Walter Cronkite used to end his newscasts with “And that’s the way it is.” Does anyone believe media is giving us an unvarnished presentation of facts today?
Hi, I’m Rex Rogers and this is episode #248 of Discerning What Is Best, a podcast applying unchanging biblical principles in a rapidly changing world, and a Christian worldview to current issues and everyday life.
Years ago, when I was in graduate school at the University of Cincinnati, studying for a doctorate in political science, I selected as my doctoral dissertation topic the local Hamilton County “Home Rule” initiative. This meant I not only could research the topic, I could also survey local residents for the public’s view, and then conduct personal interviews with leaders, pro and con, all of which I did. It was a great learning experience and thankfully I was able to write the dissertation, defend it, and get the doctorate.
During my research, I attended a few public events about Home Rule covered by local media. Then I went home and watched the coverage on television. This is where it hit me. For the first time I realized how the position and angles of cameras, the words used by reporters, and the arguments offered by proponents and opponents could, and in fact did, greatly influence if not skew what the public saw, heard, and understood about the event.
For example, I was shocked to watch one media report that used a camera angle that made it seem like only 4-5 people attended, when I had been there and witnessed a few dozen people.
I quickly learned that reporters could easily bias, which is to say misrepresent, reality by the questions they chose to ask participants and the words they selected for their report. Changing a noun or verb, adding an adjective or adverb could change the entire message. It’s what Mark Twain once said, “The difference between the almost right word and the right word is really a large matter — ’tis the difference between the lightning bug and the lightning.”
Of course, none of this was new to the political leaders on either side, so they had ways and means of responding to slanted coverage, but it was certainly new to me. I went into the office of one well-known county official who opposed the Home Rule initiative and he had his female assistant sit near me taking notes on the interview, and he made a show at the beginning of pulling a small tape recorder from his desk, turning it on, and laying it on the desk in front of me – a not so subtle signal to me that I had better not misquote him, even in a university dissertation.
This was in the early 80s before internet and social media, so at that time TV and, radio, and something we called newspapers reigned supreme. You got your current events news from these sources or not at all. Unlike today, there was no YouTube, no legion of so-called “influencers” or online independent journalists, just what today we call legacy media. So, at that time, it was more challenging to glean different perspectives and points of view.
Today we can get current events, à la “the news,” from myriad sources, legacy media, streaming, and online. But intentional bias still occurs, or if intentional bias sounds too harsh, call it selective sharing. This happens when a program or presenter deliberately shares what we now call “misinformation” or “disinformation.” In other words:
- they are not presenting what they say in court when a witness is sworn in with the oath, “Do you swear to tell the truth,” or
- the presenter shares only a selected part of what happened, what they say in court, “Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth,” or
- the presenter adds to the narrative, i.e., makes up or fabricates matters that did not happen, or as they say in court, “Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?”
“One of the unavoidable parts of being human is bias. No matter how hard we try, we will always see the world in a subjective manner, colored by our experiences and opinions…Though many journalists try to just ‘present the facts,’ even what facts they choose to present is an indication of bias…This can become a major problem, though, when we ignore facts that are inconvenient to our worldview. Sometimes, even before all of the facts come out about a specific incident, we rush to our own conclusions.”
This kind of “reporting” happens every day. And this is not just a liberal or progressive, that is leftist, problem. Assuredly, people on the left do this every day, but sadly, it’s also a problem on the right.
An then as viewers, we select what we view according to our point of view, wanting to reinforce what we think. Audiences actively seek out news that confirms their pre-existing beliefs to avoid cognitive dissonance, driven by both psychological comfort and political identity protection. The trend of choosing ideologically aligned media has resulted in fragmented audiences, where different ends of the political spectrum only watch their favorite and trusted channel, thus consuming entirely different, often conflicting, sets of information.
Meanwhile, journalistic sources can and regularly do present the world with a certain bias. Journalists or media outlets may choose to highlight specific stories while ignoring others, creating a “curated reality” that fits a particular narrative or audience expectation. Media want to “preach to the choir.” And if they are ideologically biased, they want to report in a manner that reinforces what’s come to be called the “prevailing acceptable narrative.”
In the 2016 US election, some outlets, e.g., The Washington Post, strongly amplified claims of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia, including widespread references to controversial sources like the Steele dossier. The resulting narrative persisted in many newsrooms even after the Mueller Report found no conclusive evidence of collusion.
This certainly happened during COVID when the Administration at that time, Big Media, and social media colluded to suppress so-called “disinformation” about the pandemic, possible curing medicines like ivermectin, and the efficacy of masks, six-foot rule, and vaccines. Repeated headlines about “overwhelmed hospitals” and alarming projections — were later criticized by analysts for not sufficiently contextualizing regional case variation or data showing fewer extreme outcomes in many areas. This also occurred regarding the debate about keeping children out of public schools for so long.
Big Media have presented markedly different presentations or interpretations re immigrants, deportation, the social unrest in Minneapolis, the sad development of two shooting deaths of civilian protestors at the hands of law enforcement, and public officials’ comments.
Media across the political spectrum often use different frames that influence perceptions of immigration, e.g., criminal threat vs. humanitarian human-interest stories. This can shape public opinion by emphasizing selective aspects of a complex issue. Some outlets frequently use dehumanizing language and criminal imagery, e.g., “gangs,” “invasion,” reinforcing threat-based narratives rather than balanced policy discussion. Officials in the Trump Administration got into difficulty when some used the over-zealous term, “domestic terrorism.”
There is also selective storytelling, e.g., reporting on deportation cases while omitting full criminal histories or legal complexities, which affects how policies and law enforcement actions are perceived. For example, several media sources refuse to use the legally recognized term “illegal alien” and instead say undocumented or asylum seeker or border crosser or unauthorized migrant or new arrival, or more recently, our neighbors.
Perhaps any of these terms could be defensible, but none change the law, whether an individual is here legally, and whether he or she has a criminal record in their own country. Assuredly, there is a moral and best way to enforce the law, and law enforcement must also be held accountable to the law but calling for no law enforcement at all and for criminal migrants to be ignored invites not simply lawlessness but chaos, something a free society cannot endure.
It’s difficult to discern when what we are given is biased out of the gate. Best advice is:
- Don’t outsource your thinking to any single outlet.
- Get your news from multiple and intentionally different kinds of sources – flip between Fox and CNN, add the BBC, then seek additional sources online.
- Distinguish news reporting from analysis and opinion.
- Compare left vs. right headlines for the same immigration event.
- Separate facts, interpretation, and moral judgment.
- Watch for what’s missing, not just what’s said.
- Don’t rush to judgment on any new development – for example, wait for the investigations of the recent protestor shootings.
Finally, 8) learn to discern.
Well, we’ll see you again soon. This podcast is about Discerning What Is Best.
If you find this thought-provoking and helpful, follow us on your favorite podcast platform. For more Christian commentary, see my website, r-e-x-m as in Martin, that’s rexmrogers.com, or check my YouTube channel @DrRexRogers.
And remember, it is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm.
© Rex M. Rogers – All Rights Reserved, 2026
*This podcast blog may be reproduced in whole or in part with a full attribution statement. Contact me or read more commentary on current issues and events at www.rexmrogers.com/ or my YouTube channel @DrRexRogers, or connect with me at www.linkedin.com/in/rexmrogers.