A very popular complaint among citizens today is directed toward the media. It is the biggest problem in America, they argue – the root cause of our national angst and evidence of deep seated corruption.

I suspect that if you ask these complainers to define what they mean by “media,” many would have a tough time. To be fair, it is not easy to pin down a simple, working definition that encompasses what media is and does. Yet there is something irresponsible about not being specific. It’s like being grumpy toward everyone when you can’t put a finger on what’s bothering you. Or maybe it’s more like the teacher punishing the whole class because he can’t figure out why a lesson has gone lame.

So what is “the media”? A useful working definition might be something like “systems of communication used to deliver information and entertainment to and from the public.” The systems include print, TV broadcast, and the internet. And while it is designed to promote access to information and freedom of expression, it is by extension rhetorical. It affects how we form opinions. Moreover, as a profit driven industry, it influences our values.

The media is the primary means through which we are able to exercise freedom of speech.

It is the voice and the ears of the public, giving us the opportunity to self-educate about the state of the union and to express our personal viewpoints on a wide range of topics. Pure sciences, social sciences, the arts and entertainment all fall under the purview of the media.

The media helps us make educated decisions by appealing to different modes of thinking. A newspaper, for example, provides objective, fact-based reporting through its reporters; it explores cultural, educational and political perspectives through contributors; and through editorials, editors-in-chief present their critiques of civil issues. It is fair to say that, without news media outlets, the common person would live in a shell, oblivious to what’s happening among those in power. We would live like serfs in a feudal system where the Lords control how we think and what we do.

Typically, when someone complains about the media they are calling it out as biased. If they don’t agree with how an event or idea is presented, then there must be something fishy going on. Yet if the news is copasetic to their worldview, then it’s OK. If they agree with the message, they invite the messenger in for a drink. If not, they shoot him.

In a way, the complainers are victims of a modern media that has morphed into a two-headed snake; whereas traditional media was solely responsible for outputting news and information, modern social media acts as both producers and consumers of it. So, even as they criticise old media outlets as being unaccountable, consumers are quick to enter an echo chamber of some social media platform where all voices sing the same song, shunning information that appears disharmonious. In a very real sense, they create their own reality.

This is not to imply that the traditional news media has always acted as guardians of truth. In the late 19th century, competition between New York newspaper tycoons Joseph Pulitzer and William Randolph Hearst resulted in what became known as “Yellow Journalism.” To sell papers, Pulitzer and Hearst published sensational, hyperbolic, and sometimes downright false stories. The people bought them, and it became evident that they could be politically manipulated by them (the Spanish American war was a direct result of such “creative” journalism). Flash forward a hundred years and we have Rupert Murdoch and others like him who prioritize money over journalistic integrity.

I think it is important to understand what journalism means and who journalists are. Most of them did not go to college to pursue a degree in journalism because they had a political agenda to hack at. And, as they rose through the ranks as professionals, they did not enter secret societies of the super rich as propaganda agents. I believe the vast majority of them are ethical, and true to the principles of their profession. The Society of Professional Journalism believes that journalism is essential to the existence of democracy. It is the duty of professionals to 1) seek truth and report it, 2) minimize harm, 3) act independently (free of corrupt influence), and 4) be accountable and transparent.

The editors of traditional news media don’t have the luxury of the echo chamber or any forms of instant gratification sought by social media addicts. They know that, despite their own personal worldviews and the political leanings of their community, they must give space to opposing views. I believe local papers do just that. And because of them, we stand a chance at remaining a democracy with most of the freedoms written in our constitution intact.