"We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of." E. Bernays, 1928.
Most of us would doubtless be aghast to think that someone else was controlling what and how we think about certain topics. Consider the following examples however. When you think of "anti-abortion action", what comes to mind? If you watched TV shows (dramas and news) through the 90's, or read mainstream media reports during the 80's, you would immediately think of abortion clinic bombings and pro-life violence. Yet there has been very little of that in the past 30 years, and some of the "violence" blamed on pro-life people is actually just peaceful protesting, or, when you look into the details, not caused by them at all. Indeed, there is more violence perpetrated by pro-choice advocates, but you probably have not heard of such cases because they only rarely get reported in the mainstream media. You see, the media is, by and large, pro-choice, and that skews their selection of stories and how they report them, or choose not to. It even skews fictional TV dramas which deal with the subject of abortion. Those biases have been uncritically absorbed by viewers and readers as a true picture of reality on that subject, and then reflected in their own views.
Next, think of "Roman Catholic priests"; does an image of pedophiles pop into your mind? Yet the number of priests actually found guilty of pedophilia is miniscule, and other authority figures such as school teachers, scout leaders, sports coaches, etc. have higher percentages of child abuse. But you would never know that from the mainstream media. Now think of any issue you do know a lot about and have studied from various perspectives, and ask how well the media presents that issue. Chances are good that you can see how the media have misrepresented or oversimplified it in some way. And if it is a controversial subject, you may discern a definite and ongoing bias in their reporting and discussion of it.
Take another subject: "churches and gay rights". Chances are your mind dredges up some image of the Westboro Church's "God hate fags" group, or some assumed "homophobic hatred" by the Roman Catholic church. Meanwhile, aside from a few tiny groups, most Christians do not hate LGBT people at all, and most befriend and engage them. Indeed, collectively, churches do more to help AIDS victims around the world than any other organization, but again, that does not receive widespread media coverage. Meanwhile, Islamic groups that actually preach (and sometimes practise) violence against gays are largely given a pass in the media. For some reason Muslims are often also presented as "victims" in the mainstream media. You might think about why that is so.
These are but a few, some perhaps extreme, examples of where the media-reinforced image is highly skewed by selective reporting and unacknowledged - or worse, conscious - bias. Most of us just adopt these opinion patterns and story lines, without much thought, assuming that we are getting a reasonable story and, by and large, a fair picture of the truth of the matter. Unfortunately, in many subject areas, that is simply not correct, or at least it is far too simplistic.
If you are a typical North American, then your views, however vague and inchoate, on most issues of our day, are absorbed from the mainstream media; whether TV news, talk-shows, newspapers, movies and TV dramas, or Internet social media. This is hardly surprising; since none of us can study or be well informed on more than a few issues, we need to take whatever views are on offer for all the rest unless we want to remain uninformed and un-opinionated. We may think that we are getting balanced reporting and a fair assessment of the subject, but more and more, that is simply not true.
Most of us choose web sites, TV channels and newspapers with editorial views that reflect our own outlook. This is natural, who wants to read opinions and news slants that make us uncomfortable, even with our loosely held viewpoints? However, unless we go out of our way to check alternative views and read articles from opposite perspectives, we will tend to absorb one-sided material that just reinforces our own perspectives and biases. This sort of "echo chamber" or "silo" approach to opinion building and affirming is actually getting worse in the Internet age. And with the slow demise of newspapers, journalism is becoming less balanced and investigative. Opinion pieces become predictable, and "news" becomes mere echoing of others' stories - those the editors or owners find agreeable.
There is a Biblical reference to this human tendency in Proverbs 18:17, "The first to present his case seems right, until another comes forward and questions him." If the other is not allowed to question, or if his speech is muffled or cut short by the judge, then it is not surprising that biased judgements occur and skewed viewpoints propagate. When the media do the same en-masse, the propagation is thorough and widespread.
Even if your favourite news outlet were truly "neutral" about all issues (unlikely), you would still get a skewed version of reality because of what they choose to report on and what they leave out. No news outlet can possibly cover everything, so they choose subjects that will attract attention, viewers or readers. After all, they are in business to make money, which mostly comes from advertising, so the more people who watch or click on them, the better - the "click-bait" phenomenon. So "man bites dog" takes precedence over "dog bites man" stories, even though the latter is 1000 times more frequent and important. Watching the news may make you think violent crime or fatal car accidents are on the rise, even if the opposite is true, albeit boring and not newsworthy. How many people fear to go out at night because they've heard of a mugging across town? And wouldn't you feel safer if they did not report the event?
