In addendum to my previous post, just some thoughts on being selective in what media you consume.
When you look at the function of journalism, it has traditionally served as a checking power on authority, particularly political authority. In that sense, journalism naturally plays an important political role. However, how that role is interpreted varies greatly depending on where in the world you are.
In Northern European countries, with their long tradition of written news, newspapers and what they contain are seen differently than, for example, in Southern Europe. In Southern Europe, newspapers have also played an important role historically, but they have traditionally been more elite-based. What you often see there is a very pronounced political stance as part of the newspaper’s identity; people buy a newspaper not only to know the news but also to understand the opinion that aligns with their own views.
In that respect, I think it’s good to always pause and ask: “What type of newspaper do I actually want to read?” And if you do that, you become aware that you need to choose a type of newspaper. Or at least that’s how I’ve approached it myself. I come from a Northern European country, which means that the news here is predominantly formed by a democratically inspired and socially responsible press, and although government-sourced news often comes with a somewhat moderating responsibility in its presentation, it’s generally fairly accurate but also clearly framed.
At the same time, I read a newspaper (not tabloid) from the UK where their press system is more liberal; I put it somewhere between that of America and Northern Europe. Then I also read American newspapers, but with those you really have to be careful about which ones you choose. In the past ten years, I have observed a change in their journalism and, in my opinion, they have moved from a very liberal system to something that is now very much under pressure.
As a nice illustration of the difference between the press on both ends of the spectrum, I recently watched a young journalist from Europe who was attending a press conference on a school shooting. He was getting more and more frustrated by the questions that were asked. The American media asked for numbers on victims, the type of gun that was used, and the age of perpetrators, etc. a typical breaking news situation. But no one was asking why this happened and what could be done about that, and when he asked, of course, the press conference was swiftly interrupted and stopped. Sure, you can argue that there’s a time for everything, and those questions can be asked later, but it showed so painfully how the two sides of the spectrum were so far apart.
We cannot delve into politics here, but these, I think, are the main indicators for understanding what kind of newspaper you are reading, how that fits into your thinking, and where it sits on that spectrum.
