Read on Twitter
One of my FB friends shared one of those irritating "media bias" charts intended to group outlets by perceived left/right ideology and it& #39;s reminding me I should turn my standard rant about this into an essay or something.
These charts always end up being reductive and ridiculous for a number of reasons, including that political ideology, even in the US, is fundamentally much more complicated than that.
So you end up with the New York Times grouped with Jacobin & Breitbart with National Review.
So you end up with the New York Times grouped with Jacobin & Breitbart with National Review.
Their underlying argument seems to be that conscious media consumerism is a matter of diverse perspectives, and thus if you read Jacobin and The Federalist& #39;s takes on a given issue, you& #39;re getting a well-rounded perspective.
Which is laughable.
Which is laughable.
I think the idea of grouping outlets by ideology is fraught, to say the least, but if you& #39;re going to do it, I think you need 3 axes to be of any use:
-Left/right
-Establishment/antiestablishment
-Quality original reporting/not actually doing journalism
-Left/right
-Establishment/antiestablishment
-Quality original reporting/not actually doing journalism
But also - there& #39;s nothing in these tools that talks about reliability of information or what a reported piece versus an opinion column versus just some random& #39;s dudes ramblings with no editorial process looks like, and that& #39;s such a disservice to people seeking quality info.
Unless you live in DC, your most reliable, least spin-driven source for information about a given topic is probably going to be a local newspaper, radio station, a niche online news site or a neighborhood publication. Or some combo of those.
When I talk to students about journalism, I am often asked what I think about explicitly partisan or ideological news sites, and they& #39;re usually surprised by my answer. Which is: I care far less about your viewpoint than your journalistic principles.
Are you doing reporting or just aggregating? Are you seeking a variety of perspectives? What& #39;s your fact-checking process like? Are you writing for this community, or just about them?
And there& #39;s like, a wild variety of answers to these questions for one publication& #39;s stories.
And there& #39;s like, a wild variety of answers to these questions for one publication& #39;s stories.
There has been so much ink spilled on journalistic bias and whether it exists and whether it& #39;s bad and I don& #39;t need to rehash that all but I will say:
Journalists and journalism can and should have a viewpoint and values. And values are not necessarily partisan.
Journalists and journalism can and should have a viewpoint and values. And values are not necessarily partisan.
Government should be open and transparent and accountable to the public is a value. It& #39;s one nearly everyone in the U.S. would agree with, though people quibble over the details. It& #39;s also one even mainstream journalists have been find embracing.
Anyway, convincing the bulk of the public that most journalists are not beholden to a particular political party may be a lost cause at this point.
But we shouldn& #39;t let the fear of that stop us from talking about values, what our Overton window looks like & why we do what we do.
But we shouldn& #39;t let the fear of that stop us from talking about values, what our Overton window looks like & why we do what we do.
And if you want to be a better media consumer, find a local outlet you like or a national newsroom that does in-depth reporting about a topic you care about, follow aggregated links back to sources, think about framing & stop relying on simplified charts.
