Forums → WEPR → Should we trust the media?

Let's be fair. There is a distinction to be made between media and straight up propaganda - even if there are some countries in which the media is controlled to such a degree that they are effectively propaganda machines.

But to hone in on the question, I think we need to be clear on what we mean by 'trusting the media'. This is a case of receiving information via testimony, and this is something we're pretty good at - at least in general. Most of the time we trust our informants, but what does this amount to?

There is a weak sense of 'trust' in which we can take ourselves to know that such-and-such is the case via testimony. And for the most part, I think we can trust the media in this sense. So if there a report that such-and-such took place yesterday, I'd say we can take ourselves to know that through a media outlet.

Where things get tricky is when the media shifts from reporting on events to interpreting those events. This is where certain biases are going to be the most relevant. To be clear, there is an implicit bias in place in a very broad sense. What the media does (or, especially, does not) report on is naturally going to have us focus on specific events at the cost of not focusing on other events. This places a certain significance on those covered events that might not accurately reflect their actual significance. Or, at the very least, such a view might under-represent certain other viable perspectives.

At any rate, what we have to do at this point is use our cognitive faculties as critical thinkers. In particular, we can evaluate claims for biases or hidden agendas. We can also do additional research in order to determine what we ought to believe with respect to a given state of affairs.

In short, the shift in how we think about information occurs when we go from 'S did such-and-such' to judgments about whether S should have done that and what that says about S. It's at this point that we need to put on our critical thinking caps and decide for ourselves what we ought or ought not believe.

But I do think there's a larger worry looming in the fact that we're not experts. If, say, a political analyst comes on a news show and provides certain information, we're not in a great position to assess that information. Without a particular expertise in a given field, we often have a hard time sorting the good information from the bad.

Many people form beliefs based on an already held world view, value system, and beliefs. But it can often be the case that some (or all) of these convictions are faulty. So perhaps a more worrying question is whether we can trust ourselves to be responsible epistemic agents - especially when it comes to heated or controversial topics.

To answer the original question, if you can't trust any of the media to get your information, what can you trust? How will you get the news?

Where things get tricky is when the media shifts from reporting on events to interpreting those events. This is where certain biases are going to be the most relevant. To be clear, there is an implicit bias in place in a very broad sense. What the media does (or, especially, does not) report on is naturally going to have us focus on specific events at the cost of not focusing on other events.

I am sure you know that it is extremely hard even for experienced journalists to make a report without indirectly commenting on it at all. Even the tiniest word, or the way the sentence is put can be a comment. Here is an example:

'Mr. S, the minister of economics, said the following:". The part "minister of economics" seems insignificant doesn't it? Well, it is actually an indirect comment. Everyone reading this news report most likely already knows that S is the financial minister. But putting it in a sentence is the reporter's way giving credit to the speaker (or in a way undermining him, depending on the matter he spoke about).

At any rate, what we have to do at this point is use our cognitive faculties as critical thinkers. In particular, we can evaluate claims for biases or hidden agendas. We can also do additional research in order to determine what we ought to believe with respect to a given state of affairs.

I'd take it one step further and say we have to do that. We have a responsibility as citizens and grown-ups. And not just on a national level. We are global citizens as well.

But I do think there's a larger worry looming in the fact that we're not experts. If, say, a political analyst comes on a news show and provides certain information, we're not in a great position to assess that information. Without a particular expertise in a given field, we often have a hard time sorting the good information from the bad.

Precisely. That is the hard part. And why we need to get our information from the most independent sources we can find (which is also hard to determine for the same reasons).

To answer the original question, if you can't trust any of the media to get your information, what can you trust? How will you get the news?

In my experience, word of mouth is very efficient at only passing on the most basic aspects of a story. If there's something you hear about that intrigues you you can go online and do further research. I haven't willingly watched the news since before I started highschool, but it still only took me a few extra hours to learn that Bin Laden was dead. And that's all I learned, "Osama bin Laden is dead." All the minor details were completely irrelevant to me and I didn't hear about them until forums started bringing them up in conspiracy theory discussions.

I am sure you know that it is extremely hard even for experienced journalists to make a report without indirectly commenting on it at all. Even the tiniest word, or the way the sentence is put can be a comment.

