There is a long history of the mainstream media providing poor coverage of the President. The coverage is consistently deficient or misleading, providing the population with insufficient understanding of the President’s policies, aspirations, and accomplishments. This analysis is nonpartisan. All mainstream media outlets are deeply biased toward one political party or the other to a greater or lesser degree. Partisan media existed even in the early years of United States. Newspapers such as the “Federalist Gazette” and the “Democratic-Republican Aurora” attacked and supported presidents such as John Adams and Thomas Jefferson. Sensationalism and responsibility have always been twin factors in the coverage of the President. While the sensationalism factor has increased exponentially, the responsibility factor has degraded to a virtually null value. Fierce political dialogue as well as the proliferation of misinformation existed then as now.
Inventions like the radio and television evolved and the dissemination of both information and disinformation continued on more personal platforms. Franklin Roosevelt delivered ‘The Fireside Chats,’ a series of radio addresses to the citizens. Between the years of 1933 and 1944 Roosevelt used the chats to keep the American citizens informed about the policies and actions performed by the United States government. Later presidents were able to do the same on television. This is when a greater opportunity for the media to introduce sensationalism and the manipulation of the President’s image.
The dismissal of the Fairness Doctrine was another element of degradation in the balanced influence of presidential coverage. From 1949 to 1987 the United States Federal Communications Commission (FCC) had an established policy requiring broadcasters to present contrasting viewpoints on important topics to provide balanced and diverse programming. The intended purpose was to ensure that broadcasting promoted fair and diverse coverage of topics. The key rules of the Fairness Doctrine were as follows: follows:
- Coverage of Controversial Issues: Broadcasters were required to provide fair, equitable, and balanced coverage of issues considered to be controversial.
- Fair Presentation of Different Views: Broadcasters were to give reasonable opportunities to the presentation of dissenting opinions to ensure that multiple points of view were aired.
- Personal Attacks Rule: There was prohibition of airing personal attacks against groups or people during discourse of controversial issues.
- Political Broadcasting Rules: Specific rules were in place to ensure political candidates were given equal airtime to prevent broadcasters from giving an advantage to one candidate over another.
- Reasonable Access: In order to ensure individuals viewers and listeners were given the opportunity to receive the benefit of information of multiple view points there was a requirement to provide reason access to those who expressed interest in discussing controversial issues. This gave a variety of groups and individuals access to broadcast platforms.
The doctrine was not applied to all forms of media, primarily radio and television because they were considered to have little spectrum space. As a resource of the government, the FCC had grounds to regulate and ensure that interest of the public was served. Due to criticism on grounds that the Fairness Doctrine limited reduced the ability of broadcasters to express editorial judgement and hampered freedom of speech, the doctrine was abolished in 1987.
The 24-hour news cycles increased critical scrutiny of presidents in the last 25 years. Escalation of sensationalism, bias, misinformation increased linearly. Both Republican and Democrat presidents began to face negative and often unfair coverage which distorted public perception. Social media was a spark to a short fuse. The level of false information grew beyond control. Anyone with an opinion and access to the internet now has a media platform. Whereas the years prior the articles were curated, edited, held to some small standard, the filter is gone. There is no guardrails on public speech over the internet and very little punishment for violations, now with a few exceptions cut out. Individuals may face civil penalties for defamation or criminal punishment for threats, but even in this case there is a high threshold. It is almost as if a person needs to threaten another with a terroristic threat to be worth the effort of tracking down and bringing to justice. Social media has been by far the worst contribution to informative media. This addition has created a reduction in the faith of all forms of media and furthered the difficultly in maintaining a presidential image for any candidate.
With history established, it has been my opinion that the modern media has far greater resources, a bigger platform, and more views and listeners than any point through history. The disappointing fact is that even less is being done to inform the public. The purpose media of seems to have shifted from information to entertainment. This is true the point where the on-air personality openly admit that they are not considered a source of news (this is on a news network), but that they are entertainers. This gives them license to express issues of fact as opinion.
As such, the issuance of information on news networks can be taken no more seriously than what can be heard on a sit-com or sketch comedy. The public is encouraged to validate the accuracy of information, independently making the service little more than useless. With that considered, how does one stay informed? Subject matters subject matters such politics have grown in importance with the proliferation of misinformation. Individuals trust empirical evidence less as the ability to distort it becomes easier and the knowledge of how to do so becomes more widely known.
Under circumstances such as these, people are more easily manipulated by charisma and personality than fact and observation. It is more important than ever for the mainstream media to act responsibly. The coverage of the current president has been insufficient whereas the coverage of the former president has been excessive.
Frequently the media has asked administration officials on numerous occasions: “Why do you think the public doesn’t know about this?”
The answer is so clear that I’m unable to understand how the person addressed does anything short of shouting until he or she foams at the mouth. The question is never answered adequately.
“BECAUSE YOU DON’T TELL THEM!”
There are people who rely on the news to learn of this nation’s progress and the increasing opportunities. Viewership is what drives the mainstream media and the accomplishments of President Biden doesn’t meet their standards. His creation of jobs, reduction of reliance on fossil fuels, improvements in national security, and restoration of the faith in international communication often go unmentioned. The psychotic actions of Donald Trump in terms of ratings generate more interest, and thereby more revenue for the network. While this is technically fiscally responsible to the stockholders, it is arguably morally and socially irresponsible.
The administration’s achievements take a backseat to the “Jerry Springer Show” that Donald Trump has made of his life. Where is the coverage of the good in the nation or its aspirations? When one considers the serious concern over the reelection of Donald Trump. The media networks excite and terrorize their viewers with the horror that could be their own lives (again). However, when the opportunity to counter-message comes, the focus shifts to the latest outrage.
The accomplishments that are life effecting to U.S. citizens deserve more than one fifteen-minute segment per day. People should be made aware of the truth and the effects present politics offer us. If I was unemployed for the last four years, I would like to know who I should attribute the change in my well-being to. When I have the chance to influence whether my taxes are dedicated to education or a border wall, I want to know who is willing to advocate for my position on the matter. The fact is even the people who try to stay informed about the state of affairs for any given subject cannot rely about the news. If you want to know Chris Evan’s shoe size, you have a pretty good chance of finding out at 6:00 PM.
The fact that an entirely new industry is being introduced to the United States, by the work of one political party should tell you which party is in favor of promoting the advancement of country. I’m referring to the “Chips Act.” This is an effort intended to increase employment and self-reliance the United States. But how many people know it exists, why it exists, who brought it to us, who opposed it, and most importantly how it will impact our lives? This is why the news exists. People should be informed of change.
The worst part of this is that the media is already partisan. One would think that one side or the other would have an interest in promoting the benefits provided by their preferred party. Instead, all media choose to show the same sensational information. The difference lies in how that information is spun. The advancements in media technology have been immense, but the quality of information has not been able to keep up with it. To any and all who care, my advice is to dedicate a little time to seeking out two or three sources of information that you think may have some educational and informative value. Before trusting them, cross-reference the data gathered as a form of validation. If satisfied, commit to those, and try to continue looking for new sources, because ownership and leadership of media companies can happen frequently or suddenly. So, once you find that a source become too sensational or too biased, you can drop it. From there continue with the remaining and look for more.
If I felt that I was in a position to give guidance, I would recommend something, but the truth is I’m always looking, but never quite finding. I pick information here and there and have a couple places I frequent. There are commentaries on YouTube that I trust to keep me informed enough to look for confirmation and validation, but I’ve yet to find something that I would qualify as a source.
Best of luck to you!
— Citizen Mooney