I think this article makes a good point about the fallacy of any “fair and balanced” news media, but I wonder about the practical implications of such a view, given the situation of our culture. As others have pointed out, in a democratic society with an ever increasing multiplicity of voices and ideas, we have to find a way to respect both freedom and integrity when reporting events, or responding to others.
But what about the apathy of the public? Is equal access to propaganda really a solution? As sad as it sounds to say, I think that a majority of Americans would rather be told what “the facts” are than try to find out for themselves. Who has time for absorbing all that information and filtering it? Conservatives and liberals both “spin” the news, and I think the majority of the public is not paying attention to anything except the most superficial details, because they aren’t that invested in discovering the truth of the matter. They would rather, as the article suggests, listen to a voice that reflects their own opinion.
Meanwhile, the internet is simply creating more and more selective sources of information, which results in more and more insular communities, who are convinced that they have the proper take on the news, and never need to go outside of the confines of their perceived reality. This doesn’t seem like a positive step to me, if the goal is to respect both freedom and integrity. In fact, it almost creates a reverse “elitism”, where those of us who read [insert blog name here] know the real story, and can roll our eyes at the “ignorant masses” (who very often are ignorant) who don’t know what we know. And that doesn’t really solve anything.
I don’t know what the solution is, but I know that more isn’t necessarily better.
