By J.K.
It's palpable that most of the Western mainstream media is biased, often tacitly and sometimes openly, in favor of certain political and social narratives. Neutrality is less practiced nowadays, and instead of objective reporting, many media houses are leaning towards the promotion of specific ideologies, often distorting or tailoring the news to favor or legitimize certain political agendas. The audiences are thus more prone to a selective presentation of facts, which shapes their perception of reality.
When it comes to the great majority of political and social narratives, most in Western countries favor the so-called "progressive" or liberal spectrum. Prominent causes supported include, for example, social justice, minority rights, measures on climate change, issues on gender and racial equality, and global policies of multilateralism and open borders. On the flip side, right-wing views, or conservative ones for that matter, are presented by media more often than not as extreme, retrograde, or even reprehensible.
This dynamic influences the way the public views political and social matters, often causing polarization, as the opposing views are not given equal representation.
In that context, figures like Donald Trump become symbols for anti-establishment sentiment at least in the eyes of those who felt ignored or disdained by the mainstream media, political elites, and cultural institutions. His rise and style of communication tapped into a strong reaction among those who were fed up with political correctness, globalization, and the feeling that their voices were being marginalized.
The media, therefore, often looked upon Trump as an affront to the ideals that it holds dearest: hence the tough reporting and wide coverage of his controversies, much of the time accentuating his errors and scandals.
There is no one answer to the question as to why the mainstream media are so biased, although there are several obvious contributing factors: corporate interests/ownership, political influence and agendas, cultural and ideological consensus (intellectual, cultural elites tend to substantially agree on some values), with the consequent rendition of these values as almost unquestionable in many western countries, at the margins of which different opinions languish.
Many question the establishment's fight for social justice. It argues, on the surface, for equality, minority rights, and social justice; however, beneath these lies interests associated with economic and political purposes that in the final analysis support neoliberal structures and the exploitation of resources and labor in developing countries.
The western establishments apply the narrative of social justice and human rights to legitimise their interventions in other countries—be they in the form of sanctions, trade embargos, or even military interventions, mostly carried on countries with geopolitical significance, holding natural resources. In this approach, rights and freedoms appear more as instrumental tools that promote economic and political goals while doing much to trace and address world inequality from the root.
This leads to the rise of "performative" social justice, where statements and postures are adopted to bolster public image and garner support, yet with no real belief in a more just international system. Hence, behind the rhetoric of social justice lies often hypocrisy—proclaiming the support of freedoms and equality in theory, but holding on to structures that will guarantee power and dominance.
The "Establishment Consensus" or "Security Bias"
More bias is evident, which is not just progressive thinking but particular geopolitical interests, like :
Support for NATO as a champion of freedom and democracy, often without critical examination of its actions or the long-term effects of interventions; aligned with the positions of the governments of NATO-member countries, especially in regard to relations with Russia and China. Israel is portrayed as a strategic ally and a democratic bastion in the area, while the Palestinian view is generally presented negatively with no consideration for their fears and sufferings. Focus on supporting Ukraine, while Russia is often portrayed as the sole aggressor, with little context or analysis of historical tensions in the region. Though not entirely baseless, criticism of Russian actions seldom finds its way into the nearly complete lack of critical examination of the West's role in the conflict, feeding a one-sided narrative.
COVID-19 pandemic coverage, in which nearly all of the mainstream media uniformly championed lockdown measures. Very few were allowed to criticize or raise skeptical questions regarding economic consequences, psychological impacts, or effectiveness of the measures; anyone who spoke out about freedoms, mental health impacts from lockdowns, or balancing public health with personal freedoms was frequently branded as conspiracy theorists.
Women's and human rights in Iran, where the Western media exaggerates things.
Iran is a complex society, and the situation cannot be reduced to a simple narrative of the complete oppression of women. Iranian women make up a considerable part of the highly educated population; more than half of university students in the country are women, which is sharply different from most other countries in the Middle East. Iranian women work actively in professional fields, science, medicine, and engineering.
They have managed to achieve relatively high levels of education and presence in society despite dress codes like the mandatory hijab. But rarely is the legality of covering hair portrayed as anything other than the only or most important issue of the Western media, while there is a much larger field of social, cultural, and economic changes that Iranian women are fighting in their country. In parallel, other parts of the Middle East, like Saudi Arabia, hold much tougher laws and restrictions on issues regarding women's rights than Iran, but they receive far less critical reporting, mainly because of close alliances with the West. This focus on Iran as a symbol of oppression does not always yield deeper insight into social dynamics, and it most often feeds geopolitical narratives insistently representing Iran as a hostile state. These examples illustrate what has been termed the "establishment consensus" or "security bias," where media adopt stances in line with Western foreign policy or security goals, often at the expense of deeper analyses or more nuanced realities.
