So media is inevitably biased? Can we build a truly objective media outlet?

According to Prof Dan Hallin and Prof Paolo Mancini, we cannot model the entire media system into two extremes, one being free press and the other being “authoritarian” due to its over-simplicity. Instead, they modeled the different media systems into four categories: mass circulation, political parallelism, journalistic professionalism and degree of state intervention, in order to evaluate historical context and public interaction of the media outlet. As a result of classifications of the media systems, it has been clear that different media systems work with different motivations. For instance, many North Atlantic countries may broadcast information with high journalistic professionalism so that they would be able to get higher sponsorship or advertisement benefit. On the other hand, some Mediterranean media systems are subsidized, which reflects the degree political division in the respective regions. With these contexts, one important aspect Hallin and Mancini missed in their model is notion of “bias”. It is difficult to assess the degree of bias in a media system solely based on this model. However, clearly different motivations and historical contexts have affected media system, which should have made some level of bias. Moreover, I would even argue that media can never be unbiased due to sense of motivation the media outlet has and the core definition of bias.

All journalists report because they have some purpose to continue what they are doing. Some of them need to produce high quality news so that readership increases, resulting in higher revenue of advertisement. Some governments subsidize the media industry directly so that the media may propagate governmental activities. Regardless, they are not producing without seeking return. This sense of purpose affects how journalists interpret information and the reality as a whole; subjectivity comes in place as journalists behave differently based on their purpose. Because the media system always seeks for something as return or someone else incentives to report in some way, bias is undeniably inevitable. Of course, the definition of “bias” still remains arbitrary here, and certainly needs to be defined.

Bias describes the distance between the truth and our subjectivity, and we can never discuss matter of bias without consideration of subjectivity. Whether or not we are conscious, any action we take has some experiences behind and that makes some level of bias. Our interpretation of the reality does not limit to what we observe through sense perception, but also includes other personal factors, including how we pick information. This phenomenon therefore disables us to observe the objective truth. Plugging this logic into the media system, journalists tend to pick information based on their past experiences or their intuition, thereby subjectivity comes into play. This certainly disqualifies journalists for reporting unbiased information simply because they can’t.

Therefore, it has been clear that the current media is undeniably biased, and it is impossible to make it “unbiased” with the current human approach. So does it imply that building a truly objective media outlet is impossible? I would like to disagree to a moderate extent, with the rise of artificial intelligence. If we could create a system that reduce human subjectivity, we can approach a more objective media outlet, though it may not be “truly” objective. Limitations that journalists have are their subjectivity and physical inability to report all aspects of an event. Therefore, there needs a thorough discussion about what kind of assumption artificial intelligence of journalism should be included to create a more objective media outlet by reducing either physical inability or subjectivity.

Funding method is obviously a major factor of journalists’ motivation to pick information and to report. As mentioned, there are media systems run entirely by advertisement, which requires the industry to choose a specific audience to reach their highest possible benefit. There are also those which are run by direct government subsidy schemes. This media system may broadcast in favor of the government, though it is not necessarily the case of all Pluralist model countries. Therefore, as long as it is run by commercial or political motivation the media system cannot get rid of subjectivity due to audience. To clear out the motivation part, the journalistic artificial intelligence must be run solely by charity, which requests no return. In this way, the journalist (artificial intelligence) does not have to specify whose favor it is working for. This will certainly avoid filters of propaganda in some regions too, such as ownership, advertising, sourcing, flack and ideological marginalization.

2. How to pick information

Even if the journalist is working without any motivation, as long as journalist “picks” information subjectivity comes into play because the process of picking involves brainpower which comes from our experiences. Therefore, we have to generate algorithm in such a way the artificial intelligence would report unbiased information. This includes algorithm of “picking 10 random information in the event” or “10 things you have first observed”.

This proposal of artificial intelligence, however, seems quite unfeasible today due to a number of reasons. First, the methodology of interpreting information must be a debate. Should there be millions of cameras all over the world just for the sake of reporting? Or will there be a human-like robot with a camera on the head that walks? Secondly, with current technology, neither of the questions raised just now can be achieved by charity: installing millions of cameras or developing human-like journalists is a national-scale project and it is unfeasible to cover solely by charity. Lastly, methods of algorithms remain ambiguous: defining “randomness” or “first thing you observed” remained highly controversial. With these reasons, this proposal is less likely possible.

Thus, we can see how current media is inevitably biased and creating an objective media outlet is highly unlikely even if artificial intelligence is installed in the current media system. This was made clear when we have found that all journalists have sense of purpose, which produces further subjectivity. The definition of bias itself denies possibility of current journalists to produce unbiased reports. We have also looked at possibility of installing artificial intelligence in the field of journalism, but this turned out to be unfeasible due to impossible funding method and weakness of algorithm. Thus, we see difficulty of building an objective media outlet. Humanity has come far into the era of public opinions and one should start looking for different types of information rather than seeking for an unbiased report.

Related posts:

I really love the title of Sylvia Boorstein’s book. Though I must confess, I have not read it. Still, the title itself has much to say concerning the practice of sitting meditation or zazen, as it is…

Morning after morning we receive alerts on our smart phones cheering us onto the day. In the beginning it felt easier, the notifications weren’t so frequent and the news felt far away. We didn’t know…

Most of the people around the world are fascinated by pets because they entertain their life and also show care and attention and really like. The trend of having a dog or cat is quite up all around…