How Far Can We Trust the Media?

How Far Can We Trust the Media?

The average Briton currently consumes roughly 8 hours and 41 minutes of  media every day, while only sleeping for 8 hours and 21 minutes according to communication regulator Ofcom - 4 hours of that is the consumption of television media and entertainment. Furthermore, the same study showed that six-year-olds have the same level of technological knowledge as most 45-year-olds; not only are we consuming more information each and every day, we are also learning how to consume it and where to find it at a far younger age. Further evidence for this is increasingly surprising- the 16-24 demographic are capable of consuming 14 hours of media in a 9 hour time period by multitasking - and your parents said you were lazy! 

With an unprecedented level of information at our fingertips, and an increase in the supply of our entertainment and media it's important to ask: How far can we trust the media? These, after all, are the people who teach us almost everything that we know (despite the best efforts of teachers) about the modern world. The truth isn't particularly promising.

In 2008, the BBC documentary series 'Panorama' aired a piece claiming that the Bangalore- based suppliers of Primark's clothing were using child labour in order to create their various products. Not only was this story proven to be 100% slanderous, the footage that they used in the show was STAGED. The BBC, an iconic household name in British people's hearts, who we pay television licence to in order to access their content, has openly lied to us. But this isn't the end of it- BBC News used a photograph from Iraq in 2003 to portray a Syrian massacre in 2012 - one might argue this is just lazy journalism, but if our journalists are willing to cut corners in order to provide easy stories and we know that they have lied to us before, what's to say that they don't doctor information all of the time? 

For example, BBC Newsnight were complicit in the spreading of false child abuse claims about the politician and adviser to Thatcher, Lord McAlpine. This in turn saw the resignation of  the BBC's Director-General George Entwistle. Stories like this ask whether or not the BBC is an organisation of objectivity. Now, before I make you explode, I know that it's outstandingly easy to call the BBC left-wing sympathisers but considering the manner in which they have doctored stories to highlight child labour, war atrocities and paedophilia, one has to wonder how trustworthy the BBC truly is. Moreover, we must be wary of a left leaning political bias which, one could argue, exists within the organisation. Objectivity in our media gives us the ability to think organically. The nature of a newspaper's 'spin' on a story colours our view of any possible event, and it's all down to the political stance of the provider, as well as that of the consumer.

Let me be frank. No trial of the media is complete without the barmy army of the right-wing press. With multinationals like News Corp owning multiple British newspapers such as The Sun and The Times, 50% of the American Foxtel News-Corp and almost every significant newspaper in Australia, it's no wonder that there has been a general homogenization of the right-wing press since the mid 20th century. News International, a subsidiary of the  News Corp corporation, was infamously engaged in phone hacking, police bribery and the exercising of improper influence within news stories. Whilst this seems wrong in itself, the journalists recorded the phone and text conversations of dead British soldiers and victims of the 7/7 bombings in 2005 - a distinct lack of humility has been shown by these journalists and rightly led to the closure of the News of the World newspaper and forced News Corp to back down from their attempts to purchase BSkyB.

Unlike the BBC, newspapers have no obligation to at least present themselves as objective, which generally leads to the right-wing going bananas with it all, and the liberal-left moaning about almost anything they can get their hands on. With The Sun posting taglines such as 'Evil in the name of Islam MUST STOP' it is relatively easy to point out the right-wing, anti-immigration agendas presented to us by The Sun and similar newspapers. Not only are comments like this inflammatory, but are also subtle hints of the institutional Islamophobia of the traditional Judeo-Christian Right. On the other hand, papers like The Guardian have equally outlandish messages- a recent example being a column by Dawn Foster which reads 'Leaked Tory plans to cap child benefits have the whiff of eugenics about them' on the basis that it condemns the poor by lowering child benefits once they have two children. Counter-intuitively, columnists like Dawn desire to reduce our Carbon Footprint whilst increasing the world's already vast population. Dawn's vacuous 'pie-in-the-sky' school of perplexing 'Greenisms' don't do any favours for those looking to create objective views on key policy issues. 