Do you honestly believe that the news does that unintentionally? Reporters are fed their lines through teleprompters while they're on the air. With the exception of field reporters, everything they say is part of a scripted performance. There's also a well known left-wing bias in most news shows. I find it hard to believe that with such a well known and pervasive bias, reporters are only unintentionally trying to influence how people think. For example:

Earlier I said that I haven't intentionally watched the news in a long time. Right now I'm staying at someone else's home while I watch their dog and they're on vacation. They record ABC World News every day and yesterday I timed my dinner poorly and wound up watching it while eating. Yesterday's story included a 30 second mention of two $5 million dollar settlements when police killed someone. The first was a latino man who, despite the cops having their guns out and their orders to keep his hands on his head, was flailing his hands around and even took off his hat in a way that blocked the officers' view of one of his hands. I don't know this because the news mentioned it, the only thing they said about the incident was repeatedly stating that he was unarmed. I know this because they showed a video while talking about how this unarmed man was shot by the police. The second half of this 30 second story (yes, both settlements were covered in that 30 seconds with little mention of the incident) was the "choking death" of a 500 lb black man. I don't know if we discussed this incident on these forums before, but the original story is that a police officer half the height and 1/5 the weight of this "victim" put him in a chokehold to bring him to the ground after he resisted arrest. What was frequently ignored, and is apparently still being ignored, was the fact that the black man didn't die from being choked he died from being pinned down to get arrested because of a weight related disease. He could have died in his sleep with that disease, but because a cop put him in a chokehold almost every news organization blamed the cop.

Both of those stories glossed over or ignored the facts to make the police seem like blood-thirsty killers, and both were scripted and rehearsed performances. Both stories also started that way which is why the cities had to settle for such large amounts. In the court of public opinion the cops were already guilty.

I'd take it one step further and say we have to do that. We have a responsibility as citizens and grown-ups. And not just on a national level. We are global citizens as well.

We live in a vast nation with a huge population and multiple 24 hour news networks. Do you know how much time it would take to research every story? That's a big part of why we have news media, so that people don't have to research every notable event in the country. Much like every other expert or specialized job, we expect those whose job it is to do the research and know the story so that we can trust them. The fact that they don't research and only report the part of the story that fits the companies' political bias is why there is a question as to whether or not we can trust the media.

Precisely. That is the hard part. And why we need to get our information from the most independent sources we can find (which is also hard to determine for the same reasons).

Independent sources are, by definition, not a part of mainstream media. They're also smaller and less likely to be under any kind of public scrutiny. And then there's the fact that most independent sources are local and bow to the political bias of the public make them just as unreliable as mainstream sources.

Where things get tricky is when the media shifts from reporting on events to interpreting those events. This is where certain biases are going to be the most relevant. To be clear, there is an implicit bias in place in a very broad sense. What the media does (or, especially, does not) report on is naturally going to have us focus on specific events at the cost of not focusing on other events. This places a certain significance on those covered events that might not accurately reflect their actual significance. Or, at the very least, such a view might under-represent certain other viable perspectives.

I find this to be the most common problem with media. They rarely report facts, and instead fabricate stories based on part of the events of a given situation. I suppose you could call this a symptom of the public's desire for entertainment as many people already do. Instead of sharing information the media is instead competing with general television and the film industry. But that hardly seems to be a valid excuse for not doing their jobs and abusing peoples' trust by not reporting facts they need to know. There's also the matter of how it affects people. Throughout history various forms of non-news media have been blamed for unwanted behavior, but no one seems to study how such a blatant bias in news media impacts people.

Anyway, should we trust the media? When I say media, I mean the mainstream media.

My answer is, obviously, no. The bias is so blatant that the mainstream media no longer reports the news, they tell people what to think. Word of mouth and internet discussions are more than sufficient to bring any major news stories to your attention, and if you feel like talking about something it's better to do research on the subject than enter with a pre-formed opinion based on what little information the media has given you.

In my experience, word of mouth is very efficient at only passing on the most basic aspects of a story.

In my experience, it is not remotely capable of passing on the truly important news. The mainstream media not only tell people what to think by commenting on the stories they broadcast, they also often divert people from important events by presenting them for a very little time, if at all. So, a different story, properly presented can distract the public from a real issue. As such, word of mouth can be effective at passing on the facts, but totally unreliable on passing the right facts.

