Kick out Dichotomy and Diversify

Joel Best presents a wonderful playbook to how the media supports claims, presents media coverage to certain issues and is beholden to shifting public opinion. One facet that caught my attention was how claims are often generalized into two opposing arguments, however,  time and time again Best emphasized that focus groups, polling and presented issues must be multifaceted, because generally there are more than two sides to every argument. However, the media often offers "balanced" coverage through the representation via dichotomy. Is this poor new work? What are the implications of only presenting two sides of an argument? And to make matters worse, David Simons presentation to Congress also underscored the limitations journalism has experienced for allowing large corporate newspapers to absorb and take over smaller papers based locally. Not only are arguments being eliminated, but also the freedom of choice in what to read and listen to for a news sourc. Unfortunately, the claim for capitalism in the free market of newspapers, in Simon's argument, has been mocked by the  corporate structure eliminating diverse field reporting, cutting back on journalism and pushing for more limited carrying capacities than ever before. Freedom of the press is violated when there are only a few references and as major credible sources. There are more than two sides to every story and no consumer should be forced to choose between news sources that are not competing to provide the best investigation and understanding as possible. I really admire Simon's quote about how news should function in society.  "There can be no serious consideration of public funding for newspapers. High-end journalism can and should bite any hand that tries to feed it, and it should bite a government hand most viciously. Moreover, it is the right of every American to despise his local newspaper – for being too liberal or too conservative, for covering X and not covering Y, for spelling your name wrong when you do something notable and spelling it correctly when you are seen as dishonorable. And it is the birthright of every healthy newspaper to hold itself indifferent to such constant disdain and be nonetheless read by all. Because in the end, despite all flaws, there is no better model for a comprehensive and independent review of society than a modern newspaper. As love-hate relationships go, this is a pretty intricate one. An exchange of public money would pull both sides from their comfort zone and prove unacceptable to all" (simon).

News should be a commodity that has intricate, detailed dialogue about the conditions of cities, both from the perspective of rich and poor, liberal and conservative. This could lead to discussion and collective reasoning about the political and social perspectives, which I would be willing to wager, there are most definitely more than two.