Biased or otherwise?

Imagine yourself opening your newspaper, or news website, first thing in the morning (if this isn't your habit already, I really cannot empathise). What does the headline say? What do you expect to read about in the article? How do you expect the article to be structured, in what manner, using what language?

The answer to all of the above is, obviously, dependent on the topic and context of the article itself. However, there is a general expectation to what constitutes good journalism - clear headlines and statements, logical development of ideas, and above all: impartiality. The notion of unbiased reporting - "freedom" of the press, for others - is perhaps the entire point of journalism: to deliver information, knowledge and ideas, as is (if possible), to the public. 

How do you do this? Your average reader might note enthusiastically that the reporter or news agency's personal "bias" should not affect in any way the manner in which news is presented to its audience - this ultimately manifests into an explanation along the lines of "both sides to the argument must be shown", or perhaps to "never overshadow another person's points, even if they go against your own". This makes sense. Of course this makes sense! For news to be accurately depicted, both sides must be there - the victim and criminal, grassroots campaign and the government, "proponent" and "opponent".  That way we're portraying the issue accurately!

Superficially, this makes intuitive sense. Most of the headline news of our generation revolves around conflicts of interest, ideals or power. For a news outlet to "truly" report on an issue, they would have to give equal attention and weight to all sides, without a clear bias for any side. What is regrettable is that the deeper you dig into the truth of the matter, the less logical and intuitive the issues become - what may originally seem as an open-and-shut case instead manifests itself into a multifaceted, complex mystery. This is one such example, and a very interesting one indeed.

The first issue that most people face when dealing with such an ethical scenario is that they fundamentally mischaracterise or misunderstand the issue at hand. In this case, a non sequitur was committed, in which most of us unconsciously assumed that unbiased reporting was synonymous with telling both sides - thus, if we want unbiased news, logically we would have to tell all the sides to the story. In fact, both notions are completely unrelated yet intrinsically entangled, and we subconsciously adapted the issue of contention from whether news was biased to whether news was depicting all sides to the issue - fundamentally different concepts in actuality. If we have already mischaracterised the issue by equating both ideals as being synonymous to each other, it follows that we cannot deduce the answer through logical means - such is the premise of GIGO (garbage in, garbage out). 

It thus follows that we are now dealing in a completely different realm indeed. This begs the question: what does "bias" even mean? Indeed, that is the entire point of this article: to explain, explore and ultimately deduce what a bias actually represents.

A bias can manifest itself in many different forms - it can be overt or clandestine, deliberate or unintentional. Broadly speaking, however, we can use two criteria to properly characterise a bias: whether there exists a conflict of opinion or interest between the actual topic and the individual, and how the individual acts in response to said conflict. Obviously, if a conflict of interest is present, and the individual chooses to let the conflict affect the nature of the report, the original argument will be distorted. Bias is only present conditionally i.e. if and only when both criterions are met fully.

Lets focus on the first criteria: whether there exists a conflict between the individual's personal beliefs and the topic of contention. The answer becomes instantly clearer: there must be a conflict! As long as the individual has even the slightest of inclinations towards the issue (of which there must be - we are humans after all, and we love to have opinions on things!), then a conflict exists. Whether this individual supports, opposes or rigidly expresses "neutrality" on the issue, there is a clear bias towards a certain stance, and that - logically - leads to a conflict.

We have explored and shown why the first criteria that we have characterised a "bias" as is true under any circumstance. This leaves the presence of an bias to the second criterion: how the individual chooses to respond to the bias. In essence - how should he or she correct the bias so as to not affect the integrity of the news? We first need to identify the scope of the bias - to put it simply, we must find out what the bias actually is before we attempt to correct it. Here is where it gets interesting: how do we even find out what our bias is? What do we use as an impartial source to gauge the direction and severity of our bias?

Ultimately, we intuitively - and logically - choose to gauge the level of our bias on what society thinks is appropriate. This is incredibly obvious, but when characterised in this manner, raises more questions than it answers: is society's general opinion ever unbiased or impartial? If society's general opinions, which can never ostensibly be unbiased towards a certain extreme, exist as a moral high-ground yet constantly fluctuate in response to current affairs and developments, how are we to judge whether anything is biased at all?

The answer is caustically simple: we can't. This entire issue makes one fatal assumption in that it is realistically possible to produce a completely impartial, unbiased platform. In actuality, bias is all but a matter of perspective; whether something is biased or not depends upon where society's current general opinion lies on the spectrum of opinions, and how that matches up with the news. The closer they align, the less biased the news becomes.

For now, let's put that issue aside whilst we contemplate the real substantive: what biased reporting actually is. If bias is a central, if not integral part of journalism, how do we make sure that said journalistic power is wielded to benefit society in an organic, unobtrusive yet informative manner? It is increasingly obvious that bias - not just in journalism but in arguments, debates or clashes of opinions - isn't avoided, but is instead embraced as a force to inform and progress society. It is clear that journalism, at it exists, doesn't simply inform readers in a "neutral" standpoint: it spurs thought and action, and is inherently biased to what journalists believe is the best outcome for society. The onus lies not on society, nor on its readers, but on the very people who we simply thought were just there to "relay information".

This leads us back to our initial assumption - does an "unbiased" article equate to one that shows all sides with equal weight? The answer is, truthfully and emphatically, no - but not for the reasons that you might assume. It appears that successful journalism isn't one that relies on societal context to define its stance (or bias) on the issue - that is, where society is currently - but instead lies on the the ability of an article to portray where society should be - where it envisages societal progress to move towards in the future. In essence, effective journalism slants our collective bias towards an utopian view of our current society, thereby progressing society in a meaningful and tangible way.

