News media and bad news

“Surely somewhere in the world there are some good news. Can you not buy a newspaper that tells us some good news?” — The Rabbi in Fiddler On The Roof

Complaints about the news media have been around for a long time. There are even some sayings about the news media that have made it into the culture. “When a dog bites a man, that is not news, because it happens so often. But if a man bites a dog, that is news.” That saying has been attributed to at least three different persons. It describes a particular phenomenon:

The phrase Man bites dog describes a phenomenon in journalism in which an unusual, infrequent event is more likely to be reported as news than an ordinary, everyday occurrence (such as Dog bites man). The news media generally consider an event more newsworthy if there is something unusual about it; a commonplace event is unlikely to be taken as newsworthy. The result is that rare events often appear in headlines while common events rarely do, making the rare events seem more common than they are.

Let’s face it, people are quite a bit more likely to buy a newspaper or a magazine if something unusual is featured.  But, this means that news are always unbalanced. And, lest you think that this is a modern problem, all three people that are bruited as being authors of the quote are from the 19th century. We are now in the 21st century.

Whether we like it or not, people do not buy newspapers that have a balance that reflects what actually happens in the world. There is a magazine named “Grit” that has been around since 1882. Today it presents itself as a magazine of “Rural American Know-How.” When I was a kid, it presented itself as a weekly of good news. Do any of you even know about it? In fact, let me broaden my challenge. Do any of you know of any widely read newspaper that maintains a balance of news that reflects the actual situation in this nation? I doubt that you can name one that is widely read, though I have just named you one that is not widely read.

And, yet, we complain about the bias and the unfair reporting of the news media. You see, here is the problem. If we are the ones who buy the newspapers and magazines that present a “biased” version of reality, because it titillates our interest, then are we not also heavily responsible for the very “bias” about which we complain? I suspect that we are all too often blaming the news media for what is 50% our fault.

Newspapers are in the business of providing material that is sellable. It does not matter whether the material is crime or politics or lifestyles. If a newspaper or television station finds an audience that will buy their newspaper or watch the station with regularity, they will pander to that audience. To that extent, the very newspapers and other media about which we so often complain are actually a reflection of what we find interesting or what we agree with.

Here is what is hard for us. It is hard for us to insist on a truly balanced news media. It is much easier for us to buy media that only reflects our viewpoints or titillates our voyeuristic leanings. Particularly in the editorial section of the newspaper, we love to pillory those who disagree with us and we go so far as insisting that the newspaper or station remove them. Is it so surprising that a commercial enterprise will eventually bow to the majority of the readers and dismiss any editorial writer who incenses the readership? But, when we do that, we actually end up creating the very bias that we claim to hate in the news media. When we preferentially buy a newspaper or magazine or watch a show that show us the oddities of life over one that has balance between good and bad news that reflects the real world, we actually end up creating the very bias we claim to hate.

And so, when we complain of bias, we are complaining against our selves that have participated in creating the bias we perceive. What a dilemma!