Today people have readily accessible news 24 hours a day. As a result of this, we're bombarded with a constant stream of information. When wading through the various mediums to obtain news, it likely seems as if it has become increasingly difficult to find unbiased and straightforward news. Not to mention all the redundancy.

When sorting through the news does it ever seem frustrating to figure out which news outlets you can trust? If so, you aren't alone, it is probable many others feel the same way. While it is not impossible to find reliable media, it does take research to sort through the muddle and make your own informed decisions.

Editorials have always been a staple in the media, but today even standard news articles frequently contain bits and pieces of slanted and opinionated interpretations of the facts. You may find it tiresome to listen to or read reporters' and journalists' snide remarks or biased comments in between the lines of an event or incident. This can make it difficult to try and assess accuracy in the news sources as you sift through the commentaries and digital images in search of the truth.

One year while at an event in Washington D.C., I learned a valuable lesson in how the media is selective in what they'll air. Even if they capture live coverage, what you see may not be entirely accurate. I'd attended an event and it was completely misrepresented the next day in the news simply by omission of reporting what I'd seen with my own eyes. My distrust of the media started that day.

It also turned out several key television media outlets opted to ignore the event entirely. This was a significant event and it was almost completely dismissed as if it never happened. Granted there are no lies since no reporting was done on the event, but the question begs asking if whether or not omitted or misrepresentation of reporting is responsible reporting?

That experience moved me to start wondering what other news or events are distorted or omitted by the media. I've come to the conclusion mainstream media isn't necessarily lying, but that doesn't mean they can be trusted because it appears they conveniently leave out information and/or finding alternate ways to slant a situation; this often leads to viewers coming to different conclusions.

One can only surmise this s acceptable since it is still reporting within the realm of *truth*, but in learning that truth, facts can still be misrepresented either through edited reporting or non-reporting. That being the case, how much confidence should we have in the media?

The majority of people I know rely solely on either conservative or liberal media and refuse to listen to the source that represents the opposing point of view; to me that's putting one's head in the sand. Are we really educating ourselves on an issue if we only listen to one side? Isn't it perhaps better to look at a variety of media from both "sides" and incorporate that with media from other nations? At least this way a diversity of perspectives is shown.

When sifting through the media, it is interesting to see how different the same event can appear depending on the reporting since most seem to insert their own twist on a situation. These days it's unlikely one source of media is reliable enough for a person to make an informed decision.

The truth in the media is often somewhere in between, and the challenging part is finding it.

Learn more about this author, Leigh Goessl.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.

---

Add your voice

Know something about Making informed decisions on whether to trust the media?
We want to hear your view. Write now!