Over the last few decades the idea that we should be teaching people "media literacy" has gained traction. There now exists a substantial body of scholarship, popular writing, and other communications dedicated to that general topic. Indeed, this "Media Rants" column and blog from its inception twenty years(!) ago has at least in part been designed to promote media literacy.
One major part of media literacy efforts--I've seen it expressed in scores of articles, panel discussions, and workshops--involves making people aware of media "bias." The dominant view is that media bias exists on a "left vs. right" axis. From this perspective, media consumers should know which sources lean left or far left, which lean right or far right, and which are "centrist." This type of media literacy education and advocacy has had a profound impact on the way people consume news in the United States. Almost everyone believes that some kind of political agenda infects all reporting, and almost everyone sees "unbiased" reporting as something worth striving for.
In my view, teaching media literacy as the ability to locate left/right bias has been a well meaning but seriously flawed effort. In the remainder of this post I will highlight the flaws and then present an alternative. Specifically, I will argue that media literacy education should encourage people to think of media as existing NOT on a left vs. right continuum, but on a top vs. bottom. Moreover, I will argue that in a democratic society, media literacy education should not teach people that ethical reporting minimizes all bias. Rather, ethical reporting minimizes bias toward the "top" while maximizing bias toward the bottom. In other words, ethical journalism in a democratic society should be of, by, and for the people.
The Flaws of Left vs. Right Bias: The Example of the AllSides Media Bias Chart
AllSides Media was founded in 2012 by John Gable, a former Republican party aide and communication technology specialist, and software developer Scott McDonald. AllSides makes a good faith effort to help people escape from the "filter bubbles" that limit their ability and/or willingness to investigate multiple sides of important issues. AllSides has probably become most famous for its "Media Bias Chart".
https://www.allsides.com/media-bias/media-bias-chart
AllSides markets itself explicitly to schools, and a number of K-12 and university teachers now use the Media Bias Chart as a way of helping students think critically about sources. My own anecdotal experience with the Chart is that most students immediately gravitate toward the "centrist" sources as being the most reliable and trustworthy, even though AllSides itself warns against that: "Center doesn't mean better! A Center media bias rating does not always mean neutral, unbiased or reasonable, just as 'far Left' and 'far Right' do not always mean 'extreme,' 'wrong,' or 'unreasonable.'" Even though AllSides warns against the fallacy of favoring "centrism," the Bias Chart inevitably skews in that direction. Since all news outlets claim to be striving for independence and objectivity, why would any of them want to be labeled as "leaning left" or "leaning right?"
It's tempting to look at the Media Bias Chart and haggle over which sources AllSides chooses to place in each column. (e.g. is CNN really "far left"? Is Wall Street Journal news reporting really in the "center"?). But such haggling really misses the major flaws involved in situating news media as operating on a Left vs. Right axis:
1. "Center" is perceived as "Fair" when it may in fact be "Afraid." Afraid of what? Likely possibilities include fear of offending advertisers, fear of losing subscribers, and fear of losing access to "insider" sources.
2. Because "Left" and "Right" have become nothing more than Devil Terms, naming a source as "Left" or "Right" immediately taints it for half or more of the population. While AllSides purports to want to encourage people to consume all sides, labeling the sides in advance makes it much less likely a news consumer will do that. In other words, rather than giving people more motivation to consume multiple sources, AllSides actually provides "information" (i.e. which sources are "left," "right," and "center") making it easier for people to dismiss sources before even investigating them.
3. In a market economy like the modern United States, corporate news media bias is ALWAYS in the direction of profit. That's why mainstream media, on the so-called left and so-called right, can move from wall-to-coverage of Ukraine v. Putin to Heard v. Depp almost overnight. Such seismic shifts in what we are supposed to be paying attention to have little to do with "left" and "right" bias as much as bias towards clicks and downloads.
4. Organizations like AllSides reflect a fundamental misunderstanding of the responsibility of news media in a representative democracy. Their responsibility is NOT to seek “balance” but to seek TRUTH; not to “please the rulers” but to SERVE THE PEOPLE.
An Alternative View: Not Left vs. Right, But Top vs. Bottom
The AllSides Media Bias Chart and many efforts like it are concerned with answering the question, "What perspective does news and/or commentary represent?" Is it left, center, or right? What if that's the wrong question? What if the right question is, "WHO does news and/or commentary represent?" In the language of the Occupy Wall St. movement, does the source represent the 99 percent or the 1 percent? Asking the latter question requires replacing the "left vs. right" framework with a "top vs. bottom."
To visualize what I am talking about, take a look at the "Pyramid of Capitalist System" which featured prominently in Industrial Workers of the World organizing in the early 20th century. The poster's illustration has roots in the anti-capitalist philosophy of 19th century French socialist Louis Blanc, and shows the masses of working people at the bottom of a social hierarchy in which the workers carry on their backs the upper classes, the police and military, the ideological managers, and the politicians. Money sits at the top of the pyramid.
Because the Pyramid is rooted in Socialist thinking, and has been used by radical movements in the United States and--gasp--Russia, it is easy to dismiss it as nothing more than Leftist propaganda. You don't have to be a radical socialist, however, to grasp the fact that corporate media are a vital part of the capitalist system, and that the masses of people are not served well by that media. Because mainstream journalism and commentary lacks a clear commitment to people over profit, it should not surprise us that bad faith actors like Donald Trump and Tucker Carlson are able to portray themselves as populists on the side of the common man over the "media elites." The New York Times recently published a brilliant analysis of how Mr. Carlson is able to stoke populist anger, but failed to address in any meaningful way how the failings of their own brand of top-down journalism and commentary facilitated his rise.
 |
| The "Pyramid of Capitalist System" is a useful way of thinking about the role of media in society. Media should be serving the masses at the bottom. |
In contrast to the left vs. right model put forth by AllSides and media literacy outfits like it, a top vs. down model doesn't situate mainstream media as outside the political economy of society. Rather, the top vs. down model helps people see that media are a core part OF the political economy. As such, the media will, for a variety of reasons, reflect the values of the "one percent" in much reporting and commentary.
From the top/down framework, the purpose of news media and commentary should not be to work toward becoming "bias free," but to be biased in favor of representative democracy and biased against forces working against it.
From the top/down framework, the "left," "right," and "center" sources listed in the AllSides Media Bias Chart can all, at various times and on a variety of issues, represent "the bottom" instead of "the top." But more important than that is the fact that the top v. down perspective encourages a media consumer to seek out-- actively--independent sources of news and commentary not reliant on one-percent support for survival.
From the top/down framework, to be media literate means more than consuming a balanced diet of establishment "left, center, and right" news and commentary. To be media literate means to understand the media as a business, and to appreciate how that fact helps to shape stories and commentaries in ways that reinforce the values of the one-percent. To be media literate means to be a media activist; to push mainstream media to give more voice to reporting and commentary that reinforces the values of the ninety-nine percent, and to support non-mainstream, independent reporting and commentary from "the bottom."
