In the early morning of June 19, just before the Tennessee House of Representatives adjourned for the session, it passed a resolution “to memorialize the mainstream media for sensationalism to advance their political agendas” and to “congratulate the people of Tennessee for clearly seeing that the mainstream media has sensationalized the reporting on COVID-19 in the service of political agendas.”
This resolution, like many that various legislative bodies pass, carries no legal consequences or penalties for those who “break the law,” but serves to commemorate, recognize or denounce a particular individual or group, in this case “the mainstream media.”
Still, enough members of the Republican supermajority in the Tennessee House felt strongly enough about the idea that coverage of the 2020 pandemic and other issues has become sufficiently skewed and sensationalized to justify such a resolution prior to adjourning for the year.
The Tennessee General Assembly did not have a strong voice in the emergency state policies related to COVID-19, as most shutdown orders came directly from Tennessee Gov. Bill Lee in the form of emergency executive orders.
Micah Van Huss
Micah Van Huss (R-Jonesborough) introduced House Resolution 340, which passed the house basically along party lines, 55–19, and speaks out against “fake news.”
According to the resolution, “Some news outlets are more interested in entertaining their viewers than informing them of facts. These same media outlets are also interested in representing opinions as facts and in promoting their own political agenda; during the COVID-19 pandemic, the media shamed and criticized those who wanted to reopen their businesses, gather at the beach, or attend church services; however, the mainstream media is now largely dismissing social distancing narratives when it comes to mass demonstrations.”
It continued illustrating what Van Huss sees as hypocritical contrasts in coverage related to those protesting government shutdowns and prohibitive executive orders, often portrayed as selfish, misinformed, privileged whiners, with those involved in Black Lives Matter demonstrations, often portrayed as heroic social justice warriors.
“The dropping of mask-shaming reveals a political agenda and double standard on the part of some members of the mainstream media, who have been consumed by pandemic reporting almost exclusively for months,” the resolution reads. “Reporting on protests and riots with the same vigor would require the media to directly criticize those same groups they have consistently sought to promote.”
The differing coverage of protests that the bill points out is certainly an interesting study in media issues, but some members of the media took offense at the resolution, saying it does not specifically define what “mainstream media” includes, that it lumps all journalists, writers and broadcasters into the same vague category and that the term “mainstream media” can mean vastly different things to different people.
Also, “fake news” has become somewhat of a buzzword, a vague insult that can mean different things to different people. This term could be applied to reports that contain totally fabricated and false information. Other times, a media outlet sometimes quotes a source in good faith, but perhaps the source was either misinformed or lying.
Others use the phrase “fake news” to describe the distribution of information that may be entirely accurate, but the consumer doesn’t find it to be particularly newsworthy.
Many consumers do share the representative’s sentiment that many large media outlets hammer the same talking points over and over, coming across as propaganda aimed to steer society in a certain direction rather than presenting the highest-quality information possible and a wide range of opinions on that information in an effort to enlighten and educate the public.
Savvy observers may get the impression that mainstream media seem to thrive on such topics as fear, conflict, pitting two groups against one another, fear, the country’s on fire, the economy’s collapsing, more fear, we’re all doomed, and here’s the weather (and it could be the storm of the century!). Although massive media companies may fill much of their coverage with speculation and conjecture, the opinions of “experts” and entertainment-driven exchanges that may more closely resemble professional wrestling than intelligent debate and discussion, supporters of free speech will defend their right to do so.
Viewers may turn away if they are able.
Along with free expression rights, consumers have a right to tune in, read and follow what they wish as well. They can have their preconceptions and biases reinforced by their media outlet of choice, or read a wide range of perspectives.
Or, whatever their opinions may be, Americans may start a blog, column, publication, podcast or video channel of their own, and really exercise those free speech rights.