Every time that we access media of any variety, the information presented has been carefully selected and recreated in order to present 'Photoshoped' versions of the news. In the same way that Photoshop artists use 'signature' effects, particular writers and editors will always add a much nuanced edge to the information we consume. If you look hard enough, you can find the contrapositive or opposite of any particular event- take the election debates for example. The right-wing were quick to slam Ed Miliband, most peculiarly for leaving his script for policy in his changing room, which they argued made him look 'robotic'. Simultaneously, the left were quick to point out that Cameron hadn't dealt particularly well with the interview, even though the pro-Conservative Paxman was asking the questions- remembering that he was in fact asked to become an MP by the Conservative Party (I'll come back to Paxo later).  

Despite all of the things I have said, there is an argument in favour for such a diversity of news- the difference in opinion shows us the spectrum of views within our society, and in fact can lead to more interesting revelations about the political landscape of the UK than the news itself. The Sun and The Daily Mail were the only two newspaper in the UK with a physical circulation above a million copies in 2015. The survival of these newspapers, despite the large transferral of circulation to digital media, indicates a strong presence of  right-wing politics in British society, which is almost certainly apparent in the support for both the Conservatives and more recently UKIP.

The vast array of news placed before us makes the ability to understand the world (in terms of hard solid facts) nearly impossible. Furthermore, the digital age makes every image or news story we read suspect; war becomes theatre for the masses, with political spins either condemning or praising military action, and famine becomes the latest magazine cover for a generic magazine. Our vast surfing experience has taught us to believe that not all of the information that we process is true and we become desensitised to it all. Every image or story we consume may have been staged, recreated or exaggerated for political agendas. Not only this, but the increasing importance of advertising and marketing within British media overwhelms us with possible interpretations of any given event or product. News channels may collude with the beauty industry to suggest that the weather will be 'hot hot hot!' in order to increase the sales of sun-tan creams. We just simply cannot examine every single article of information that we are presented with and know with certainty whether or not the product has an ulterior motive.

To this extent, it is extremely easy to follow just one newspaper- you know roughly what you're going to get, whether you agree with the writers and the topics that you are likely to encounter. This is where we see the big danger- unconscious consumption of media will lead to marketing brainwashing, a lack of intuitive, independent thought and most importantly a lack of objectivity. This is what media companies want us to do: turn on, tune in, drop out. A key example of this would be the almost infamous Newsnight. But what we don't think about whilst we watch Britain's most cynical man host this sacred cow institution are these things: the spin the BBC wants to put on any story, Paxman's political biases (unintended or purposeful) or the news that the BBC wants you to hear. Not only do news corporations put spins on our news, but they careful cherry-pick it in order to embolden their views and agendas. 

So, are we to blame the media corporations for making us subjective consumers of imperfect information? Of course not, if anything, our general laziness and high self-worth are to blame. How can a society which spends more time consuming media than sleeping be expected to ever step back and 'think'- we are already using almost 17 hours of a 24 hour day consuming media and sleeping, so how are we ever supposed to analyse and evaluate the media which we consume? As a society which increasingly spends it's time rushing to nowhere, our consumption of media becomes less and less objective- we learn to accept the views of the writer because we don't believe that it would be time well spent to think objectively. 

This in essence is the animus of the problem. Media producers want to push certain views, and they know that consumers are increasingly more willing to accept the news that they read to be true; the modern world has taught us to be more critical of information, but the effort required to sift through and evaluate the quantity of information that we process is simply too taxing. Regardless, the media companies aren't concerned. We get our news, and they achieve their goals. 

So, to answer our question: no, we can't trust our media. Moreover, we can't trust ourselves. We are simply lazy consumers- we would rather be told imperfect knowledge in huge quantities than precise information in lesser quantities. Whilst I would like to say that humanity can rise above this and that the public will become more critical consumers of information, it seems increasingly unlikely. I suggest that you just bear in mind that it may be more beneficial to you if you consume crucial information in less quantity, with higher objectivity, than a mixture of cat videos and 60 second updates in your eternal quest to conquer the internet.