Media and Newspapers

[Annoynymous]

Recently, i have been thinking about media outlets and newspapers. What i have seen is that they are deeply involved in presenting "news" to the people which we think as "objective" and  "fact". But are they really?

I have observed that what they present as news are merely contexualization   of an incident according to their position/biases and they spread in a massive scale. Now one may say that we already know that by seeing fox news or CNN, but my point is, even the most seemingly " factual" media outlet is doing it and most people are unaware of it. They are unconsciously subscribing to those media channel which resonate with them the most and confirm their own biases. I have noticed that in myself too.

I often watch political shows like the hill's rising with Krystal and Saagar. Recently i observed the show's pattern and noticed that they also present the news from their biased point of view, even if i find their analysis nuanced and unique from the mainstream media. Still, it is biased imo.

So my question is, can newspapers and media outlets really present news as objective and impartial as they like to claim? If they cannot, isn't it wrong for them to say that their news channel is "unbiased" and "objective"?.   

[Parththakkar12]

8 minutes ago, Annoynymous said:

Recently, i have been thinking about media outlets and newspapers. What i have seen is that they are deeply involved in presenting "news" to the people which we think as "objective" and  "fact". But are they really?

I have observed that what they present as news are merely contexualization   of an incident according to their position/biases and they spread in a massive scale. Now one may say that we already know that by seeing fox news or CNN, but my point is, even the most seemingly " factual" media outlet is doing it and most people are unaware of it. They are unconsciously subscribing to those media channel which resonate with them the most and confirm their own biases. I have noticed that in myself too.

I often watch political shows like the hill's rising with Krystal and Saagar. Recently i observed the show's pattern and noticed that they also present the news from their biased point of view, even if i find their analysis nuanced and unique from the mainstream media. Still, it is biased imo.

So my question is, can newspapers and media outlets really present news as objective and impartial as they like to claim? If they cannot, isn't it wrong for them to say that their news channel is "unbiased" and "objective"?.   

There is no such thing as impartiality or unbiasedness when it comes to presenting news. The presentation will always serve the biases of the presenter and their friends up above. I believe objectivity exists as an amalgamation of all perspectives involved. The more perspectives you're able to integrate relative to the subject of your reporting, the more objective your reporting will be. This isn't unbiased per se, rather it integrates everyone's biases to give a holistic picture. Obviously, media today doesn't do this.

As news consumers, it would be really good if we can stop considering what they say as absolutely true and see it for what it really is - a perspective. This is a more objective way of consuming it.

[apparentlynoself]

The news is objective when it shows a video of a guy getting shot or report on how it happened. But then it gets subjective when it starts pointing fingers at people and creating stories about what happened.

The problem is that even if the news shows something objective and makes no subjective comment, you will interpret this situation subjectively. So if a guy gets shot, you will interpret this in your own way and this means that you have already turned the objective news topic into a subjective one. But even if you don't, the news still sees this situation subjectively and will make comments on it, meaning that you will probably not find an objective news topic out there.

[Annoynymous]

@Parththakkar12 but they claim to be unbiased, shouldn't they clearly state their standpoint so that general people don't get confused? I think they should be.

[Annoynymous]

@apparentlynoself what if they all most in all cases, become subjective in a particular way,  in Compliance with their own ideology, even with their own selfish motive? They can surely lead people into believing things in a way they themselves like them to believe. How can you make general people aware of this often intentionally enforced "subjectivity" of big news media corporation? 

Edited June 13, 2020 by Annoynymous

[Parththakkar12]

17 minutes ago, Annoynymous said:

@Parththakkar12 but they claim to be unbiased, shouldn't they clearly state their standpoint so that general people don't get confused? I think they should be.

Good point. The materialist paradigm misrepresents their epistemology. It will define what counts as 'factual' or 'true' or 'real' in a self-biased manner! This is a tricky one for our culture to break out of. It affects science too.

[apparentlynoself]

15 minutes ago, Annoynymous said:

@apparentlynoself what if they all most in all cases, become subjective in a particular way,  in Compliance with their own ideology, even with their own selfish motive? They can surely lead people into believing things in a way they themselves like them to believe. How can you make general people aware of this often intentionally enforced "subjectivity" of big news media corporation? 

Well, that's what I was saying. However you turn it, the news topic will be subjective. I have not met any topic that was delivered in a non subjective fashion.

The only way to make people aware of this is through educating them about this and similar problems. Everyone needs to think for themselves and realise what is happening. But this is extremely tough in practice and our mind is tricking us every fucking second of our life.