The Fine Line Between Reporting and Biased Media

The United States’ president, Donald Trump, is well-known for openly criticizing “mainstream media” and renowned news organizations such as the New York Times and CNN, both through speaking publicly and via his notorious Twitter account. His tweets have described mainstream media as “crooked,” “very unfair,” and determined to “find a good spinnnn!” in favor of the Democrats. More recently, Trump heavily criticized Buzzfeed for publishing a dossier alleging that Trump secretly had deep ties to Russia and CNN for making the decision to “run with this unsubstantiated claim.”

The reports had already been circulating around the journalism industry, but none of the renowned news organizations published the documents since the claims in the report were proved to be unverifiable. However, Buzzfeed published the papers “so that Americans can make up their own minds about allegations about the president-elect that have circulated at the highest levels of the US government.” They mentioned multiple times that the report contained unverifiable information and errors, and yet they published it knowing that the public would respond explosively.

As of late February, the post has over 6 million views, and numerous news organizations have already reported on the publication. In particular, on CNN’s “Reliable Sources,” the host Brian Stelter debated Buzzfeed editor-in-chief Ben Smith about the decision to release the allegations. During the discussion, Stelter pointed out the difference between publishing and reporting; Buzzfeed merely “dumped” the detailed claims onto the audience without proving or refuting any of the rumors, whereas the other news outlets such as CNN, the New York Times, and the Washington Post all only reported on the existence of the memo with only a brief summary.

This got me thinking about the fine boundary between truthful and false news and the impacts of even a slight distortion of information. Some false news reports are solely published for money; ranging from celebrity death hoaxes to rumors that Pope Francis endorsed Trump when he was a candidate; these articles are most often published by websites that live off of ad revenue based solely on clicks - this is most commonly known as “clickbait journalism.” The desire for views and ad revenue causes companies to cherry-pick details and take them completely out of context of the broader situation, or even embellish using false information. Trust in mainstream media, circulation of newspapers, and more factors that impact the income of such companies have decreased, causing even the most prestigious journalism institutions, such as the Wall Street Journal, to stoop as low as using PewDiePie’s satirical use of Nazi imagery as proof that he is anti-semitic and neo-Nazi.

Irresponsible journalism can be just as unnoticeably harmful as clickbait reports; for cases such as the Buzzfeed dossier publication, whether or not Buzzfeed wanted to slander Trump or was legitimately unaware of the effects of releasing explosive information proven to be false or unverifiable, the memo being made public negatively impacted the way Trump is viewed by different audiences.

However, the media can indeed also be intentionally manipulating not for money, but for shaping the audience’s perspective, by spreading false information, using vague but biased language and reporting selectively. Although this scenario blatantly oversimplifies the situation, think of it this way: when a child explains a fight to his parents, he always omits a few elements that show what he did wrong, and embellishes or exaggerates how much the other kid hurt him. This is exactly what biased “news” organizations do, except that their methods are much more subtle, advanced, and therefore more deceptive. By insidiously planting in words with positive or negative connotations, such media inscribes certain ideas into the audience’s subconscious mindsets, almost like a less extreme version of propaganda.

This problem does not pertain just to journalism institutions within the U.S; I was deeply disturbed when I was viewing news reports by JTBC on President Park’s impeachment.

The political scandal is quite complicated, but in short, it was revealed that President Park Geun Hye, the first female president of Korea, was entrusting her friend, Choi Seun Shil, with many important presidential responsibilities, letting her draft her statements on North Korea or even controlling government funds. And throughout the unveiling of this massive story, JTBC, a non-mainstream news channel, was considered the most objective, critical and trustworthy, eventually becoming even more popular and mainstream than, well, the mainstream news channels. (Ironic, right?)

But the real problem began when Choi had been arrested, impeachment protests were held weekly by thousands of enraged citizens, and virtually every citizen of Korea hated Choi and the president. JTBC, now being famous for their trustworthiness, suddenly changed to an openly Park-hating organization. Even worse than Buzzfeed, they began to make their own allegations, drawing connections between tragic country events and how the president had been composing a media blacklist. But because of its reputation, nobody in the country even pointed out how openly biased the news organization was; after all, they were supporting the opinion of the vast majority. Who would be enraged?

Sorry JTBC, I was. In no way am I defending the president or Choi; I, too, believe that they have committed immoral and heinous crimes. However, just as unprincipled was the change in attitude of JTBC; they exploited the trust of their audiences and pandered to exactly what the masses wanted to hear; proofless but attacking claims against the president and government. And what did such “reporting” bring them? Ratings! Influence! Popularity! Ad revenue! After all, what kind of news organization cares about objective and fair media when ad revenue is on the line?

Nevertheless, there is also a great misconception that Trump’s remarks about the media, and frankly, my tone in this article, may be engendering; not all information that changes people’s perspectives is biased. Discovering and reporting on a politician’s corruption scandal is not biased news; although it significantly impacts the way that the masses view the official, if the story was backed up with facts and evidence, true and unbiased information shaped the opinions of readers, not nuanced and connotative language. But if intentionally positive or negative words and completely unverified allegations are mixed into the news as if it is factual information, this becomes an immense problem.

To be completely honest, the journalism industry is broken in many countries; many media organizations pressure journalists to only report on popular issues with heavily sensationalistic tones; or else, they essentially can’t make a living. Naturally, I hold the utmost respect for journalists who do remain objective and fight against the broken journalism industry, focusing on delivering information and giving readers the background on important issues to develop their own perspectives and insight. (Shoutout to www.newsdeeply.com in this field, and please watch this TED talk by Lara Setrakian.) But arguably, the audience has an even bigger impact on the industry; on JTBC’s YouTube, every comment is a vacuous president-slamming ‘roast,’ with barely anyone pointing out the biased tone.

As cheesy as it may sound, it’s our duty as the audience to notice biased journalism and to stop trusting it. First, PLEASE try not to click on clickbait and sensationalist headlines. I know, it’s hard. Just try. And more importantly, leave a comment, tweet, or at least a mental note when you feel that a news article is biased. A different attitude and stronger voice of the youngest generation of readers is the key to change in the journalism system. And when journalism is changed, our thoughts are. And our thoughts change the world.

Erin '18