From 2017, but still relevant today: Unintentional right wing media bias

[meow2u3]

I have written before about mainstream media’s ingrained habit of “covering both sides”, even if one side is lies or speculation. Journalists frequently say that if both political sides are angry with them, then they must be covering events objectively. I am glad that not all journalists think this way.

Journalists who do think this way end up having an unintentional Right Wing bias. This is particularly unfortunate because many Right Wingers would like to destroy journalism and replace it entirely with Right Wing echo chambers. Mainstream media are inviting their own destruction when they allow themselves to fall unwittingly into Right Wing bias.

Many modern media outlets have given up almost entirely on journalism & changed to become entertainment outlets or propaganda outlets. Even elections are covered like entertaining horse races — not serious decision points for the public about what policies will serve the nation best. Outrageous Right Wingers’ threats, insults & conspiracy theories are more entertaining than good journalism would be. That often pushes those subjects up to the top of the list of topics to be covered.

The “Cover both sides” rule may have begun as a way of complying with the Fairness Doctrine, which is no longer in effect.

https://medium.com/@upine/mainstream-media-has-unintentional-right-wing-biases-f077175d728b

I propose we DUers launch an awareness campaign by alerting mainstream media outlets that they're being unduly influenced by right-wing propagandists. We should also let them know that playing by the obsolete Fairness Doctrine is not going to work to seek the truth, since right wingers have been running a decades-long disinformation campaign designed to manipulate the media by turning them against truth, justice, and Democrats. We have to make them aware that they can no longer afford to give lies and propaganda equal weight with the truth and then call them out on their RW bias.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

1. What's even more absurd

is that there is not always "another side" that is equally valid and credible to cover and, by covering it that way, they end up giving credence and validity to whackadoodle theories and ideas with no scientific or logical basis- covering flat earthers possibly being the best example. Or debating teaching science in schools vs. "intelligent design". I can't speak to their state of mind and/or motives but it's weird how and what the media tends to cover. While changing how the media works is important, we should probably be focusing more time and attention on raising children and even educating adults to be critical thinkers, which would probably do more to destroy dangerous and destructive right-wing ideological beliefs than waiting to see if the media reforms itself, which seems to be a losing prospect at the moment.