As a journalist, I can assure you that none of us set out with aspirations of hiding the truth from the public. This profession is one in line with the images seen in movies: like all self-motivated writers, we want to go out there and make a difference in the world by revealing truth through our natural-born human right to the freedom of speech. And while I’m sure this influence corrupts a few along the way, most journalists do not set out to deliberately mislead people -- it is against our journalistic moral code.

I speak of journalistic intentions because these are the people that make up a significant portion of what society today calls “the media.” With the details of the impending election in full swing, my Newsfeed has been packed with college-age individuals angrily contesting that the media is biased and only works in favor of popular candidates and corporations.

And to an extent, perhaps they are right. Corporations have gotten smart and begun using media and technology to their advantage. War rooms are part of campaign teams for a reason: solely to monitor the press and image of a candidate and combat any negative press. These sectors work endlessly, running name scans for any mention of their candidate to ensure the words being said work in their favor. However, freedom of speech is still freedom of speech; despite their influence, war rooms cannot force a journalist to change his or her opinion, or rescind an article. Sure, they can use this influence to their advantage, but the article has already been out there, should the writer ultimately choose to pull it. And this isn’t to say that another similar article won't be written, especially if there is reason to write on a topic in the first place. Sure, money and prestige can influence anyone for the right price, and journalists are not immune. But keep in mind that they types of people that become journalists are not ones that typically seek money and fame -- they seek truth, and no one has a passion for revealing it like a writer does.

The most common ailment regarding the media I’ve seen lately stems from a quote by Democratic candidate Bernie Sanders.

Unsurprisingly, the connection between the people up in arms about the situation and his typical support demographic is obvious: white millennial students. The dissatisfaction with corporate media has been a cornerstone of Bernie’s campaign, and as a journalist, I agree -- companies have so much influence in the media that those truth seekers we can journalists are often overshadowed. Luckily though, corporate media is often easy to spot: if you are against FOX News and their openly conservative bias, do not watch FOX News. Instead, find yourself a source that is reliable and free of bias. Or better yet, read sources from all parts of the bias-spectrum and formulate your own opinion, as media was intended to encourage.

In this age, you can’t argue the absence of corporate media. But you can argue that corporate media is embracing how media works: You’re upset that Bernie’s quote was cut short? Well, the rest of the quote was not proving the point FOX News wanted to make. Liberal-leaning networks would often do the same thing, even if the quote in its entirety was proving their point simply because the quote is long. People in this era was snippets, something that will grab their attention but not hold it for too long. It is the job of the media to pick out the important bits, and that is what FOX did here.

These same people argue that the media is shortchanging Bernie by focusing more time on Hillary and her campaign, but the reason for this is clear: why would the media expend time and effort creating stories that the rest of the country isn’t all that interested in reading right now? To everyone except millennials, Hillary will be nominee, as has always been assumed. And while everyone loves an underdog, unless these same millennials get moving on their campaign presence, that’s all Bernie will ever be. Media follows trends, and currently, Bernie is not one on a large-enough scale.

So here’s the takeaway: corporate media is just that, part of the media. However, not all media is corporate-led; plenty of media exists that is true to the roots the concept of media is based on, it’s just up to the reader to pay attention to it. According to a study done by PEW Research Center, BBC, The Economist, and The New York Times top the list in reliability (chart provided by Business Insider).

While there are people out there who do not and will never turn the channel from their FOX News or whatever the outlet may be and consider other points, trying to disprove or work against their sources will not change their minds. Only other facts can do that. People do not respond well to you criticizing their beloved dinner time channel, but showing them an unbiased source that isn’t attacking what they believe, only clarifying it, may enlighten them a bit more effectively. So here’s a message from someone that’s writing to reveal truth: those sources are out there, it’s just up to you to care enough to find them.