One method I've used to gain more perspective is to identify opinion columnists in the New York Times and pair them. For example, I pair Thomas Friedman with David French and Bret Stephens with Nicholas Kristof. In a class you can ask people to read a pairing and respond with what's called an itemized response - "What I like or can appreciate in this writer is .. What concerns me is ..." At the risk to my mental health I also read the comments. What becomes obvious very quickly is that most of the commenters are unable to respond to the level of nuance offered in the article and our resistance to living with only flawed saints and institutions. It does however help me understand the moral concept of invincible ignorance. I don't ask a class to read the comments section as it might only reinforce any existing sense of hopelessness about humanity.
It’s also possible to frame one’s media consumption using other categories. For example, there is what the establishment reads vs what most people read. Establishment media want accuracy, but also to confirm their beliefs. That’s the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, Bloomberg, etc. There is also corporate media - the majority of cable news, for example. Those attend to groups organized by advertising data. They will get basic facts right, but slant toward their audience.
I also distinguish between entertainment and news. Tucker Carlson and Sean Hannity are entertainment, just as Rush Limbaugh was. They are not places that are about checking facts. Talk shows are entertainment. They are useful to understand what listeners are hearing, but they don’t frame my own understanding. They help me know how other people see the world, but not the world itself. I like watching Star Trek, but to understand science, I’ll read the New Scientist.
I generally rely on not-for-profit and media sites that are public and independent. I’ve not given up on objectivity. In addition, diversity includes geographic diversity as well, so the Financial Times, the BBC, Al Jazeera become useful in helping widen my own view. I also like news sources like The Christian Science Monitor, CounterPunch, ProPublica, Mother Jones, and Consortium News, because they are not owned privately or require advertising dollars. They tend to say the provocative thing, and what people do not like to hear.
Analyzing a media diet by examining ownership structures is different than using political references. It’s what works for me.
Gawain has provided a very useful set of additional considerations. The formation issue is turning them into educational designs that can be used in a program. For example, helping people distinguish between reporting and opinion pieces can be done by having a class examine several articles and see if they can identify which is which. Possibly on a scale as some reporters like to slide their opinion into articles. His mention of “establishment media” brought to mind a set of good journalism norms I saw recently. They include: provide context, hold those with power accountable, a never deliberately distort facts or context, But Another core principle of journalism, seek the truth (observe and research, form a hypothesis, collect data, verify it, test it, report it, and reflect on feedback and corrections.). Obviously not all these norms can always be followed perfectly in journalism, but you can try. In a class we might have people read a couple of articles and note the ways in which an article exhibits a norm or fails at the task. Finally, the balancing process can be helped by asking people in a class to intentionally pair news sources and after some time with that to report on the experience.For example, I routinely read Al Jazeera and pair that with the Free Press.
One method I've used to gain more perspective is to identify opinion columnists in the New York Times and pair them. For example, I pair Thomas Friedman with David French and Bret Stephens with Nicholas Kristof. In a class you can ask people to read a pairing and respond with what's called an itemized response - "What I like or can appreciate in this writer is .. What concerns me is ..." At the risk to my mental health I also read the comments. What becomes obvious very quickly is that most of the commenters are unable to respond to the level of nuance offered in the article and our resistance to living with only flawed saints and institutions. It does however help me understand the moral concept of invincible ignorance. I don't ask a class to read the comments section as it might only reinforce any existing sense of hopelessness about humanity.
It’s also possible to frame one’s media consumption using other categories. For example, there is what the establishment reads vs what most people read. Establishment media want accuracy, but also to confirm their beliefs. That’s the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, Bloomberg, etc. There is also corporate media - the majority of cable news, for example. Those attend to groups organized by advertising data. They will get basic facts right, but slant toward their audience.
I also distinguish between entertainment and news. Tucker Carlson and Sean Hannity are entertainment, just as Rush Limbaugh was. They are not places that are about checking facts. Talk shows are entertainment. They are useful to understand what listeners are hearing, but they don’t frame my own understanding. They help me know how other people see the world, but not the world itself. I like watching Star Trek, but to understand science, I’ll read the New Scientist.
I generally rely on not-for-profit and media sites that are public and independent. I’ve not given up on objectivity. In addition, diversity includes geographic diversity as well, so the Financial Times, the BBC, Al Jazeera become useful in helping widen my own view. I also like news sources like The Christian Science Monitor, CounterPunch, ProPublica, Mother Jones, and Consortium News, because they are not owned privately or require advertising dollars. They tend to say the provocative thing, and what people do not like to hear.
Analyzing a media diet by examining ownership structures is different than using political references. It’s what works for me.
Gawain has provided a very useful set of additional considerations. The formation issue is turning them into educational designs that can be used in a program. For example, helping people distinguish between reporting and opinion pieces can be done by having a class examine several articles and see if they can identify which is which. Possibly on a scale as some reporters like to slide their opinion into articles. His mention of “establishment media” brought to mind a set of good journalism norms I saw recently. They include: provide context, hold those with power accountable, a never deliberately distort facts or context, But Another core principle of journalism, seek the truth (observe and research, form a hypothesis, collect data, verify it, test it, report it, and reflect on feedback and corrections.). Obviously not all these norms can always be followed perfectly in journalism, but you can try. In a class we might have people read a couple of articles and note the ways in which an article exhibits a norm or fails at the task. Finally, the balancing process can be helped by asking people in a class to intentionally pair news sources and after some time with that to report on the experience.For example, I routinely read Al Jazeera and pair that with the Free Press.