My thoughts on bias
March 31st, 2008 by KimRevisiting the question of whether journalists should vote, whether it matters and whom it might matter to …
Is journalistic neutrality a sham?
James Poniewozik recently made “The Case for Full Disclosure” in TIME Magazine:
The biggest reason to go open kimono is that the present system does what journalism should never do: it perpetuates a lie. Modern political journalism is based on the bogus concept of neutrality (that people can be steeped in campaigns yet not care who wins) and the legitimate ideal of fairness (that people can place intellectual integrity and rigor over their rooting interests). Voting and disclosing would expose the sham of neutrality—which few believe anyway—and compel opinion and news writers alike to prove, story by story, that fairness is possible anyway. Partisans, bloggers and media critics are toxically obsessed with ferreting out reporters’ preferences; treating them as shameful secrets only makes matters worse.
Disclosure: Poniewozik is TIME’s TV critic, not a regular political writer.
It seems we’re becoming more and more paranoid about this, especially in this election year. Even I admit it — when I read certain articles in certain publications or online sites, I’m always trying to keep in mind what kind of reputation the site has, and the writer has. That’s part of the reason why I can’t watch Fox News anymore. I’m sorry. I just can’t.
The way I see it, there is no way to absolutely-100-percent eliminate personal biases when you write a story, although the best in the business do an extremely thorough job. First of all, whether that story is about the 2008 election or a school recycling project, each individual approaches and views the situation through the lens of his or her own experiences. Which is great, in many ways, because you might get several variations on the same story with different angles and different details in each.
Which is why, even though I do not watch it, I can see the need for Fox News. And, yes, I do realize that my thoughts on this come from — tada! — my own personal biases.
Now, there are different ways to tell a story, but readers love to point out when it’s the WRONG way. Again, this is going to depend on your background and your personal opinion. We get this all the time at the Advertiser. Just ask the guys who answer the phones.
For a reporter, if you are covering a story, there should be no shred of doubt in your heart about your ability to write about that topic objectively IF you are trying to pass the story off as truly objective, which newspapers are supposed to be. But that assumes that anyone and everyone reading the story believes it to be truly 100-percent objective and without bias. Is this really the case?
So, back to the original question: reporting and voting.
For myself personally, I haven’t decided whom I’m going to vote for yet. I did not vote in the Hawaii’s caucuses, but I do plan to vote in the general election. I was a Political Science major, I’m interested in politics, government and the process, and I definitely want to have a stake in who will be America’s president for the next four years. So I admit that, yeah, I do care. I will eventually vote, which indicates that I will eventually come to the conclusion that one candidate is better than another.
At that point, should I cease writing about anything having to do with the election? In articles? In this blog?
Where do you draw the line?
Tags: 2008 election, journalism, politics, work
April 1st, 2008 at 12:41 am
Part of job of a reporter is to be objective, which is pretty much true. But then again the other part of a reporter’s responsibility is to act as a vehicle for social justice.
Take for example McCain and his policy on school vouchers. He says if parents are not satisfied with the public school’s in their district that he will give the dissatisfied parents Federal dollars to partially pay for their child’s tuition at a private school. This may seem relatively benign, but the problem is that most private schools are religiously oriented. So thus this violates the separation between church and the state.
McCain is obviously wrong already. And unfortunately such facts need to be emphasized.
April 1st, 2008 at 8:52 am
There must be rules of “classic” journalism, no? I mean, examples at least. I understand (though, I’ve not seen any of what would now be monikered as “archived” news reporting) Edward R. Murrow was one of the more objective in the business. Reporters can say there is no choice but to include bias in a news story, but, can’t they also catch themselves and say, “waitaminute . . . that’s more MY voice and opinion than reporting the story.” Seems simple enough to me.
Then, again, you have your editors who might wish you to beef up or eliminate something from the story which, in, I would imagine (reading news articles and watching TV news) would promote a biasness that the reporter can identify. I guess it’s at that time you fight with your editor to address such injection of biasness. Can work the other way, too, where the editor tells the reporter that s/he is being too biased; I find that a bit more unlikely as the former example I’ve offered as the editor might be more nuanced toward the objectives of the news agency (which, let’s admit, is owned by some wealthy entity — I’ve always wondered how a newspaper goes about reporting on that same entity should that entity become embroiled in some news story that makes the entity look compromised; I mean, how objective was CBS in the Westmoreland v. CBS legal suit?).
There’s a balance with the CNN (more left wing, but, getting more objective, from my point-of-view) and FOX (more right wing, but, getting more objective, from my point-of-view) when it comes to TV news.
As a reader and non-journalist, I DO see bias in news stories and reporting.
April 1st, 2008 at 9:48 am
yes
April 1st, 2008 at 6:05 pm
My bias can’t believe you’re still undecided.
April 6th, 2008 at 1:57 am
I think people should think for themselves and not blame journalists. As much as someone can seemingly appear biased, whoever is perceiving the issue could be looking through their own skewed lens to find their own truth or deception. Take our current President for example, there are those who find him brilliant and those who see him as an idiot. Are both views right? Perhaps… Are both views wrong? Perhaps… I suppose my point is that we will see what we want to see if we are so inclined.