But, you may say, the major news media are surely not biased are they? Alas, it is a true (but rarely acknowledged) fact that the vast majority of journalists are liberal minded, or (in the USA) Democrat leaning in their political views. Hence the huge hate-on for Donald Trump, for instance, leading up to and continuing after the 2016 presidential election. And before you think that their approach was reasonable, given Trump's obvious flaws, recall where your "knowledge" about the man comes from! Can you see that if the media you pay attention to hates Trump and presents only negative reports about him, that might rub off on you? Once it does, you will tend to read and remember mostly anti-Trump reports, which will only solidify your opinion. That tendency is just part of human nature.
This human proclivity to consider only data that supports one's personal views is a danger for people on the other side of each issue too. But given the left-liberal preponderance of media sources, the impact on public discussion and policy direction setting is largely one-sided.
Moreover, when it comes to social issues, journalists are predominantly liberal or even "progressive". This is not some grand conspiracy, it is simply one result of the nature of the journalism job and the news itself. "Things are going fine" is not a headline you will often see! Rather, it is the new, different, novel, and avant-guard that dominate the headlines, the progressive or even transgressive that captures our attention, or our interest in titillation or weird exposé. This too comes from human nature - boring is just not fun.
Therefore, most journalists take more interest in things that change rather than stay the same; hence liberal rather than conservative. Throw in the echo-chamber effect of journalism schools, press corps, news bureaus, etc. and it takes a strong character and dedication to seek answers against the flow. Once oriented to the liberal perspective and viewpoints of those around you, anything different starts to look odd, suspicious or just "wrong" somehow, especially if you don't take the time to examine why you feel that way. After all, there are deadlines and thousands more words to type in order to earn your keep. Better just to expound on some text from a news service and put your own gloss on it, based on the perspective you share with your friends and colleagues - a natural, albeit lazy, approach to the job.
A stark example is public broadcasting. In this country, for example, we have the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, which is largely publicly funded, and provides news, commentary, opinions, interviews, and entertainment on radio, TV and the Internet. It is supposed to provide balanced programming and fair coverage of events and views, to fairly represent varied Canadian perspectives and opinions. However, its coverage is only rarely balanced when it comes to conservative versus progressive values and ideas. Conservatives and their leaders have complained of heavy, negative CBC bias for decades. Meanwhile liberals view the CBC is fairly balanced. Clearly then, the truth is somewhere between - a distinct level of imbalanced coverage and hence, a tilted playing field in the public domain. Add to that other major networks and social media, and contrary viewpoints become rare on certain subjects, such as transgenderism, abortion, school choice, sex education, or other socially controversial subjects. As a result, it is not unfair to partially credit the CBC's left-liberal slant for the progressive direction of Canadian society and politics over the past 30 years or so.
If the mainstream media was just treated as unimportant fluff, all this would not matter much, but almost everyone gets their opinions and views on most subjects from either like-minded people around them or from the media. Authorities in high places absorb their perspectives in the same way: teachers, corporate executives, judges, politicians, administrators and bureaucrats are all busy people and cannot delve into most topics, so they absorb their views by osmosis from those around them, and ultimately from the media sources they go to every day for the news and commentary. These views are then consciously or unconsciously fed into their worldview, their work, and its results. When those results are deemed newsworthy, they are picked up by the same media and reflected back to us, filtered through their same liberal biases. Hence a positive feedback cycle that builds up currently "politically correct" viewpoints and ignores, dismisses, derides, or even demonizes opposing perspectives. In the field of engineering, positive feedback usually leads to instability or an extreme, stuck output: not a good way to adjust and control the system or the reality around us!
