Some degree of abuse is inseparable from the proper use of every thing, and in no instance is this more true than in that of the press. It has accordingly been decided by the practice of the States, that it is better to leave a few of its noxious branches to their luxuriant growth, than, by pruning them away, to injure the vigour of those yielding the proper fruits. And can the wisdom of this policy be doubted by any who reflect that to the press alone, chequered as it is with abuses, the world is indebted for all the triumphs which have been gained by reason and humanity over error and oppression...
–James Madison, founding father in The Report of 1800, 7 January 1800
What is TRUTH. That’s a question? Or is it a Jeopardy response. Or, if you're a postmodern, perhaps you prefer that word with a thousand little t's appended to its front–tttttruth, with chattering ttttteeth, pulling its coat closer through the cold wind of contemporary discourse. After all, if there is an infinite amount of little perspectives, or an infinite amount of facets to the diamond that is REALITY, then none of those facets are very important, are they? Therefore, the concept itself isn’t very important.
No one trusts the media. Or maybe everyone does, as long as they have a smartphone, and they're paying attention. Then they're believing something that comes from somewhere. The basic facts we learn about the day-to-day events and operations of the world and its governments don't emerge out of a mute void. We have magazines. We have newspapers. And, of course, ideas with a small circulation eventually find that very thing that inner commentary lacks–a hearing–in the many varieties of little outlets that used to be single voices crying in the wilderness (Twitter, for example? The blog revolution of the early 2000s?)
I came here with the objective to discuss the supposed liberal bias of the media. Bias is inherently bad, because it implies un-truth, the opposition to reality, the slant of the desirous, gluttonous will. It's too individual. It's too...wrong, too opinion-driven. Just too slanted. (And who was it that said, 'Tell ALL the Truth/But tell it slant." None other than our esteemed American poet, Emily Dickinson.)
What is fact–or "Truth"– when we're discussing the political culture? Is it an aim of the media? Is there a difference between fact and truth? What is reality? Where does our basic ideology enter the equation? The media historically opposed the government, and the government has an all-consuming interest in keeping the governed compliant, for obvious reasons. We currently have a spate of opposition on both sides, regardless of who's in power and in keeping, at times, with certain principles (or ideologies). However, the current party in power happens to be conservative. The current party in power opposes the "liberal media." Why?
Let's break it down: What is "liberal"? And what is the purpose of the media? Liberalism has its roots in Enlightenment thinking, and the expansion of the rights of the individual. The free press has its roots in the early foundation of the United States and other democracies. Rumor has it that some founding fathers opposed the circulation of pamphlets in early days because they didn't contribute productively to the intellectual discourse of the time. They believed they contributed to mob thinking. Jefferson himself also said of the newspaper, “Truth itself becomes suspicious by being put in that polluted vehicle.” And he opposed a king.
On the other hand, the Federalist James Madison called the writers of early treatises and pamphlets the “literati,” and he believed truth would ultimately find its way home through the trail of discourse left in the wake of those writings. He was a founding father, steeped in the liberal principles of the Enlightenment. Yet, all of the founding fathers were part of an early government with a deep interest in preserving order in this early experiment called a republic.
So, whose "truth" matters if we’re going to give this essay a postmodern “slant”? Whose tale prevails? Many conservatives object to the media’s influence. While we can all agree that it’s biased, because it is in fact written by individuals influenced by a certain narrative or opposed to the current climate of affairs or political party platform, the question remains: Is it unduly biased, biased beyond the cultural median that naturally serves as the democratic impulse? What does that even mean? Furthermore, with the rise of social media, with all its echo chambers and memes, its overwhelming number of impassioned social movements and responses to social movements, its basic resistance to rational discourse beyond a 140 character count, and its many uninformed users, has public discourse been reduced? In a sense, the press has become all of us. But it has always been so. We just needed to take responsibility for it. Which means taking responsibility for our positions.
The purpose of the Federalists, James Madison chief among them, was to prevent rule by “faction”—basically, rule by mobs interested in short-term gratification who are ruled by passion over reason. Could we argue that the media exists to reflect, tailor and inform the will of the people? The will of the potential mob? The current “liberal” focus of the media is based in the very liberal impulse it represents. It is underwritten by a perspective that transcends even utilitarianism (the greatest good for the greatest number of people), and ultimately finds its source in a humanist understanding that every person matters. That each drop of water in the ocean of humanity is important. That in fact it’s not the mob itself that is important, but the individual endowed by her Creator with certain unalienable rights, which include freedom of expression.
When the media gave a roar about the separation of families at the border, it was responding—or creating, if that’s how you see it— to the liberal impulse that is the concern for one’s brother. On the other hand, when Obama was assailing Middle Eastern nations with drone attacks, and separating those same good families at the very same border, the press said little.
So maybe the media does have a “liberal” bias in the sense that it favors a certain party (or maybe 44 was just better at fielding questions). However, this bias potentially serves an important end. After all, it was Obama’s liberal impulse that created universal healthcare. Depending on your party affiliation, you can choose to take in the oppositional line or shut it out as mere noise. Or, regardless of your party affiliation or ideology, you can embrace what it represents in these days of unhinged Facebook patter and empty positions–that which is the media’s ultimate purpose–making sure the government works for us, not the other way around. And you can realize that challenging that government is part of the natural course of events. And that the individual matters in a society of individuals where ideally every vote is counted. According to my point of view, this is all as it should be. Therefore, the answer to the Jeopardy response of the day is, “What is EMPATHY.” Truth?
