirely unbiased, there is a slant
in every report, be it ever so slight. I would contend that the only
way this can be recognized is by information from other sources that
have a different slant, or personal knowledge of the subject.
There are two problems:
That individuals can only - or choose only - to inform themselves
from one or similarly inclined sources;
That the various media all slant the same way.
If the latter occurs, of course, the public has little chance of
recognizing bias - hence the control of the media in autocratic
countries. In other countries, the danger is control of the media in
too few hands.
The former problem is one most of us have, our personal bias to read
or view media that support our attitudes. Once one has recognized
that bias exists everywhere, then a thoughtful person can try to
identify it, but not always, as well-founded letters to the editor
sometimes reveal. (Nautico's "carpers" in one of his questions, who
IMO do serve a purpose by putting the other slant in the same paper.
But we don't know what letters are not published.)
The individual medium cannot be blamed for its bias, one must question
why it appears that one can junk them all together as the debate topic
does, ask if this is correct. |
