“The media won’t show you this.”

Criticisms of “the media” have been characteristic of online comments sections and social media feeds for quite some time. 

The year 2020, in particular, has brought heightened tensions amid a pandemic in addition to protests in support of Black Lives Matter and denouncing police brutality. These coinciding events that will undoubtedly fill students’ history books in the not-so-distant future have our nation divided. Each time we log on to our devices, we’re greeted with the mask-wearers in combat with the mask-denouncers. We watch as protesters take to the streets calling on governments to defund entire police departments spar with Blue Lives Matter and Confederate monument apologists. Much of the time, these arguments either start with or revert to “the media,” who is criticized for how it records this history in the making.  

I think we’ve lost touch with what “the media” is. Frankly, it’s hard not to. It’s a word tossed around so much in political discourse that it is starting to lose its meaning.

The term media is defined by Cambridge Dictionary as the internet, newspapers, magazines, television, etc., considered as a group. 

And what a diverse group it is. By this definition, my 2009 Facebook status asking my friends to like my status for a “truth is” can be equated to the Pulitzer Prize-winning Boston Globe series of articles uncovering a decades-long church abuse scandal. 

It’s important to acknowledge that the lines do blur in today’s digital age, as news organizations and reporters alike share news on Twitter, Instagram and Facebook accounts in addition to their websites and traditional print or television platforms. 

However, there are distinctions to make.

It’s time we dissolve the term “the media” and call each form of media what it is. 

Let’s start with the average joes who document their thoughts, feelings and personal news on the internet. This kind of media could include your aunt’s status update about her dog’s fourth birthday or an Instagram photo of friends at the beach. Social media is personal. Until it’s not.

Between photos of puppies and smiling graduates are articles, political commentary and in turn, unavoidable arguments among friends, family and acquaintances. In 2020, when it is easy for any person with a computer or smartphone to create a website or social media account, it is dire to categorize the articles and information that surface on our social media feeds. 

There is propaganda created to benefit both the political left and right, much of which is not rooted in any truth whatsoever. But, by definition, these disinformation campaigns are part of “the media.” 

According to a 2019 Pew Research Center study, 55% of U.S. adults said they consume their news on social media “often” or “sometimes.” News organizations have capitalized on the ability to share content widely and gain more readership.

International news organizations like The Washington Post, Fox News, CNN, MSNBC, The New York Times and more that reach a broad audience are often referred to as mainstream media. In this moment of public health and economic crises, social justice movements across the U.S., and on top of it all, an election year, we are watching these organizations. These organizations are who the comment, “the media won’t show you this” most often refers to. 

Here is where we must distinguish national or “mainstream” news from local news.

Referring to all newspapers under the umbrella of “the media” is reductive. This would put The Torrington Telegram in the same category as the world-renowned Washington Post, a newspaper that has had Academy Award-winning films made about it and its coverage.

Neither national nor local newspapers are without mistakes or faults. Today, however, we have to separate the two.

I challenge those who see something they consider newsworthy that is not being covered by international news conglomerates to pause before they publicly criticize news organizations everywhere.

Chances are, a search for the newspaper local to the town or city where that newsworthy event is taking place will reveal that reporters actually are covering it, on the ground, day in and day out. It is naive to think that just because The New York Times does not write about police officers joining a Black Lives Matter march or a SWAT team tear gassing a group of peaceful protestors in a city like Phoenix, Ariz., that news reporters as a group are covering up for one side or the other. Reporters from local publications like The Arizona Republic cover this news. 

I don’t mean to glorify the efforts of local newspapers. Local news reporters are not superheroes. It’s important to acknowledge them and abandon the broad definition of “the media” only because our industry is dying. Subscriptions are down, reporters are being furloughed and laid off, dailies are being reduced to weeklies. Soon, “the media” (and by that I mean local newspapers) really won’t be covering what’s going on in smaller cities and towns across the U.S. These areas without reporters are known as news deserts. 

In these news deserts, there is no one to cover school board or city council meetings, baseball games, budget cuts, corruption, graduations or anything else within a community. Power is not held accountable, and community members are less informed. 

While the slow death of local news is largely due to financial difficulties, it stems from a lack of reader support. 

We can be better informed and less divisive by abandoning the phrase “the media” and replacing it with what we’re talking about: social media, national news or local news.