Media consumption and criticism

Every media outlet has a bias. The business side of each outlet may try to convince people otherwise, but any journalist or media consumer with half a brain can figure it out.

Sometimes the bias is political. Sometimes it’s financial, racial or socio-economic. Other times it’s just a matter of a lack of resources and, most often, a lack of bodies to do the work. The industry is more strapped than ever before.

Journalists strive to be accurate, to include as many sides of the story as possible and to avoid bias toward one point of view or another.

But it happens every day and sometimes there is a major backlash from the public.

For example, there has been a bit of a backlash in the last day or so following coverage of the plane crash near Buffalo on Thursday night by one media outlet in particular, which has traditionally been known for its sensationalism.

Instead of simply regurgitating the few available details over and over again, the outlet took it a step or two further by providing some local context:

The Toronto-built Bombardier turboprop plane involved in Thursday night’s devastating crash in a Buffalo suburb is the same model used by Porter Airlines.

The media isn’t making this up. It’s true. In fact, the media is simply doing its job by reporting these facts, which people with connections to the aerospace or airline industries already knew. It was no secret.

Full disclosure: My boyfriend has worked for the past few years as an aircraft assembler at the Bombardier plant where the crashed Q400 was built. In fact, he probably worked on that very plane.

Aside from the fact that he’s pretty upset about the whole incident, we (and the thousands of other people with connections to Bombardier, Porter and the airplane industries in general) were already aware that Porter only flies Q400s.

But that doesn’t stop people from blaming media coverage for their problems instead of taking responsibility for their own media consumption.

Take the comments by Ryan L. over at blogTO, for example:

I now have 2 days to convince [his girlfriend] (who was already scared of flying prior) it is safe to travel on planes with otherwise impeccable safety records or we’ll be taking the greyhound and lose a full day out of our already brief trip.

…

Your constant lack of journalistic integrity has potentially ruined the vacation I’ve been saving up for and planning for 4 months.

I watched the CityNews coverage (as well as CBC) yesterday and, as a trained journalist, I think the story was reported with integrity.

Sure, it was reported in the sensational style typical of the outlet, but it was seemingly accurate and reported multiple sides of the same story, including the event itself, the story of the Canadian man who died in the crash, the story of the 9/11 widow who also died, and the local angle involving Porter and Bombardier.

What’s wrong with that?

Maybe I’m “one of them” now, but I can’t help but get my back up when relatively good examples of my profession are not only dragged through the mud, but also blamed for the ignorance and paranoia of the people who consume media.

I’m a true believer in looking critically at media, but I think people must also look at themselves and think critically about the way in which they consume media and how the media affects their day-to-day lives.

If media outlets censored themselves based on the possibility of making somebody somewhere afraid of something, nothing would ever be reported.

Governments and politicians would not be held accountable for their actions. Corporations which put public safety at risk would never be exposed. Corrupt individuals would never be identified and made an example of.

These terrifying things happen every day and are reported on every day, but without media exposure nothing is learned and nothing will change.

Before consumers turn on their television sets, open a newspaper or head to a news website, they must put their own fears, paranoia and biases in check.