|
I think most people have touched on the major points... Here's my $0.02 into the pot:
I personally subscribe to the social constructionist approach to media. It sees the established television news organizations (TV, newspaper) as the primary conduit of symbolic knowledge (knowledge about the world we've obtained but haven't experienced - for instance, how we know there is no oxygen in outer space). Yes, it is being supplanted by the internet, but for now, newspapers and televised news still represent a large segment of the "truth pie".
Social constructionism posits that all news is biased, representing the values or beliefs of specific segments of society, regardless of what that segment is. One group presents a frame by which we can understand some social phenomenon. That frame gets picked up by a news organization and is presented alongside news as a framework by which to interpret "reality." This works just as well for any issue (drop in stock market framed as market reaction to Obama). This happens on every news network, I just used Fox for the example because this thread is about Fox.
All symbolic knowledge has bias - Even deciding what is newsworthy introduces bias. Everything else is just semantics about whose bias, how much bias, and who is it biased against.
What can we do about it? Nothing. Just put on your critical thinking cap and dive in. Or, if you value your sanity, turn off the news and just enjoy your own experienced reality, instead of fretting over some symbolic knowledge that will never impact you in any meaningful way.
__________________
Feh.
|