Ability to pick-an-editor polarizes Americans
In the 1960s, Walter Cronkite delivered television news. To journalists, Walter was a god – an unbiased reporter who didn’t spin stories. Americans got facts and formed their own opinions.
However, the U.S. only had three television stations in the 1960s. If a station’s stories teetered to the political left or right, they’d offend a significant number of viewers, and the people who owned ABC, NBC and CBS didn’t like newscasters that lost viewers because ad revenue fell. The system in 1960 forced journalists to take a middle road.
Not today.
The left blames FOX News for skewing issues to the right. The right blames other media for leaning to the left. Both are right.
Americans today play pick-an-editor. They have so many news choices to read, tune in or click, that they can pick a news source that spins information to support their already-formed opinions.
A radical example to show how this dysfunction works: Assume a potential-but-not-yet member of the Ku Klux Klan stumbles upon a seeming news source that:
- Includes white-versus-black stories 30% of the time
- Has subtext in any story with a black participant that says “This is another injustice where blacks blame whites”
- The viewer has been digesting this station’s news for years
After three years, this viewer:
- Assumes the stories’ biases are facts because he’s heard this “truth” over and over
- Thinks most people believe what he believes because, my god, this is a really popular news station if I watch it
- America is clearly on the wrong track
- Other people are idiots and something must be done
It’s pleasant to hear views that parrot our own. If we hate Obamacare, it’s sweet music to hear a FOX newscaster say over and over again that it’s a failure. If we like Obamacare, we love to hear (in a stuff-it-up-your-butt kind of way) how many Americans now have coverage.
How do you dig the facts out of biased news? Check the next two stories:
© 2015 Smithtakes.com