Dear Friends,
It seems to me, next to the author of every news article, there should be a chart showing their stances, politically, economically and socially. It could be set up as a three by three matrix. The X axis could be, globalist, neutral, nationalist. The Y axis could be, laissez fair, neutral, socialist. This would allow the reader to know the perspective of the author of the story… he or she is reading. This would solve the asymmetry of information problem in journalism, leading to problems of unconscious bias, since the reader would have access to information to alleviate that asymmetry. Moreover, place a rating of the accuracy of their past articles based on empirical evidence, not appeal to authority. Nothing else would go as far in resolving the public’s antipathy towards the media today.
The media that calls itself unbiased has, for at least a decade, sought to hide it’s bias in the name of “journalism.” The organization, Media Matters, had as it’s platform, that no matter how biased a main stream media outlet might be, it was more important to maintain the appearance of fairness. Listen to ten year old recordings of On the Media, from NPR, to get a better grasp on what I am saying they said. The media has staunchly held to that position, while at the same time attacking those who openly and forthrightly announced their biases to the world, so their listeners could know the hidden biases in their stories. The media that has called itself unbiased, has done great damage to their own names, especially recently. While holding the mask of fairness just off their faces they go full zealot against Trump.
Nothing good grows in the dark. Corruption needs the darkness to grow, like mold. Light sterilizes it. That is why those who seek to grow mold as well as corruption seek the darkness. In this case, the dark, would be someone pretending to be unbiased, when that would make them inhuman, we all have biases, some we admit and others we do not, even to ourselves. Hiding our biases behind some cloak of “journalism” is just a way of procuring darkness for corruption to grow. Because why would anything good need to be hidden from public view? If it is exposing some evil, then it is better to keep the investigation in the public sphere, so no unfortunate suicide by a witness beating himself to death, with several iron pipes, in the parking garage of his condominium, couldn’t happen.
Having one’s bias in front of a writer helps him or her overcome that bias. Having our political as well as economic biases out there for the public, allows us to see them as well. Which, like a sore finger, keeps us from using it, which would help real journalists avoid the old ruts. There is nothing as focusing as a having grade next to your name. Having an accuracy rating, a grade, would drive anyone seeking to be called a journalist… to better journalism. This would allow more people to become journalists outside the gatekeepers. Gatekeepers who, as we all recognize, are the appeal to authority that organizations, such as Media Matters, control like a puppet. The system would help not only readers but authors as well, and creating a path for neophytes to enter journalism.
Obviously for such a system to work it would have to be widely used. For that to happen however, only a few news organizations need to adopt it. If it is liked by the public, other news organizations would be forced to adopt it, else how could they charge someone else with bias while they hide theirs? How could they proclaim another fake news when they operate in the dark? As more news organizations adopt the system it will become standardized, eventually loosing some of it’s effectiveness. Until then, it would go a long way to restoring not only the reputation of the media, but the accuracy and quality of it’s reporting as well. Once all readers judge an article by the author, not the outlet, the system will have become mature.
Sincerely,
John Pepin