Whether you accept it or not, the mainstream media determines to a large extent, what and how you think about most news items and issues of the day! The next time you watch a news item, note the issue presented and your own views on that subject, especially if it is a controversial topic that you are not directly involved with. Where did your views on that topic come from? How did you formulate them? Why do you hold them, however loosely that may be? Did you actually research all "sides" of the subject from multiple sources, or have you just absorbed your views from the same media channels over the past number of days, weeks, or even years? If your views are based on what you have seen on TV, or what your like-thinking friends and family have watched or read, then clearly, the media is generating much of the content of your present perspective, whether you are aware or not. So in some sense, the media is indeed controlling what you think about and how you think about it - in short, mind control!
This is not as obvious or intentional as say, Big Brother in the novel 1984, or similar dystopian fictions, but it is no less real. If you still doubt this, look at how the general public view of certain subjects has changed over the years. There are several subjects on which public opinion has flipped, sometimes in a short period. Think of views about the Vietnam war, marijuana use, gay rights, euthanasia, the crusades, climate change, transgenderism, etc. How has the public view been skewed by selective media reporting and opinions, as opposed to fair and careful analysis, and balanced weighing of all sides from a truly neutral perspective? Once a particular view becomes "politically correct", few media outlets will speak or write against it. And how it became PC in the first place can usually be traced to media-enabled progressivism - an avant-guard view picked up as exciting news stories, complete with presentable "victims".
Ask yourself, how did these views make a 180 degree change? Did each citizen sit down with a wide range of evidence from every aspect, read through it and come to well-thought-out position on each issue, thereby changing their attitude and view? Of course not. Rather, we each absorbed what we heard or saw in the media, as presented by journalists, based on interviews and selected polling data, or historical narratives and special interest group inputs. Perhaps there was some scientific and factual evidence, and not all of these changes were unfounded, or for the worse, but many societal shifts occur for largely ideological reasons when special interest groups are smart enough to attract the media to their point of view. In that way, the media, without a clear plan or stated direction, have changed our thinking on these and many other subjects. They will doubtless continue to do so, and we can expect to absorb some future flip flops on issues we currently hold, again based on how the media presents the changing perspectives they use or have learned to express.
But you may counter, the media is just reflecting public opinion shifts on these subjects. That is easy to say, but where do those shifts come from if not through the media and their selective promotion, or demotion of one or other viewpoint. We did not get gay marriage, doctor assisted suicide, legal marijuana, or abortion on demand by public study of all the relevant evidence followed by fair plebiscites for approval, and wisely crafted legislation. Rather, these perspectives were being pushed by selective media interviews, biased stories as "evidence", and one-sided opinion pieces over the years, topped off by liberal legislation, or worse, Supreme Court fiats, based on their personal views absorbed from the same media. Indeed, actual majority public views on controversial subjects are often negated by progressive edicts from the courts or "forward thinking" governments, claiming to be on the "right side of history".
So what can one do? Of course, you still cannot thoroughly research every issue and news item to get a balanced view of the truth or a fair representation of reality. However, just being aware of the role the media plays in setting your opinions and views, can forearm you against obvious bias, your own tendency to silo with like-minded people, and the high probability that there are reasonable views on these subjects counter to whatever you are reading or hearing at that moment. Watch for biased interviews, loaded questions, pejorative or supportive adjectives, selective or one-sided presentations, lacking or simplistic "evidence", and other ways of skewing a story line. Then you can be less dogmatically opinionated, and perhaps more open to looking at and listening to alternative perspectives.
Indeed, if you want to avoid others doing your thinking for you, then check out alternative news and views on the Internet or different TV channels. They may seem weird and doubtful at first, but just think, the people who silo with those sources, probably think the same about the sources you prefer to frequent! This goes for people on both sides of the political spectrum or any particular issue! There is nothing like an opposite perspective to get you to dig into and really think about your own views on any subject. In the process you may become more tolerant of others' views on certain subjects you initially thought were slam-dunk obvious. You might also become better informed and perhaps wiser for the effort! At the very least, try to hold most opinions you have less firmly, and remain open to alternative views, until you have thoroughly looked into all perspectives.
"The structures of a [managerial-therapeutic] regime are usually able to exercise power in a “soft” fashion. These consist mainly of: the mass media (in their main aspects of promotion of consumerism and the pop-culture, not to mention the shaping of social and political reality through the purveying of news)" (Mark Wegierski, 2016)
"The first moral obligation is to think clearly." Blaise Pascal.
“If you don’t read the newspapers you are uninformed — if you do read the newspapers you are misinformed.” Mark Twain
