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.
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.
