In his most recent column (“Media pushes false narrative of Rittenhouse,” published Dec. 8) Dan Shannon opines that the American media is misleading us and are “pot-stirrers of the first order and shameless instigators of division” and uses the Rittenhouse case as evidence, suggesting it portrays Kyle Rittenhouse as a white supremacist/domestic terrorist, citing statements of contributors to MSNBC (Tiffany Cross) and the Guardian (Michael Harriot). Shannon seems to imply the media is one monolithic source of biased misinformation and uses the Rittenhouse case as an example. Perhaps if he broadens his media review and distinguishes between news and opinion a different perspective might be possible.
Following this case in the liberal media such as the New York Times, Washington Post, CNN, and PBS, I did not see or hear Rittenhouse described as a white supremacist or domestic terrorist. A quick Google search of media reports of the trial found summaries published by The Week, CNN, NPR, PBS, AP, US News, CBS, MSMBC (Zshan Aleen) and The Guardian (Maya Yang), none of which described Rittenhouse as a white supremacist or terrorist. They all just reported the known facts regarding this incident, the trial and verdict with no mention of Rittenhouse as a white supremacist, terrorist, or being treated differently by our justice system due to his being of the white race.
It appears that unbiased factual news coverage is not totally a thing of the past. Opinion, however, is a different matter. You don’t have to look too hard to find outrageous statements made by some talking heads and shock jocks in this polarized world driven by the extremes. Clearly, one needs to distinguish opinion from factual reporting and maybe use a bit of critical review and analysis. Opinions are fine as long as we know the underlying factual basis and are aware and careful of the fact that we tend to put more value to those that support our existing views and biases.
We do have significant media bias and misinformation issues. This is amplified and perpetuated by lack of evaluation of news and opinion by the consumers. For example, currently have a significant portion of our citizens still believe the last election was stolen based on allegations which have been fully and repeatedly investigated by election officials of both parties and repeatedly found in the courts to not be supported by credible evidence. False narratives about the voting machines and software only ceased when the companies took legal action against the media, but that approach can’t be used for all misinformation.
We seem to have entered a period of what has been described as epistemic tribalism where there are few individuals (e.g. Walter Cronkites) who are generally agreed upon as sources of knowledge or reliable information so healthy degree of skepticism becomes necessary for a well-functioning society. It does also help if information is not cherry picked, generalized, and then used as a straw man to promote a particular point of view.
Butch Reynolds
Bonney Lake
