Media Bias in America
Sometimes it seems as if the whole world is spinning madly out of control. The omnipresent media outlets, such as CNN and Fox News, along with the constant drone of talk radio shows, are always there to remind us of every twist and turn in every news story across the globe. Every nuance of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have been covered in great detail; every word of the proposed health care bill has been parsed and re-parsed for the slightest tinge of meaning; every economic statistic has been interpreted and re-interpreted a thousand times over to discover some hidden agenda or unknown consequence; in fact every single story that has been covered by the media has been spun a hundred different ways, and every story has been colored according to the bias of that particular media source. Somewhere, I’m quite sure, within the whirling dervish created by the never-ending parade of “talking heads” lies the real truth of the matter (i.e. of all matters).
In the nineteenth century a French philosopher named Rene Descartes came up with a scheme for figuring out how to know the difference between truth and deception. He called his philosophy “the method of the doubt”. He started off by asking how any of us could be sure that our whole lives were nothing but a series of deceptions? How do we know that everything in our lives have not been orchestrated by some omnipotent, perhaps malevolent, power to deceive us and keep us from the truth? Through a long and somewhat convoluted series of arguments, Descartes came to the conclusion that the very act of him being able to question his own existence proved that he existed; that he could think (i.e. I think therefore I am). Because we are able to think, we have the ability to tell the truth from lies.
Although it has been a long time since Descartes walked among the living, perhaps it would still be a good idea if the media in America remembered his conclusion; that we humans do have the ability to think on our own, and we do have the ability (although not always) to tell the truth from lies. In the realm of American politics we have never been so divided along ideological lines, and the media, along with its deep-seated biases, has a lot to do with it. Sometimes I long for the “good old days” when a news story was presented, and readers/listeners were left to arrive at their own conclusions based on the facts of the story. Where have you gone Joe DiMaggio?
—Rich
In fact Socrates was the guy who became doubtfull about the thruth.
Are there any new things said after Aristoteles, Plato and Socrates?
Europe follows the Greco-Roman tradition, the USA created some kind of ideology, based upon normative and strict religious consertavisme, where money became the hard power instead of objectivity (as that exists? yes, in fenomenology..)
Good point you made about Descartes, next time Erasmus please..))
Kindest
ps. in fact, philosophy must be compulsory on high schools
[Translate]
I prefer Locke’s method.
Several Philosophers were sitting around debating how many teeth a horse had, Locke excused himself and went out to the barn and counted them.
In today’s news the Media would rather get many people together to debate how many teeth a horse has than sending someone out to count them.
[Translate]
Since you once wrote:
“I listen to several cable news shows (never Fox)”
Did you decide to stop thinking about them? After all, if you do not watch things with which you disagree how can you learn?
[Translate]
Miquel de Unamuno (Catholic Existentialist) blunted and rejected Decartes and said: “I feel, therefore, I am.” Human being are not robots that can separate emotions from their thinking. And as we have learned from the Logical Positivists, our senses are fooled all the time. How can we trust the knowledge we collect with our limited faculties?
[Translate]
I struggle with this: I love news and information…but it DOES seem like too much of a good thing!! And because there’s “too much” it seems that each niche must differentiate themselves from “the others” and often in derisive and divisive ways. And next thing you know, there’s a feedback loop between “media” and “followers” that seems to create larger and larger rifts in perspective as more extreme views become the norm. And to your topic here…where IS “the truth” in all of this noise? And just how does one sift through all of the opinions for the facts?
[Translate]
Hans,
Yes, in fact there were many new ideas after Socrates, Plato and Aristotle. It seems to me that the world today is basically divided between the existentialists, who see our lives as a purposeless chain of random events, and the Deists, who see our lives as pre-ordained by God to serve a purpose only known to Him.
[Translate]
Project Savior,
What a great concept; to actually determine the truth empirically! Unfortunately, the truth can be a very illusive thing to find. It reminds me of the seven blind men who were asked to define what an elephant looked like. As a group they defined the elephant correctly, but as individuals they were all wrong.
[Translate]
Harrison,
Good question, Harrison. The answer is that one does not have to suffer through the blatantly biased news coverage at Fox News in order to understand the conservative viewpoint. In fact, Fox does not do the conservatives a favor by promoting the ravings of people like Hannity, Beck and O’Reilley; it only makes them lose credibility. There are many, many sources within the media to get a more balanced, and more truthful view of conservatism.
[Translate]
VH,
Hmmm, a Catholic Existentialist; now there is a real oxymoron! More to the point, VH, I believe you are very correct in suggesting our decisions(i.e. our logical thinking) are colored, perhaps even corrupted, by our emotions. As human beings, we are indeed limited in our ability to understand the real truth of the matter.
[Translate]
WillOaks,
The “business” aspect of news reporting has a lot to do with the extreme ways that the various news outlets try to differentiate themselves from one another. Because of this need for “moneyed sponsors” the media companies have abandoned the truth for profits. I wish I knew how to sift through all the “noise” to find the real truth. I suppose it all comes back to the old story of the seven blind men and the elephant (referred to above).
[Translate]
I don’t have anything to contribute to the “philosopy” portion of today’s post, (unless you count Monty Python’s Philosopher’s Song), but the state of news reporting today is alarming. I too wish everyone could go back to just reporting the facts of the story… all important stories.
I have to reject watching Fox news… not because they go after the President, but because they only go after THIS President. The last 8 years they functioned as an unpaid arm of the White House Press Office. They have absollutely zero credibility. If it’s Republican, it’s good; if it’s Democrat, it’s bad. That’s not journalism, that’s being a shill.
A lifetime ago in Journalism classes, I learned that the press should maintain an adversarial relationship with the Administration… ANY Administration. Their job is to question those in power, on behalf of the public. Just as those i power will strive to present only those items which suit its purpose.
Would that all news organization pick up that mantel.
[Translate]
bluzdude,
The founding fathers of this country understood the importance of a free press, and the legitimate role it plays in a society where the government derives its power from the governed. When the press (i.e. the media) foments discord and rebellion by spreading lies and deception, a boundary of legitimacy has been crossed. When the powers of the media are controlled by moneyed special interests, whose only concern is to maintain the status quo, and to protect the privileges of wealth, then the boundary of legitimacy has again been crossed.
[Translate]
It is very rare to find objective news anywhere these days. Some outlets are looking to further a particular agenda, but I think that many are just too concerned with creating “exciting television” instead of providing information.
I have an evangelical friend who was did not pass the screening process for a local news show where they wanted to have guests from opposing sides. They basically spelled out for her that her approach for understanding where the other side was coming from but wanting to state her case was not going to make for an exciting show. They wanted a screaming match between both sides, not an exchange of ideas, and I think that this is typical at all levels of broadcast media.
[Translate]
“Hmmm, a Catholic Existentialist; now there is a real oxymoron!”
Hey, I blame it all on Soren Kierkegaard:D
[Translate]
I agree very much with the spirit of your post–people need to engage their brains when they take in information, not just absorb and regurgitate it. Watching news programs is almost like watching people talk about sports–it seems like everyone’s “picked their team” and roots for them while talking trash about “the other guys.”
I’m curious–are there any news sources (televised, printed, or otherwise) that you think do a pretty good job of just presenting the facts? How do you feel about BBC, for example?
[Translate]
Leave your response!
Join Us!
Subscribe to this site's RSS feed.
Categories
Worth Watching
?hd=1And you said…
Blogroll
Close preview
Close preview
Close preview
Close preview
Close preview
Tweet Some
Tag Cloud
Click here for Extreme Reading!
Our Archives
Who's Online
Most Commented
Subscribe to Our RSS feed.