Mainstream vs. Alternative Media Sources

I once used to think that news was just news, plain and simple. Something significant happened, someone investigated it, and then reported back to me all things crucial and important. Then I heard of a little thing called bias. Okay, call me naïve, but isn’t news supposed to be unprejudiced, accurate, and without hidden agendas?

Last Tuesday I headed off to Intro to Mass Media and Society aware that there was bias in the news. With the completion of class, I had come to accept that bias was an inaccurate term. I was asked to question the origins of media, because many factors effect the accuracy of the news delivered to us by newspaper, website, and TV show. Who owns the company? What are their political and religious views? Where does the organization get their funding? What sources do they use? If the big man upstairs wants something, surely he gets it. How does that effect the accuracy of the news we consume each day?

This week, I observed an alternative media source and compared its reporting to that of a major, mainstream media source. Here are a few interesting facts about my chosen sources, Alternet.org and CNN.com:

*Alternet is an online magazine that “creates original journalism and amplifies the best of hundreds of other independent media sources...” and whose goal is to “…inspire action and advocacy…”

*Alternet “self-generates” 30% of its funding through online donations.

*CNN is one of thirteen major holdings of the Time-Warner Network, which holds the title of the world's largest entertainment conglomerate.

*Time-Warner, along with its major television holdings, owns major media companies like New Line Cinema, as well as operations in Internet (i.e. AOL), and in telecommunications. Basically, it’s massive.

In comparing these two media outlets, I decided to focus on the topic of environmentalism, as it is a subject I am passionate about. Alternet’s articles on global warming seemed to carry a much more pessimistic view of the actions of politicians than CNN’s reports. Reporters were more informal, using words that implemented a slight bias, for instance implying a lack of CO2 reductions will cause an “Oh Shit” moment in the near future. CNN seemed to be more upbeat about the upcoming UN summit on Climate Change in Copenhagen, Denmark. Reports seemed to say that although drastic changes must be made, our representatives are up for the challenge. Alternet claims that any action on the part of politicians will be insufficient. Alternet’s reporters seemed to cover more meticulously, drawing on external sources, like a study by Climatologist Hans Schellnhuber. When I searched the study on CNN.com, no results were found. Funny, because Schellnhuber’s report is to be a huge part of the proceedings at the UN summit in December, and his findings claim immense and immediate changes need to be made in order to stop global warming. The report includes staggering statistics—claiming the U.S. must drop CO2 emissions by 100% by 2025 to avoid catastrophic climate change. To me, such a revelation seems news worthy. Why aren’t major news corporations reporting these facts? Perhaps they are solely relying on the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a group whose reports, Alternet claims, are “constrained because the world's governments must approve their contents”.

At this point, I don’t know what to think. Alternative sources seem to delve further into a topic and be less restrained. At the same time, I think such freedom can lead to opinionated reporting, and thought it’s a strong word, fanaticism. CNN maybe limited by its reliance on government and other screened sources, but it seems to try and take a neutral tone to news. I like not knowing what an author thinks about a subject. So that’s why, despite this experiment, CNN.com will remain my homepage. But next time I read an article, I’ll do so with a bit more skepticism.