Media Biases and Their Influence on Society

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Table of Contents

General Analysis of Biases Determination
Liberal Journalist’s Biases Outcomes
Conservative Representatives Biases
When Biases Naturally Intermingle
Is it Worth Trusting the Media and Critical Thinking Importance?
Works Cited

General Analysis of Biases Determination

Since the beginning of the country’s development, mass media has become the most powerful tool for influencing general opinion about any subject. In fact, media resources are strong enough to “create” the truth. In other words, in certain cases, the truth is considered to be the fact, supported by the majority of people who can undertake the concrete decision. As a result, society now lives in the “informational era,” where data and public opinion about it are the determinative factors of any successful political campaign. Generally, the news tends to give the person a certain amount of information to know what is happening in the city, country, or world at the moment. People read them daily to stay “connected” with society, but everything changes when political debates or campaigns begin.

While most of the press is stuffed with information about future elections, for instance, the overall news background partially disappears. The newspaper reader is overwhelmed with the information about the only one, usually political, process. Right at that time, the mass media turns into a political weapon in certain party representative’s hands. In the massive stream of hostile investigations and updates, it becomes much easier to fix certain negative biases, which will negatively influence the opponent’s reputation. Due to the importance of being independent of informational overconcentration, it is critical to learn how to distinguish rightful information from biased one.

Liberal Journalist’s Biases Outcomes

When analyzing the liberal press, it is crucial to understand from the very beginning the overall social “portrait” of the democratic party that liberalists are trying to present to others. To begin with, their most powerful winning tactic is to find a politically strong person who refuses to comment on the situation connected with social minorities (Merrick). While the person does not want to destabilize the present situation, as it was in the case with English Prime Minister Boris Johnson, liberal journalists are acting the role of “the victim who unrequitedly tries to understand the truth.” As a result, in the case of refusing to comment Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement due to political unstableness, the disadvantaged minority becomes a leading power in the society. In other words, they find some powerful politicians during unstable times, represent a direct antagonist in front of the local authorities, and demonstrate the government’s inability to settle the preferable vector of development by the “majority” of society.

After that, it becomes much easier to provide different conclusions and publish them for a liberal view. To be more specific, in our case, journalists accused Boris Johnson of “having given “license to the racists” who abused the black players who missed crucial penalties in the Euro 2020 final” (Merrick). Consequently, the person reading such notice might decide that the accused side has many issues with compliance so that other political effectiveness should also be put under the question. Finally, the liberal bias is a powerful weapon because of its indirect influence on the overall reputation based on the only situation, which does not have a direct relation to the main obstacles.

Conservative Representatives Biases

On the contrary with liberals, conservatives’ representatives use stricter but not fewer effective tactics to gain the political prevalence and electoral majority in the governmental institutions. In the analyzed case, the journalist immediately implements a strong bias concerning the notion of the “power” of the republican party in the USA (Liptak et al.). Even though they are one of the two main parties in the United States, it is impossible to be omnipotent. The main representative of republicans before Democrat’s total prevalence, Trump indirectly motivated people who were convinced that the elections were falsified to make an assault on Capitol Hill in order to change the current situation. More specifically, Donald Trump legally influenced people to commit a direct crime by storming the Capitol, which is the most significant feature of conservative biases. In fact, they are trying to demonstrate the dominant position in the United States, and the more Democrats are out beating them, the more they affect the society to choose the party to belong to strictly. Consequently, people are strongly divided in their political views, with the biggest number of biases from both sides.

When Biases Naturally Intermingle

While society is divided into two warring parts, the main U.S. parties sometimes figure in the most widespread news concerning political outcomes. To be more specific, it is the journalists who force people to constantly compare two parties, their political and real leaders, and their influence on the world arena (CNN Politics). In the analyzed case, the report was concerning the Democrats’ plan of taking the U.S. troops out of Afghanistan and the quality of this operation. Nevertheless, instead of applying the data analysis in the report, the journalist was aimed to compare two attitudes to Afghanistan during their election. As a result, the report fixed two main biases concerning both parties. On the one hand, there are Democrats who lost the possibility to adequately provide a high-quality operation so that they cannot lead the U.S. army effectively. On the other hand, there are Republicans who did not qualitatively introduce their vision of taking the troops out of Afghanistan so that people might consider them as single players in the political arena. Instead of informing about the parties’ dialog concerning important country’s questions, the journalist introduced a Democrats’ critique compared to the Republicans’ inaction in the most important government obstacles.

Is it Worth Trusting the Media and Critical Thinking Importance?

Overall, after analyzing both sides of the biases, it is crucial to investigate whether the targeting audience is engaged in political debates. On the other hand, people might ignore such informational overload, and most of the budget for media activity is spending with zero outcomes. Recent polls demonstrate the strong down warding tendency representing the trustworthiness of mass media. As a result, due to the informational overload, the media became the “place to debate with others.” While the U.S. society is polarizing so that a significant gap between Republicans and Democrats has been rising for a decade, the media trustworthy does not have any perspectives to be growing in the long-term future. Eventually, decisive actions should be taken to increase the mass-media “quality” or change society’s opinion about it.

Nowadays, in the information era, it is critical for those willing to integrate into society to develop critical thinking abilities. More specifically, the logically-based analysis of every heard statement is named “critical thinking.” Those who are interested in reading mass media should constantly “filter” the credibility of information for some biases or simply false facts that were not double-checked before cited. As a result, with the increasing tendency to properly analyze all the information and journalists’ conclusions, the media would be forced to increase their “quality” standards. By doing this, joint efforts are developing the qualitative information background, which would contain a minimal amount of biased data.