Can the media ever be relied upon to convey the truth?

Based on the article “Great Lies of the American Free Press”, it can be concluded that the media actually focuses more on the 3P’s (popularity, prejudice and profit) rather than the interest of the people and of the public. Thus I feel that, to a large extent, media can sometimes never be relied upon to convey the truth.

From the word “popularity”, we know that the media edit and select their reports in order to not lose their readers and viewers. This means that the media would only publish reports, which they think that will attract the attention and concern of numerous readers and viewers. For example, the Iraqi War is one that was "fueled by corporate-controlled media's lust to boost profits". The more Iraqi War was promoted, the more will the media have viewers and readers who want to know more about the updates of the war. The word prejudice suggests that the media is bias in their reports. For example, the media may decide to censor an article, which conveys the truth of an improper act by the police force, as the media is afraid that they might offend the police force. This kind of practice may result in the police force continuing that inappropriate act, which maybe harmful to the society. Also, the act of censorship greatly reduced the chances of the public getting to know the truth.

Lastly, profit, which is the most powerful driving force for the media, suggest that the media accept bribes from people to publish articles that favors them. This kind of articles are often unreliable. One example from the article is that Armstrong Williams, a “conservative” African-American pseudo-journalist, was recently paid two hundred and forty thousand dollars ($240,000) by the Bush dictatorship to promote an education reform law on his syndicated television show.

In conclusion, based on the above factors, the media can never be relied upon to convey the truth to the public.