Media coverage, in general, has shifted over the last decades, but more specifically the last few years.
Traditional media, such as newspapers, radio and TV, were gatekeepers; they controlled the narrative. The news would also have a clear hierarchy, letting you know what’s most important by which stories were on the front page or led the newscast. Depending on where you get your news from, you won’t experience this anymore. If you get your news from Facebook, Reddit or YouTube, the hierarchy is base on what is most popular, not what is most important (for example a cat video may beat out a news story telling you about a policy change causing your mortgage rate to rise).
While the internet has certainly many benefits, and there are substantial drawbacks to the old media structure which has at times created a perception of elitism, there’s a real downside as well. With traditional media no longer exclusively controlling the narrative, it’s sparked a crucial change in the way traditional media operate.
It used to be that when “crazy person says crazy thing” or “racist person says racist thing” the media would simply ignore it. Now, because the most outrageous statements play well on other media, such as Facebook, suddenly the most fringe voices have become the most prominent. This is further reinforced by media coverage which has changed from ignoring “crazy person says crazy thing” to “crazy person says crazy thing and here’s why it’s crazy and you shouldn’t believe it.”
The other thing this does is put the media in a position that makes them look biased and less trustworthy. If someone makes a statement that is factually inaccurate, and the media starts disputing the statement it looks like they’re picking a side, when, in fact, they’re doing the same thing they’ve always done: fact checking.
A subsequent problem is that in the media there starts to be resentment towards some of the coverage. This resentment itself can actually be the first exposure to the news. Take the stories Tom Fletcher complains about is his column this week; they’re not stories all of our readers will have heard about, nor would we be likely to run a story on a protest in Vancouver.
The media isn’t the only one that is affected by this. When a controversial figure enters a political race, the other candidates immediately start attacking the controversial figure. The consequence being that the controversial figure immediately appears to be the frontrunner further forcing media to cover their statements.
It’s time to return to a more reasonable state of discourse, not by denouncing things, but by simply ignoring them.
