In Defense of Mainstream Media

Originally published at The Republic of Freedom on February 24, 2019 by Gwayne Gautreaux

Since the onset of the presidential election, I have frequently found myself being forced to defend positions that I normally would not consider myself akin to. The condemnation of mainstream media has been one of the issues forcing me to look through a much wider lens.

Those who have initiated the biggest attacks on the mainstream media constantly cite how dishonest and biased the media has become all the while listening to another source of mainstream media bias, which, in part, delegitimizes the claim of media bias. If it sounds like we’ve crossed over into another dimension, it’s only because some of this only makes sense in the twilight zone.

There is absolutely no doubt that many mainstream media outlets cover political issues with a bias. I don’t believe anyone denies that.

Standardizing the Standards

However, in what I consider to be one of the biggest anomalies within the context of the contentious relationship between the president and mainstream media is the fact that, for some reason, Fox News has been somehow able to absolve and absent themselves from the conversation of mainstream media bias. Clearly, it is no secret that Fox and CNN push opposite agendas. Yet evening after evening, with a straight-face and a general acceptance from the audience, Fox reporters tout how the “fake” mainstream news media is destroying the integrity of the country.

Ironically, I espouse much closer to the political ideology of conservative news outlets. However, my issue has nothing to do with partisan politics. Rather, it’s concerning that Fox news and its listeners hold CNN to a different standard than the standard to which they hold themselves, especially if listening to Fox News is the basis that invokes the fake-news label.

The logic of laying this blanketed claim is riddled with so much inconsistency and contradiction.

In the first place, listening to the irony from Fox consistently touting how the fake and biased mainstream news outlets eschew facts and drive a particular narrative leads me to believe they either do not consider themselves to be biased, or do not consider themselves to be mainstream. Well………….Fox News is the most watched cable network, and more people today have cable than not. The internet has become a staple within most American households. Only in the twilight zone would Fox News not be considered mainstream media.

In the second place, President Trump has declared the media as an enemy of the people because of the biased narrative they report with. President Trump has claimed the media has destroyed its integrity. However, this begs the question: Is this claim truly based on principal, or is it based on percentage? Is it based on the principal that journalist should remain neutral and seek the truth, or is it because the percentages of mainstream media outlets are left leaning institutions?

If President Trump is basing this on principle, then shouldn’t he hold Fox to the same standard as CNN? Does the president believe that particular news agencies have the right to ignore the standards to which they hold others simply because they represent the smaller group of ideologues? If so, that is not a paradigm based on principality. It is one based on percentage.

If the administration truly seeks to denounce mainstream media bias, they would not perpetuate and support stories from any biased news source, despite political ideology.

Media is Legitimate, So Long as it Supports One’s Claim

However, the real paradox is those who have been yelling ‘fake news’ the loudest unknowingly use the very same media sources they consider to be biased and fake when citing articles that are favorable to their position. I have consistently observed how others use ‘fact-checking sources’ to disprove or disregard articles they deem to be unfavorable, only to realize that some of the sources the ‘fact-checkers’ use are the very same sources people claim to be fake or bias. It’s not like fact-checkers are privy to some hidden intelligence that other news sources aren’t. The whole premise behind fact-checking is that the references selected are from a wide-range of resources used to check the validity of a particular claim.

Therefore, if a host media sources allow people to substantiate a claim, then it can’t be true that the media is the enemy of the people. If, on the other hand, claims and assertions are gathered by biased media sources accusing other news agencies of being fake and partial, are they any more credible than the news sources they claim are so biased?

Therefore, does it make any sense at all to maintain that nothing can be fact-checked because the sources to which the fact-checkers use would then have to be fact-checked itself, which would then entail fact-checking the legitimacy of the original fact-checker? In yet another twilight zone moment, one must ask: where would this ‘downward spiral of logic’ end?

In any event, the legitimacy of any media outlet should never be held to the standards of either ideological extreme, which will prevent both a blind acceptance and a blind opposition to political matters.

Final Thoughts

Before stepping back into the same familiar echo chamber of claiming that mainstream media is fake, at least consider the following concepts:

* If fake news is determined to be fake based on another biased news source, is the news source any more credible than those they label as fake?
* If you find yourself using a wide variety of news sources to substantiate claims, then it cannot be true that media is fake. If not, then you are basing your claims on biased news sources, which delegitimize your claims.
* If media is truly the enemy of the people, we can no longer assert claims ourselves and fact check other’s claims using media sources,
* There is a big difference between fake and bias.

Think outside the box. Always remember to look through a wider lens other than the one you are used to seeing through.