The transition into adulthood is full of revelations big and small. You realize naps are your friend, your parents aren't always right, you don't want to be a doctor after all, so on and so on. Hopefully, somewhere along the way, you also realize much of the mass news media you ingest on a daily basis doesn't always have your best interests at heart. Providing unbiased information usually ends up taking a back seat to making a profit from advertisements. Advertisers like high ratings, and cable networks know viewers like a healthy dash of sensationalism in their evening news.
If you don't already fully understand the concept of sensationalism, let me summarize it in two words: Donald Trump. Of course, the concept isn't exclusive to the CEO, but he's a perfect example: loud, offensive, anger-inducing, ridiculous, but ultimately pointless. Sensational news is meant to shock or anger you, not to inform you. In Trump's case, the media treats a politician more like a celebrity, but he's not the only candidate subject to this kind of coverage.
Is this really the sort of news Americans want? According to the ratings from the most recent presidential debates: yes, it is. The latest Republican debate in September garnered an incredible 23 million viewers, a record setting number for CNN. The recent Democratic debate drew in 15 million viewers, which seems measly compared to the GOP's numbers, but huge compared to previous election cycles, which saw ratings between 2 and 5 million viewers. With so many Americans suddenly interested in an election, could it be argued that the sensationalism surrounding it is actually a good thing?
While spicing up the news has certainly gained a lot of people's attention, it's drawing our attention to all the wrong things. Millions didn't tune in to hear GOP candidates' economic plans, they watched to see who Trump would drag down and who would try to drag down Trump. Election coverage has taken on the tone of a season of Survivor, where the candidates are treated like reality TV stars. It is irresponsible for news outlets to devote so much time to one candidate not because they have something worthwhile to say, but because they bolster ratings. It's downright scary that something as important as the next leader of the free world can be handled in such a careless way.
By this point you might be wondering, how do I find the truth? What media sources can I look to for unbiased information? But it's not so much a matter of what you read or watch, but rather how you do it. The single most important thing you can do is vary your sources. If you only listened to Fox News every day for the rest of your life, you'd end up with a pretty narrow world view. Flip between different cable news sources, listen to NPR on your way to work, read BBC News and Al Jazeera; take in as much as you can, and discern it with a critical eye. Our generation has an advantage no generation before us has had. Through the internet, the world is at our fingertips. We have the option to investigate, to rise above misleading sensationalism, and truly think for ourselves.
