Commentary

Perfectly Biased

Every aspiring reporter tries to be objective. Unless they grew up in a vacuum, they should not. Everyone has biases. They should be worn on the sleeve like a badge of honor.

Information is the most valuable resource--period. It is scarce, and as time moves forward, it is never complete. Some information is vital for survival, some helps us prosper, and some just enlightens our lives. Aside from our basic sensory input, we gather our information from a vast array of sources collectively termed "media." We typically put a "the" before "media" because we associate the industry with the people behind it, not just the information itself. We know that all information we receive comes through one or more human filters--and therein lies the problem.

Among those who have an opinion, none is ever satisfied with the media. Complaints vary considerably depending on political affiliation, philosophic beliefs, and certainly the state of the nation. Conservatives denounce the "liberally biased media," foreign officials denounce our "capitalist propaganda," militia leaders have stated that Ted Koppel is a government agent, and public interest groups will declare that "70% of all statistics are skewed." While these and thousands of other accusations will continue to be made, one underlying theme is ever present--the media possesses tremendous power.

The base of this power is obvious, the media controls all information; they are the gateway between you and the truth. This is why fear of the media is justified and complacency is understandable. The media appears to be both the unstoppable force and the immovable object to anyone trying to fight it, and it becomes a global quagmire of skewed reality to anyone seeking the absolute truth. These problems, however, exist mainly for the inexperienced. They can be circumvented with varying degrees of success depending solely on how much time and energy one is willing to expend.

When dealing with the "mass-media,"which can be defined arbitrarily as long as we include the realization that it is the form of media most common, most accepted, or perhaps hardest to escape, there is no explanation more valid nor simple for all that occurs than this: the media follows itself. Like a puppy chasing its tail, the mass-media often uses itself as its primary source of information. Because of the very nature of the mass-media, stories are repeated at a rate that grows geometrically as more and more media outlets pick up on someone else's news coverage. An almost organic quality is visible throughout the process because each time the same story is presented, it is slightly altered--strategic facts are left out, others are emphasized, the tone is changed, and even the implied morality of the event is adjusted--all the while each new version is sent back through all previous sources until a final hybrid is perfected.

The cyclical process of news alteration and perfection shows definite trends. These trends are manipulated during the recycling itself, and they always seem to be part of yet greater trends in national and global thought. This is exactly what conspiracy theorists and anyone else with a gripe point to as evidence of thought control, governmental influence, or any manner of masterminded plot.

The fact remains, however, that no one person or group could control something as vast and multifaceted as the media. This is not to say that no one tries, for in fact almost every reporter, editor, photographer, and CEO has a subtle righteousness that they wish to impart upon the world. Our salvation is that so many different agendas are present in this cyclical process that they cancel out all but the most fundamental and acceptable biases, and the trends follow the lowest common denominator.

Another key to understanding the mass-media is that, as the name implies, it is meant for the masses. Though I have already stated that information is the most valuable resource, the general populous has a great deal of difficulty separating emotion from fact. This is why the mass-media covers the most emotional stories in such depth, regardless of their objective importance. People have developed an insatiable craving for "juicy stories" and of course the media follows suit. This is not even the extent of our self-destructive naivete--we have also proven ourselves to be extremely susceptible to statistics, governmental reports, alleged experts, and the belief that anything in print is true.

It is hard to blame members of the mass-media for giving people what they want. It would in fact be a tad bit presumptuous for a group that thinks of themselves as objective to dictate what we hear or should want to hear. It is that same illusion of objectivity that forces all bias in the mass- media to be subtle and unobtrusive. Carefully worded statements and the perfect statistic can give any news report an air of irrefutability while still fulfilling some specific agenda. However, the very fact that biases in the mass-media are subtle makes them infinitely more dangerous and persuasive than any outright statement of opinion.

The media, however, has many components outside the realm of mass-media, and through these one can avoid all of the associated pitfalls. Of particular importance are those publications and broadcasts which serve a specific interest, like the Wall Street Journal or Backpacker Magazine, and those which have a predefined, explicit slant, like the 700 Club or the Rush Limbaugh Show.

Issue oriented media can be very useful because they deal with only that part of the news that directly affects their focus, and ideally they have a higher quality and quantity of information on their chosen topic than the mass-media could. Specifically biased media often cover broad topics in a uniform manner, so that even if all the facts aren't there, the missing ones are easily guessed - and even then there need be few missing facts since the expected audience already agrees with the source. Remember also that mass-media in other countries is quite different from our own, and simply listening to a foreign newscast will provide an entirely new slant and new facts to any internationally recognized story.

It seems obvious that the openly slanted and issue oriented forms of media are far superior to mass-media, but even this conclusion relies on the assumption that most people know what they believe, know what the political and philosophic repercussions of those beliefs are, and know which side of the story they want to hear. Unfortunately most people don't know these things, which explains why mass-media has such a huge market.

For those who understand the full implications of issue oriented and biased media, the choice is a simple matter of efficiency. Only a few publications or broadcasts need be digested in a day to completely update someone on the news of the world as it interests them. The right form of media for that person will give all the facts they want and very few others, and will perhaps give commentary that puts the news in what that person sees as the proper perspective.

If there was such a thing as a perfectly unbiased, truly objective, and completely factual news story, there would still be two types of journalists--those who report the perfect news stories, and those who apply commentary, analysis, and humor to put the news into perspective. There is no such thing as the perfect news story or the reporter that writes them--we're all human. Luckily the second type of journalist does exist, and right now he is going to give everyone some advice on how to learn the most about the world we live in.

Use as many sources of information as possible, including newspapers, magazines, and both domestic and foriegn television and radio, in order to find out about the highest number of issues and the most perspectives on each. If you know what you believe, then add in a heavy reliance on a few biased sources that you know you agree with.

Even these ideals for an imperfect situation are themselves imperfect, because very few people have the time to trade for all this information. If you factor in efficiency, and again if you know what side of the story you want to hear, then the optimal choice is an openly-biased source of broad coverage. The Commentator aspires to this description.

J. Edward Good, a junior majoring in political science, is Publisher of the Oregon Commentator