Separate Truths

It used to be that the major networks provided news regardless of whether it provided profit for the network. News brought in viewers, who would stay for the shows after it. It was also true that the news divisions usually were held to a different standard and followed different rules than anything else that the network produced. The integrity of the newscasters and reporters was paramount because, if it was ever found out that news personnel were biased or lying, that news program would be sunk and all those viewing eyes would go to a different network.

In today's world, there are "news" sources everywhere. The rules for news agencies have changed, and networks no longer want to produce a show at a loss. This has led to news having to get, and keep, viewers in order to maintain high advertising rates for the half-hour or hour of that news program. This leads directly to sensationalizing the news, the stories, and, in particular, the Op/Ed portions of news programs to pander to audiences.

This audience pandering has led to a slow and steady polarization of the news media. If someone like a Rush Limbaugh gets more viewers/listeners because of his willingness to be outlandish, then media outlets will give him the chance. At first, maybe, they might have said, "Well, someone is going to put him on the air. We might as well. And maybe the audience will stay for our other, less biased and sensationalized programs." But, as the audience grows, the money starts talking and the media outlets slowly transform by adding more and more sensational programming and on-air talent.

Today, in order to get a truly "fair and balanced" perspective, you have to watch at least two news channels -- one for each side of the political spectrum. If you only watch one, the skewing of the presentation by the host and the editing of the source material is such that you will never even come close to the truth. If you watch both sides (say, CNN and Fox News) for the same stories, you can figure that both are lying to you and neither is right. But you can also figure that the facts in common are probably true and realize that somewhere in between is where the truth probably is.

Most viewers do not want to take this approach to watching or getting their news. It is too much effort. And, like most people, they take the path of least resistance. If the viewers lean right, they watch right-skewing news programs so that they agree with what is being said. If the viewer leans left, they watch left-skewing news programs so they can agree with what is being said. It is so much easier to get wrong news you agree with than to get challenging news that is actually true, factual, and requires a person to think for themselves.

I am lucky in that I live somewhere that I can get easy access to foreign news programs. These programs often present a much less biased view of the American news, as they have little to no investment in the situation. They can simply present it with as many facts as they can glean. Most news here is also still provided as a service and at a loss for the network, rather than as a ratings magnet and a viewer draw, which eliminates some bias and dishonesty.

For too long now the extremes on either side have had the microphone and have been yelling at whomever will listen to them. I firmly believe that the bulk of Americans are fairly moderate overall and could come to consensus if they simply had unbiased facts to work with. Until networks allow this to happen once more, we will continue to polarize and the nation will not heal and become the great place it can be again.