By Dennis D. McDonald

It’s not unusual to hear people complain about “the media“ and how news is covered. Complaints emerge from both the left and right and refer to “bias,” what’s covered (or not covered), and how it’s covered.

What’s really being said, too, is often something like, “I don’t like how [fill in topic] is being covered!”

While we all like to hear things that match our own biases and belief systems, that’s not what I’m really addressing here.

My complaint is how the word “media“ is used. Having taken Latin in high school I know that “media” is a plural noun. There are many media both traditional and nontraditional. Adding modifying adjectives like “mainstream” to the word doesn’t clarify matters. One person’s “mainstream” might be the next person’s “fringe.”

Even if we try to distinguish between social and traditional models we run into problems. Social media channels can be used to share news. Traditional media like newspapers have online delivery channels that include social and collaborative features.

Also, look at how often stories “leak“ from traditional over to social media channels. The reverse takes place as well, say, from Twitter to network news or to newspapers.

The next time you hear or see some bit of news that makes your blood boil, don’t complain about the faceless something called “the media.” Consider the source and if possible the actual author.

Let’s say the online Washington Post is the target of your ire because of something idiotic written by a conservative pundit like Marc Theissen. Don’t do your tar-and-feathering indiscriminately. Thiessen is only one of many editorial sources used by the Post.

Instead, comment and refute his arguments. By doing so you might even generate clicks and page views that contribute metrics the Post uses to help sell advertising. Perhaps by your doing so the Post will finally hire more responsible editorial writers!

Copyright 2021 by Dennis D. McDonald