Every traditional profession has a central philosophical tenet; law is equated with justice and medicine has a duty to render aid. Journalism, too, has a lofty ideal: communicating truth. However, this ideal is often problematic. While truth is considered a stable commodity, wherein it does not change on a day-to-day basis; the concept of truth, however, has varied throughout history. 
Since ancient times, human beings have acknowledged the definition of truth varies.
Since Plato’s analogy calling life “truthful,” in his famous allegory where he describes how the shadows cast on the wall were created by physical objects, people have grappled with the nature of truth.
Today, while we accept some cultural “lies” (the existence of Santa Claus), we condemn political parties for fabricating news in order to revise history.
Compounding the problem is media bias. Yes, the media is biased – the reason why there is no such thing as “media neutrality.” The early American press was not really a “mass press” as it garnered much of its financial support from political advertising, resulting in most of its readers following a certain partisan line. Even in the UK, newspapers and weeklies have an agenda that is reflective of their history, readers’ tastes, and the owner’s preferences.
During the last presidential election, local media had their own candidate preferences, such as the Philippine Daily Inquirer being pro-Liberal Party, along with media platform Rappler and its CEO Maria Ressa.
Bias stems from one’s personal convictions and ideological leanings. Many journalists are forced to deny them, since reporting the news should apparently be an act of self-denial – “faking yourself.”
Suffice to say, journalistic impartiality is hoax.
Everybody has biases but few are gutsy enough to be upfront about them. Many journalists hide behind “objectivity” to create a veneer of credibility in order to sneak in their agenda. Furthermore, media ownership is often held by major corporations with interests and goals similar to those of the powerful elite.
Truth suffers when facts that are disapproved or support an opposing party are omitted; or it could be the way in which sources are utilized, such as getting the side of the Philippine National Police regarding the ongoing war on illegal drugs or the Catholic Bishop Conference of the Philippines when they were under the scrutiny of netizens.
Bias can also be done through placement, either a story is prominently displayed by a news outlet or it is “buried” because it represents an opposing viewpoint. A variation of the practice is shown when news highlights rallies by leftist groups, but fails to give the reasons why they are protesting.
We are well aware of media bias, particularly among mainstream media, but why do we demand balance? In this postmodern world, there is no such thing as a “grand narrative;” or shall I say, absolute truth. Truth is relative to one’s leavings, beliefs, and ideologies.
Media bias could allow us to think more critically because biased journalism is honest and fearless.
Remember, the more unjust and imbalanced the media, the more people would be willing to change the status quo.
Alternative media is the antithesis of mainstream media. It is the very reason why people want to read the blogs by Mocha Uson, Thinking Pinoy, and Sass Rogando; their views affirm their beliefs. Others belittle such bloggers, saying, they are not responsible journalists, but who really holds the truth?
Journalists may say they detach themselves from emotion or reporters claim to see “every angle” of a story, but for critical thinkers, balance is not necessary.
People should learn to question and argue (if necessary).
If the media is committed to telling the truth, they should not just “tell the truth,” but tell their audience what they really think. They should be biased, it’s the truth – that’s Philippine media./WDJ