Media bias is a complicated topic, but those who largely control the debate suffer from a uniform bias of their own — they work in media.
Conservatives like myself rightfully insist the bias exhibited by major media outlets is often more cultural than political, driven by a lack of exposure to lifestyles outside coastal urban enclaves. But the bias less often examined is the bias most difficult to examine because it affects most of us.
Those of us who work in media understandably consume the news very differently than many of our own readers, and very differently than the many people who lack the time or interest to read us in the first place. That makes a big difference. Our jobs demand that we inhale almost every update to every story, noting details from the byline to the publication like only people in the media can. We live in an echo chamber on Twitter. We obsess over detail. And we should. (Although maybe not when it comes to Twitter.)
But that’s just not how most people consume the news, and it makes a big difference.
Margaret Sullivan of the Washington Post wrote a compelling column on Thursday, detailing her experiences living for six weeks in a small New York town last summer. Recalling a conversation with a conspiracy theorist who was in town from Green Bay, Wis., visiting his girlfriend, Sullivan wrote: “[H]is complaints didn’t worry me as much as something else I encountered again and again: indifference.”
“This was the real surprise and the most discouraging takeaway of my inquiry,” she wrote. “So many people were happy to complain vaguely about ‘the media,’ without really caring about the news, or following it with much interest. The concept of being a responsibly informed citizen? That was all too rare.”
Later in her column, Sullivan concluded that “it’s more important than ever that we journalists continue striving to win over those who are skeptical, conflicted or simply apathetic.”
Sullivan’s observations on apathy are important. Not every member of the public follows the news, and even those who consume news regularly do it at different rates.
Some people actually enjoy following the news and take the time to browse many sources every day. Others stick to more conventional regimens, reading their local papers, watching a nightly news broadcast, listening to a radio program, enjoying politically-oriented late-night comedy, tuning into major addresses like the State of the Union. Many might click several interesting links on their social media feeds over the course of a week, but stop short of actively seeking a fuller picture of the major stories of the day. Consider a person who catches the headlines on the newspaper rack at Starbucks, reads a CNN chyron at the gym, and browses an article their co-worker posted to Facebook. Even those descriptions are too simplistic.
The public consumes news differently than members of the media — that reality is unavoidable, but not insurmountable so long as it’s paired with heightened awareness. We need to be better about considering how major news stories — think Russian collusion — have actually reached and impacted people outside newsrooms who didn’t read (and breathlessly dissect) the latest scoop.
For her part, Sullivan reflected on the apathy she encountered with disappointment, maybe even a hint of judgment. Regular voters should stay educated, there’s no question about that. But I’m less inclined to find fault with people who lack an interest in political news, lack the time to consume it, or lack the faith to trust it.
For those of us in the media, however, it’s at least important to recognize how the natural biases of our profession divide us from consumers, and perhaps more importantly, from nonconsumers.
It’s abundantly clear, and almost beyond dispute, that we need to develop a better understanding of people outside the coastal newsrooms tasked with reporting critical information of national relevance. This is an important step to achieving that goal.
