It’s no secret that President Trump has an extremely rocky relationship with the media. To a degree, I understand why he has his issues with certain publications. Some are blatantly anti-Trump. Donald Trump could cure cancer and save 100 children from a burning building, and the Huffington Post would find a way to slant it as to make President Trump look like the anti-Christ. While some journalists are blatantly biased, others do a phenomenal job covering both sides of every issue, and we need them to cover both issues that Hillary Clinton had and Donald Trump is having. The job and integrity of journalists cannot be undermined in this political climate just because you do not agree with how they view an event.

An issue a lot of us face is we are so used to only hearing what makes us happy in the news, that when we hear something we disagree with, we automatically assume that a publication has bias even when they just are reporting facts. Facts are facts whether you choose to agree with them or not. Hillary Clinton lost states that Obama won because she couldn’t mobilize the same voters Obama could. Not because Russia created people to vote for Trump. Donald Trump lost the popular vote because more Californians wanted Hillary Clinton, not because millions who couldn’t vote did vote. It was convenient for both sides to feel that the media simply wasn’t reporting their claims. They were right, the media wasn’t reporting their claims because those claims weren’t real.

President Trump hates The New York Times due to how “unfairly” he feels as though it treats him. He casually forgot that the same journalist who broke the story on his Russia controversy also broke the Clinton email story. The New York Times does have a more liberal audience, and at times it can have some biased reporting, but it presents honest journalism and can hold the left accountable. Just like on the right, FOX News has a very noticeable right slant, but it presents facts that back up its cause. As you can see both, all media has biases, but if they present facts, they aren’t “fake news.” Every publication has some type of agenda to promote, as much as I want to say all journalism is 100 percent unbiased, everyone has opinions. Some publications can present opinions of both sides when others cannot. With that being said, I have a guide to deciding whether or not to trust the site.

First, check the out who runs the site. Infowars might be a great site to back up your conservative beliefs but its founder, Alex Jones, believes Sandy Hook and 9/11 were inside jobs, not exactly credible. Then from there, look at how the publication covers both sides. Crazy that Buzzfeed never criticizes liberals isn’t it? Great to reassert your own beliefs, but no one on the other side of the spectrum will take it seriously. That brings us into the world of MSNBC, FOX, NPR, The Associated Press, The Washington Post, Business Insider, Bloomberg and The Wall Street Journal. They all have their own faults, but at their core, they can report both sides of an issue and hold all individuals accountable.

Just because a form of media doesn’t always agree with your beliefs doesn’t hurt its credibility. You should want a source that can affirm and criticize your beliefs based on the facts at hand. Liberals aren’t always right and neither are conservatives. Therefore the media covering them will have a story that sheds a positive light on each side because that’s honest journalism. 

Tyler Corbit is a freshman studying journalism with a focus in strategic communication at Ohio University. Please note that the views and opinions of the columnists do not reflect those of The Post. What media outlet do you think is the most reliable? Let Tyler know by tweeting him @tylercorbit.

Comments powered by Disqus