The IMPerial Nature of Media Bias: A Critical Analysis

The assertion that the media does have a duty to be impartial is a subject of ongoing debate. However, the plural nature of this assertion reveals the inherent bias within the media landscape. The media, in its various forms, often presents opinions as facts, making the notion of impartiality harder to achieve.

Unveiling the Bias Beneath the Surface

Media outlets like television news stations in the UK purport to present unbiased news, but the process is far from impartial. The scripts for news segments, often read from autocues, are crafted by a team of writers and ultimately approved by producers. These producers decide the overall tone and the inclusion of opposing viewpoints. However, the amount of time allocated to these viewpoints remains at the discretion of the producers, raising questions about true impartiality:

Selection of Interviewees: Who decides which members of the public to interview, and which interviews to televise? The producers, of course, making the selection based on their own biases and priorities. Worthiness of Presentation: Who decides which news items are given prime time exposure and in what order? Again, it is the producers who make these critical decisions, influenced by their own perspectives and agendas. Word Choice: The wording of news items is also a product of the producers' preferences and biases, leaving no room for genuine impartiality.

The idea of impartiality becomes further undermined by the fact that there is always a 'boss' within the team, whose views carry more weight due to their prominence and responsibility. This hierarchical structure ensures that no news item can truly be impartial, as both what is said and what is not said contributes to the overall narrative.

Bias as a Problem of Dishonesty

The dishonesty of the bias within the media is particularly problematic. Take, for instance, the case of the late Paul Harvey. Unlike many contemporary news personalities, Paul Harvey openly acknowledged that his program, Paul Harvey News and Commentary, included both news and his personal opinions. This transparency allowed his audience to distinguish between fact and opinion:

“I speak to you in all sincerity, if with no one else’s permission but my own. I do not know what the future holds for you but I sure do know that the future for each of you starts right now and that the truth about what is happening in the world can be briefly told in a few minutes … And then we’ll talk.”

However, the modern news landscape often conflates opinion with fact. Opinion pieces are presented as undeniable truths, exploiting the credibility that comes with the term "news." This dishonesty not only misleads the public but also polarizes different viewpoints, leading to extreme and dangerous consequences:

Exploitation of Credibility: By presenting opinions as facts, news media exploit the trust that people have in them, turning opinion into a powerful tool. Misinformation: This trend has led to the spread of misinformation, where people believe that their viewpoints are backed by incontrovertible evidence. Polarization: Disagreement with the dominant bias is now seen as a threat, justifying aggressive and often violent responses.

The Consequences of Integrity Failures

The breakdown of integrity and emotional maturity within the media is alarming. The assumption that anyone who disagrees with a particular ideology is a racist or is trying to destroy the world justifies violence and unrest. This polarization is not a reflection of maturity but a reflection of the failure to uphold ethical standards:

“I mean, we talk a lot about our emotional maturity today, but as Steven Salamon said, ‘in my humble opinion.’ Perhaps arrogance has usurped humble in today’s ‘news.’”

It is crucial for media outlets to acknowledge their inherent biases and present opinions transparently. Only then can the public make informed decisions and foster a healthier, more nuanced discourse in society.