Journalism at its foundation aims to present factual and objective material to audiences in

order for them to be informed about the world and make decisions about their lives. This
impartiality however has not been the case as subjectivity, sensationalism and eschewing of
information has been prominent in media landscape for centuries. It has been increasingly
evident in recent times, particularly during the presidency of Donald Trump, that journalistic
standards have been undermined in the United States of America. There is however a
history of lax journalistic standards in this country for a long period of time. Evidence of such
includes the American 1890’s phrase ‘yellow journalism’, which is defined as “journalism
and associated newspapers that present little or no legitimate, well-researched news while
instead using eye-catching headlines for increased sales”.

The lack of objectivity in media/journalism and the continued emphasis on ‘story’ in ‘news
story’ can be attributed to many factors. One factor is the requirement of attention. Due to
the finite and transient nature of attention, news outlets must define and distinguish
themselves through their form of retelling ‘news’, whether it is objective or not, to capture
and retain audience attention. This leads to an attention economy.

Before attention can be achieved, an audience must first be present. Noam Chomsky’s
‘model of manufacturing consent’ identifies five filters that media operates through. The
second of Chomsky’s filters, ‘advertising’, suggests that because media costs more to
produce than what consumers will pay, advertisers fill this gap. Advertisers pay media
companies to have access to their audiences which in turn, funds the media companies.
Where the greater an audience or market, the more attractive the company is to
advertisers, therefore there is a greater capacity of these companies to demand a higher
advertising price. This cycle results in media companies being more inclined to make their
journalism lean towards sensationalism in order to maintain attention and an audience for
themselves and to be sold as a product for advertisers.

Another factor that provides an explanation for the growing subjectivity and scepticism of
different viewpoints present in the media, is the influence of politicians and their politics.
Chomsky’s third filter, ‘sourcing’, delves into this further, stating the ‘media elite’ make
themselves crucial to the journalism process, essentially suggesting those who are in power
and those who report on them are ‘in bed together’. This outlines how easily the
politicisation of the media and the connections between the media elite and media houses
can sway the outcome of journalism. This is attributed to the relationship where politicians
need journalists to push their agendas and journalists need stories to feed the news cycle.
Furthermore, this allows the so called ‘media elite’ or more specifically, politicians, to be
gatekeepers of information, picking and choosing their preferred media outlets to distribute
their viewpoint.

Mass media firms are corporations which allow critical journalism to be placed second to
the needs of the corporation, the ‘need’ being profit. This permits a cycle to perpetuate
where all of the above-mentioned strategies and motives continue and become further
exaggerated in order to be able to compete with other corporations and achieve the end
goal of the greatest monetary gain possible.
Different deliveries of media affect its interpretation by the audience and the consequent
actions taken as a result. It is common for simple factors such as wording to be able to
change a story, even if the facts are the same.

Due to a focus on profit, stories can be exaggerated or sensationalised to get more money.
Such a transmission of information often leads to division between people as the stories
tend to force them to question which ‘side’ they’re on and which side they believe.
However, this is noticeably accredited to the dramatization of stories, as facts inherently do
not require a side to be taken, highlighting the damaging effects of non-objective media.

This polarisation of audiences only becomes wider due to factors such as the reliability of
confirmation bias, which can be defined as “the tendency to search for, interpret, favour,
and recall information in a way that confirms or supports one's prior beliefs or values”. This
ultimately causes people to hold onto information that confirms their already held beliefs
and disregard information that does not fit within them, making people become more set in
their opinions and therefore limiting the space for a middle ground to be present. This can
have positive effects including the opportunity for people and their beliefs to feel
represented and therefore valid. However, it can also mean people never actively challenge
anything or gain critical thinking skills because they are only ever presented with
information that is, to them at least, the truth.

Once this segregation of people and ideologies occurs, it develops into a competition to gain
as many people on board with each individual’s personal held beliefs. This is where
strategies for gaining an audience aren’t only implemented by the media itself however also
by the public. Echo chambers and media bubbles are just one example of this as both
involve environments where an individual’s exposure to news represents only their opinion
and gets reinforced due to repeated exposure to the same beliefs, through foundations such
as peers or media sources. They also often involve the misrepresentation or even complete
exclusion of other perspectives as well as instilling a sense of distrust and disbelief of facts
that are evident and proven. These strategies are put into place to attract a following of
your media bubble, further encouraging and enforcing dissonance between people.

This lack of agreement between the public leaves people stagnant in their search for the
‘truth’ as, with the example of social media, an algorithm provides media that is tailored to
an individual, entertaining and of interest to them, therefore they see no reason to look
further. Canadian philosopher, Marshall McLuhan sums up this theory with his idea that
people are best informed when they are being entertained, stating “anyone who tries to
make a distinction between education and entertainment doesn't know the first thing about
either”.
In an attempt to counteract this issue, it is important to first identify it. The issue, at its core
is the lack of trust in media due to a lack of objectivity in the delivery of information as well
as the often ulterior motives that are present.

British-Ghanaian philosopher, Appiah Kwame Anthony believes the antidote is to have a

healthy media diet, meaning making sure to consume media from a variety of different
sources. 19th Century philosopher, W.K Clifford, believed that "it is wrong always, and,
everywhere for anyone, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence" would support this
option for a solution by taking the action to seek out factual and relevant information in
order to make well informed judgements and values. Danish philosopher, Søren
Kierkegaard, also had a philosophy that essentially supports this theory as he believed our
capacity to feel strongly about a particular story becomes a moral act in which we must act
upon. However, Kierkegaard’s philosophy allows for the point to be made that this may give
a sense of pseudo agency to the public as they begin to believe they have autonomy over a
situation where they do not.

Conversely, maybe this is not the case and society is not too far gone to have an impact.
Maybe the solution, although perhaps imperfect, may have a chance to be developed and
be an optimistic step towards facing the issue at hand.

Implementing a class or program into school curriculums that teach critical thinking or
specific skills on how to search for the ‘truth’ in an oversaturated media landscape, may be a
solution. However, this alone seems to place all of the onus of ‘truth’ seeking on
schoolchildren. Even if these programs were presented to a wider audience, still the onus is
on the general public rather than the developers of content having responsibility.

In response to the rise and evolution of social media platforms used as news sources, it
could be argued these large corporations need to take on some responsibility and employ
tools such as fact checkers to at least attempt to make a change, as they are a growing
portion of the issue.

Possibly it is needed to instigate a harsher set of more binding rules to reduce the negative
impacts media is having upon society. Laws such as having legalised objectivity in the form
of charters for news sources may help to achieve a greater sense of objectivity across all
platforms as well as act as an incentive for media outlets to obey the directives in place.
More transparency is also required as a part of a solution. If legalised transparency
statements became laws, it would make it easier for audiences to identify biases. Actions
such as publishing a statement at the bottom of an article declaring who funds/funded the
article or company who distributed it or even statements including information of personal
biases of the author or people involved in the article could be readily mandated steps to
increase transparency.