Kant vs. the News Media
Recently in lecture, we discussed the writings of Immanuel Kant and his ideas about how a society becomes enlightened. According to him, freedom is necessary for an enlightenment. People must emerge from their immaturity (caused by a lack of autonomy) and begin to think for themselves. Although citizens should be allowed to think or write about whatever they like, it is key that they still obey the laws held over them. Essentially, Kant is opposed to the idea of paternalism within the political sphere. I'm sure all of us followed the election closely and with much anxiety, and some interesting questions came to my mind when I was watching the election coverage and analysis. What would Immanuel Kant say about American news media stations in the 21st century? Are the popular news stations actually fair and balanced? Do we draw conclusions based on the stories they present, or do they tell us what to believe? Finally, do these stations aid in enlightening the American populace, or have they become paternalistic and excuses for us to stop thinking independently? In order to examine these questions, I will use the two most biased news stations as examples...Fox News and MSNBC.
 |
| Image found here |
 |
| Image found here |
I hope that it is not ridiculous for me to assert that Fox News places a conservative spin on their news coverage while MSNBC does the same thing from the liberal side. If you question the bias of these news channels, watch one hour of Sean Hannity on Fox or an hour of Hardball with Chris Matthews on MSNBC. The ideology of these programs can even be seen if we look at the political identifications of their viewers. According to a Pew Research Poll, 65% of people who watch Hannity are Republicans, while 65% of people who watch Hardball are Democrats. Furthermore, media accuracy has hit a two decade low, with only 29% of people saying that the press gets the facts straight. The majority of Americans believe that news outlets often get the facts wrong, while also believing that these outlets present information in a biased fashion.
 |
| Sean Hannity image found here |
 |
| Chris Matthews image found here |
So, back to my original questions. What would Kant say about these inaccurate news sources? I would argue that the original purpose of a news outlet is to responsibly inform viewers and readers about current information. While bias will always be present in all types of media, stations should work to limit this as much as possible, and should always be conscious about making accurate, fact-based presentations. The exact opposite of this seems to be occurring. Media outlets continually refuse to present both sides of the story, and accuracy is declining to maximize television ratings. In my opinion, Kant would argue against this type of news coverage. When a news station's slogan is "Fair and Balanced," it is their responsibility to present that type of coverage. If these channels admitted to their biases and called their programs "political commentaries" instead of "news," then this would be a totally different conversation. However, I think that Kant would watch these channels and would see viewers being explicitly told what to believe. This bias does not force Americans to grow out of their immaturity, and inaccurate information has no business in the newsroom. I would go so far as to say that Kant would want the government to get involved to end these types of presentations. For the sake of enlightenment and autonomy, Kant would urge these programs to reform or be abolished by the state. Below is a selection from the MSNBC program, The Last Word with Lawrence O'Donnell, the bias in this video clip is crystal clear.
It looks like we are faced with a difficult problem. What do we do about these media outlets? There was a time in American history when the Fairness Doctrine existed, forcing news stations to present both sides of a controversial topic for equal amounts of time. Unfortunately, problems arose due to this mandate. A chilling effect was created, and news stations became afraid to cover controversial stories because of the threat of legal sanction. In response to this, the Fairness Doctrine was removed under the Reagan administration. I don't know what a great solution to this problem would look like. One possible option is to institute a watered-down version of the Fairness Doctrine, so media stations must present both sides of a controversial topic, but not necessarily for equal amounts of time. Another idea is to force news channels to create programs with hosts that have different ideologies. Could you imagine watching a station where Hardball comes on at 6pm, Hannity comes on at 7pm, The Last Word starts at 8pm, and The O'Reilly Factor ends the night at 9pm?
Please, feel free to comment on this post. I would love to hear your opinions concerning what Kant would think about the media in the 21st century. What would he suggest that we do about this situation? How can we make the media fair and balanced?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteYou make some interesting points and I enjoyed your post. However, I think Kant would be less interested in controlling the media as he would be in simply discouraging the individual from relying on others for knowledge. I agree that Kant would view the paternalist nature of media as a problem; however, I think Kant concerns himself more with encouraging independence rather than regulation of paternalism.
ReplyDeleteHowever, this poses an interesting problem within the modern context. How can one be expected to be an "autonomous" individual when one has few places to turn for information other than biased forms of media? It is difficult to form purely independent conceptions of anything when the information is largely biased before it can even be obtained for interpretation. It's hard to imagine a society of independent thinkers, who form their ideas independent of one another's biases.