The changing face of the news media

The morning of September 11, 2001 I was in my Brooklyn apartment getting ready to go to class and then it happened. The need to be informed as events unfolded that day could not be greater. People turned to any and all available news media to get that information and journalists, reporters, and anchormen valiantly fulfilled their roles as informers.

It was a rare moment of an ideal news mediasphere realized. Sure, there were moments of blatant sentimental storytelling and sensationalism in the media at the time, but we can all recall the solemn, stoic voice of those personalities whom we chose to listen to narrating our collective thoughts and emotions as fellow eyewitnesses to a national tragedy.

With the recent passing of Walter Cronkite, “the most trusted man in America,” a legend from the golden era of news media has passed. News anchors and journalists like Cronkite were synonymous with trust. It was a time when they stuck to the truth, asked the hard questions, and had no qualms with introducing their opinion when it mattered. Some would argue they were often more knowledgeable than even our own politicians in office. Newsmen like Cronkite weren’t interested in policy-making, however. They were more interested presenting accurate and balanced information on the big issues affecting the country.

Compared to the run-up to the Iraq War, the news media often acted more like a PR mouthpiece for the Bush administration than reporting accurate and balanced information. Of all the personalities in contemporary news media, only a small minority were actually questioning the rationale, morality, or legality of preemptive war. Most outlets were relying on polls that showed popular support for the war in 2003 in making a conscious decision to feed and feed upon popular opinion rather than to examine objectively what our leaders were getting us into and on what justifiable evidence.

In 2003, Cronkite, speaking at Drew University and guided by expert knowledge of the political atmosphere surrounding the Vietnam War, openly dissented against popular support for the Iraq War, against overconfident army generals, and an arrogant president. He was one of the few journalists who knew exactly how a government uses deception and manipulation to trump up support for war. The news media is no less a victim than the individual, however unlike the individual the news media has the ability to shift popular opinion and put pressure on our elected leaders to do what is right. In this respect, they failed.

Much of the country, including the news media, could only speak in the past tense when we finally said, “Wait a minute, what exactly did our leaders get us into? Why didn’t we listen to voices of reason?” By then it was too late. We were waist deep.

After all I’ve seen, heard, and read in the news media since 2001, I’ve become a more conscious and selective news consumer. I’ve realized a few things: One, there are no wrong or bad stories in the media as long as it appeals to someone’s intellect and moral or political values; two, most news is biased reflecting on news consumers’ own biases.

There are fundamental divisions in our country and the lines run deeper than ever before. The philosophy of accuracy, balance, and unbiased news was lost to the ideologues on both sides some time ago. The people have taken their sides and their rallying points are who they turn to for their own version of the truth.