With innumerable ways of finding out what is going on in the world, it is easy to get a quick rundown of the news.
But while most of us follow current events, many of us are tempted to get our news from only a handful of outlets. Granted, these outlets might be stellar sources, such as The New York Times or The Wall Street Journal, but by our choosing to expose ourselves to the same sources every day, we are limiting ourselves.
We're also kidding ourselves if we think that's how we can know the news. Additionally, while the Internet has increased our access to news outlets, it has made it easier for people to narrow their news sources to ones that give them their preferred biases.
After all, how many liberals read The Weekly Standard magazine? How many conservatives read The Nation? If you're only watching CNN or Fox News, you're not getting the whole story.
By getting the news from sources you wouldn't normally consider, you're exposing yourself to different individuals, perspectives and facts.
Clearly all news agencies are not the same. You can read an article from one outlet and then a similar piece from another and wonder if it's the same story.
Odds are there will be discrepancies between the tone, facts and overall purpose. Is there not a significance with regard to the language a news agency may employ, such as describing an individual as a "militant" or an "extremist?"
You have probably noticed how some news outlets that favor one candidate and disfavor another seem to pick photos of the candidates that accordingly help or hurt the person.
Even the news breaks on talk radio can vary. A news blurb that runs on KPHX 1480, a liberal radio network, will sound slightly different than one that runs on KKNT 960, a more conservative one.
Rather than receiving the news from some agency or someone else through a filter, you might consider directly taking note yourself.
This pertains to opinion media, most notably talk radio, as well. We have a tendency to listen to those with whom we already agree. Liberals like Ed Schultz while conservatives prefer Rush Limbaugh. What's the point then of tuning in, if our goal is to expand into new territory?
When we only listen to someone with a similar ideological viewpoint, we're shut off from other perspectives. This increases the likelihood that when a person shares a perspective we are unfamiliar with, we criticize and casually brush them aside. To be better educated, you should be familiar with different opinions.
The huge success of talk radio indicates that the mainstream media has not been satisfying its market. The Right has made the most inroads in talk radio because conservatives have felt that the newsrooms at CBS, NBC and ABC are run by liberals.
This success prompts the following questions: Do people tune in to have their opinions confirmed or because they believe that these talk radio programs are giving them a perspective not found in mainstream outlets? Do they have fewer objections to the bias of these reports because the mainstream reports have become far more opinionated?
By getting the news from other sources, you will also uncover stories that are undoubtedly newsworthy, but not included by all news outlets (in fairness to some of these businesses, it is not possible to include every story.)
Yet this may be where the real bias is: in the stories that are not covered. Anyone recall the actions involving former National Security Advisor Sandy Berger? There was far more coverage of the scandal involving Representative Tom Delay.
While we are able to get the news from a variety of sources, we need to take special care that these sources liberate us and that they don't cause us to see the world through tunnel vision.
Hilary Wade is a political science junior. She can be reached at: hilary.wade@asu.edu.