My take? Bias shouldn't be avoided: it should be embraced as a force for good. We need to recognise that bias - journalistic or otherwise - is an essential part of societal identity and progress, and that the continued search for elusive "impartiality" is all but a noble illusion. "Impartiality" only means apathy in the twenty first century - we yearn for conflicting opinions, suggestions and ideals, because that is how we, as individuals and as a collective society, grow. So next time you open the newspaper, ask yourself: why care so much for "impartial" reporting? The very fact that you yearn for "unbiased" reporting only reveals your own bias in its own right.

Welcome to my blog!

Hello people! I'm a novice writer who likes to write opinion articles based on my personal observations of the world - this blog is basically an online record of all my written musings. I will try to keep this blog regularly updated to the best of my ability, but I won't make any guarantees. Please comment on my posts: I love any sort of feedback and suggestions! My humble goal of sharing this blog with all of you is to inspire you to think of life and the world around us in a different perspective, and to understand the pertinent issues that each and every one of us face beyond their superficial stereotypes. Happy reading!

A Question of Originality

When we speak of originality, we innately assume that some sense of responsibility is attached to it: we feel we have a duty to respect, to admire – or to fear it. Whether bound by the judicial system or by our own personal moral standards, we have traditionally viewed original content and the respect that inevitably follows as being unequivocally revered - almost reaching a sort of sacred status.

Such is the way that our world is currently wired up as. From unabashed plagiarism-shaming, to our continuous search for the "true" or "first" creators, traditional – and contemporary – ways of thought have dictated that, essentially, those who do it first shall gain all the glory. Indeed, it is perhaps the only way in which we value and reward those that contribute to society in a tangible, meaningful manner.

This sort of mentality has served us well. For one, it promotes critical, creative thinking that undoubtedly furthers the boundaries of our collective human understanding. It is a harbinger of original, creative content, and has led to the vast plethora of advancements across all the fields. By guaranteeing success for those who achieve it first, we innately associate fame and glory with those who do society well. Consequently, those who shamelessly copy or plagiarise others' original contents are punished and publicly decried. And: it works!

It is imperative, now, to consider that attributes of such a societal way of thought. Those who achieve something first, who advance society in a meaningful manner first – be it the discovery of antibiotics, the first man on the moon, or the cure to cancer – are rewarded for their contributions. It is not hard to see how such an incentive-based system spurs advancement and development, and it is certainly not hard to see why we subconsciously respect those who do it first. Such a carrot-and-stick scenario has worked for the past, and there is no conscious reason to assume that this will not continue to work in the foreseeable future.

Or should it? Has it ever worked? Perhaps - but it is clear that something is wrong now. Patent law, trademarks and copyrights are a vestige of the 20th century - just look at the variety of "loopholes" that patent trolls exploit in order to indiscriminately sue - and it is not hard to see why: we are protecting an antiquated ideal of what constitutes "original" ideas, and the legal system as it is set up now is hopelessly entangled by this supposedly "privileged" concept of protecting the rights of the first "owner" or "creator".

What caused this model to stop working? One could argue that this honour-based system never worked in actuality, but I prefer to see the reasoning behind it as being far more nuanced. It appears that technology and science has advanced to such a degree of overwhelming complexity that global cooperation and communication is critical to further advance our understanding of the universe. To take a related example, the global antibiotic crisis that we currently face is no longer the simple matter of serendipity that struck Fleming almost a century ago – it requires intensive, laborious investigations and experiments to discover anything as groundbreaking as the discovery of penicillin. In short, we need to cooperate to advance in the 21st century: key words being cooperation and advancement.

But originality, rather from promoting creativity and advancement, stifles it instead. It is, similarly, not hard to see why – we value achievement of an individual entity, and collaboration completely ruins this concept. Competition no longer promotes advancement, but merely shuts everyone off from each other in our continued search for fame, recognition and success. So was this entire model a victim of its own success? I'd like to think of it rather as a symbol of our everchanging world.

The answer, in retrospect, is obvious: we reward those who do something best. Apple, in creating the first iPhone with its revolutionary operating system, made a remarkable accomplishment to society; however, supposed accusations of "plagiarism" and "copying" between iOS, Android, and – over the past few years – Asian knockoffs poses a critical question: what innate meaning, or value, is there in creating something first? Smartphones have developed to such a degree of complexity that even supposed Chinese "knockoffs" such as Xiaomi's MIUI present a compelling, if not comparable experience to that of Apple's iOS. It is no secret that many have taken "inspiration" from iOS, but does it matter? The focus must shift from doing it first to doing it best – in essense, in such a scenario we must instead promote plagiarism and "shameless copying" to ruthlessly improve. The demise of the concept of "originality" instead ushers in a new wave of advancement.

The question here is not the premise of originality – indeed, thesis-level plagiarism is harmful to everyone, and the creation of new, authentic content is the bedrock of all development in our society – but rather, the reward we associate with originality. We have all subconsciously associated success with being the first, doing something that nobody has ever done before. But rather, the focus must pivot from not who does it first, but rather who does it best. There is an important distinction to make here, as this shifts the reward – or carrot, if you will – from a set achievement or goal, to continuous advancement and contribution. Doing it best is a relative achievement, and highlights the noble goal of this entire scheme: to advance humanity in a significant, noteworthy way.

So I pose this question: who cares? In essence – who cares about originality? If we want to improve in our peculiar times, it must be socially acceptable for us to capitalise on the achievements of others, and instead reward those who do something best. Originality, and all the inherent respect and responsibility that we associate with it, cannot exist in this scenario.

I say: originality is dead. Get used to it.