Do you honestly believe that the news does that unintentionally? Reporters are fed their lines through teleprompters while they're on the air.

Not at all. I just said that it is pretty hard to avoid even if a reporter wants to avoid it.

Do you know how much time it would take to research every story?

Obviously not every story. You can try to filter them for starters. If you don't know how (obviously not "you" specifically), you can start by some minor researching for the most important ones, or at least the ones that concern you more directly (at least first).

Independent sources are, by definition, not a part of mainstream media. They're also smaller and less likely to be under any kind of public scrutiny. And then there's the fact that most independent sources are local and bow to the political bias of the public make them just as unreliable as mainstream sources.

With the word "independent", I did not mean simply, not part of the mainstream media. I meant independent of any interests of the owners, government, writers etc. Hard to find these days indeed.

I don't trust any of the media absolutely, as they have a tendency to put their own spin on events, although I have a greater trust of the BBC and The Independent, because the former is required to be unbiased by law, and the latter just happens to be a fairly well written and centrist newspaper which collects a wide variety of opinions. Also, I have a deep confidence in Private Eye to skewer all aspects of the establishment with equal viciousness.

Plus, most people are sheeple, not free thinkers.

Everyone reading this news report most likely already knows that S is the financial minister. But putting it in a sentence is the reporter's way giving credit to the speaker (or in a way undermining him, depending on the matter he spoke about).

In my experience, word of mouth is very efficient at only passing on the most basic aspects of a story. If there's something you hear about that intrigues you you can go online and do further research. I haven't willingly watched the news since before I started highschool, but it still only took me a few extra hours to learn that Bin Laden was dead.

Do you honestly believe that the news does that unintentionally? Reporters are fed their lines through teleprompters while they're on the air. With the exception of field reporters, everything they say is part of a scripted performance.

There's also a well known left-wing bias in most news shows.

The fact that they don't research and only report the part of the story that fits the companies' political bias is why there is a question as to whether or not we can trust the media.

And then there's the fact that most independent sources are local and bow to the political bias of the public make them just as unreliable as mainstream sources.

I find this to be the most common problem with media. They rarely report facts, and instead fabricate stories based on part of the events of a given situation. I suppose you could call this a symptom of the public's desire for entertainment as many people already do. Instead of sharing information the media is instead competing with general television and the film industry. But that hardly seems to be a valid excuse for not doing their jobs and abusing peoples' trust by not reporting facts they need to know.

I have more trust in Wikipedia to be honest. At least Wiki usually posts sources.

Trusting Wikipedia is trusting a person who doublespeaks.

Trusting Wikipedia is trusting a person who doublespeaks.

Not really. It tries to be as objective as possible, with as much general knowledge too. Sources are cited often, articles are being cleaned up, it is quite a trustworthy site.

"Should we trust the media"

If this question turned into a debate format, I believe the burden of proof would be placed on the affirming party (yes, we should trust the media). I will go on the other side, and say that even if the media was less biased and more truthful, that wouldn't necessarily be grounds that we should trust it.

News from media is often unrelated to the viewers or contains trivalities (will it be sunny or rainy tomorrow). Without thinking, a viewer could easily memorize stupid mindless facts that no one cares about. Very few people who watch presidential debates have any influence who will be our next president. Dumb celebraties are rewarded. No one is directly affected.

There are some exceptions, for example radios are usually good at reporting local traffic. These are more factual, but they don't need to be trusted except in cases of emergencies which are rare.

I believe in general people should think critically about reporters, even if they have shown to be factually accurate before.

To be honest, I never trusted propagan- err I meant journalists.
They have a narrative to follow, which is questionable due to it alters the truth.

Anyway, should we trust the media? When I say media, I mean the mainstream media with their so-called "journalists".
last edited Aug 22 2015 07:36 am by roydotor2000

Nope, do not trust the media!

As GamerGate has shown us, absolutely no lol

As GamerGate has shown us, absolutely no lol

Ahem, Every media outlet is biased because humans. That's why I rather talk to a chair than a propagan-err I meant 'journalist'

Big networks are owned by rich parasites so they show you what they want you to see. It's good to have an alternative like TV5 (French channel) for example, if you live in the US. Of course, it helps if you understand French.

@SSTG Well... there's the BBC World Service. Which is public owned.