07.02.09

it’s right to lie

Posted in pondering at 12:01 by swong

I’ve come across a weird case lately.

A friend of mine was involved in an incident that has been carried on local and national news. The details of the case aren’t too important, and I’d rather protect his privacy, but it involves a police incident with a political candidate, and allegations of brutality.

Among those of us who know the guy involved, we know it’s highly unlikely that he’s guilty of most of the things he’s been accused of. Taken in context with other recent, highly publicized brutality cases – the New Years BART shooting, for example, he isn’t even accused of much.

I saw a video clip of a well-known cable news host doing a brief segment on the incident. During the segment, he literally made up some facts about the incident, turning a simple arrest into a politically motivate rampage. There’s no evidence of this, and my friend is mostly apolitical. It was pretty clearly done to drum up outrage and appeal to the audience.

So, yeah, liberal media bias. I’ve heard of it. I’ve seen media bias both ways, though this is the first time I’ve seen it in an incident I had some personal connection to.

That’s not the issue, though. The question is: how can we get news that’s unbiased. Is unbiased news possible?

The news agencies are private companies competing in a free market. They broker the attention of their viewers to advertisers. More viewers -> more value for their advertisers. The AP, Reuters, the Washington Post, the New York Times, Fox News, CNN – they’re all filling different niches in the same marketplace. Check out the stories they deliver, and you’ll probably see an ad for mattresses, or cell phones, or a new movie.

It follows, then, that every news outlet has a profit incentive to sensationalize stories to increase circulation. Man Bites Dog becomes White Man Mauls Black Dog or Local Christian Defends Self from Vicious Mongrel or whatever, based on the tastes of the audience. When one outlet sensationalizes their stories, others must follow or lose subscribers. It’s a very simple business decision. The media is biased, toward whatever maximizes their subscribers.

But – what should be done about this, and can anything be done about it?

Among liberals I ask, or whose articles and blogs I read, the solution is to seek alternate news sources. Other blogs, “citizen” journalists, Twitter feeds about ongoing events, “alternate” news sources, foreign news agencies like Al Jazeera or the BBC. I think it’s kind of humorous that liberals are going for what’s basically a free market solution – picking and choosing from many competitors.

Conservatives I ask have a vague “someone should do something about it” or “there should be a law against lying in the news” reaction. Also humorous – the conservatives demanding some kind of explicit government control over a free market. I really enjoy watching the cognitive dissonance when I point this out*.

Both views, when presented with evidence of media inaccuracies or outright fabrications, claim that the media is biased against their side. But why shouldn’t the media be biased? Appealing to morality: “It’s wrong to lie!” is a cute rebuttal, but the market clearly says otherwise. Newspapers that sensationalize gain market share, and live. Newspapers that stick to only the verifiable facts lose market share, and die. Why should they choose to die?

*I think I’ve come across a neat definition for the liberal/conservative split. Liberals say “The government should regulate everyone.” Conservatives say “The government should regulate everyone else.”

Permalink