In Defense Of Alternative Media (AKA, There *Are* Unique Problems With The MSM)

[ihavenobias]

I was inspired to write this because I saw a thread where it was argued that the MSM is unfairly maligned and is no worse (and may actually be better because it might be less biased) than alternative forms of media. While I think there is *some* merit to that argument I have to respectfully disagree overall.

Of course each news source has varying degrees of bias and different types of bias. Obviously getting news from a wide variety of sources including *some* amount of MSM and some amount of alternative media is preferable to an either/or proposition (although I'd still argue the latter is more valuable).

But don't ignore the fact that the MSM generally provides a fake sort of neutrality that is mistaken for a lack of bias, whereby they try to give equal time and merit to opposing views *even when* the opposing view is held by 10 people huddled in a corner with little or no evidence to support them (hyperbole of course but you get the picture). Sort of like evolution vs creationism to take one recent example.

Or global warming skeptics funded by Exxon Mobil. The MSM likes to paint everything as "some people say this while others say that", giving one side what is often unwarranted credibility in the eyes of most viewers (and this applies to a wide variety of issues regardless of politics). That's NOT journalism! Letting *me* decide for myself misses the point of news IMO. It's supposed to inform. Just telling me that the Republican talking points are X and the Democratic talking points are Y is NOT news. We shouldn't just be looking for the talking points of EITHER party (which I why I get so pissed at Dem apologists who give this Congress a free pass but that's another issue).

Also, I think the MSM is terrified of being labeled liberal due to the concerted effort to make everyone believe that it is in fact overwhelmingly liberal that began in the 70's-80's. So they tend to lean right, even if only by avoiding much potential (and objectively valid) criticism over the Bush Administration over the years for example, or by making sure to go after democrats. It's like they're yelling out "see, look, look, I'm NOT liberally biased" and in the process, they sometimes become the opposite.

In other words, it's not just what they say, it's often times what they *don't* say. How many incredibly important stories have been buried? Granted, there is a compelling argument that the MSM isn't politically biased, but rather, it's ratings driven. And there again is some merit to that argument. But doesn't that make alternative media (which IMO is *less* driven by the bottom line generally speaking) much more likely to report on relevant topics unrelated to missing blond teens, murdered moms and Paris Hilton?

So in addition to the fake neutrality and avoidance of stories that *might* be labeled liberally biased, the MSM also spends in insane amount of time covering pure and utter bullshit. So *I* for one am going to continue to look for alternative media that isn't bogged down by these issues. Does it present it's own issues? Sure, there is no doubt that some, for example, progressive talk show hosts are more or less biased which is why like with anything, you should try to find the right combination and fact check and supplement their information/opinion with as many forms of media as possible.