3 Bias

We often say “there are two sides to every story” and in journalism when there are two sides, we must report on both. Otherwise, we will be accused of being biased. The best way to ferret out bias in your reporting is to ask yourself lots of questions, such as:  “Am I being fair to all sides?” or “Who might have a different take on this issue ?” or even, “Why do I feel dismissive of or more in favor of one of these points of view?” This does not necessarily mean every side deserves equal time or space in your story. It does mean you have an obligation in your reporting to understand multiple points of view.

The topic of bias in journalism has always been an important subject. If a reporter favors only one side in laying out the facts, the audience will not get a fair and balanced view of the issue.  The audience may lose trust in the reporter if multiple sides of a story have not been included for consideration.

At the same time, everyone has biases. You cannot be a thinking person and not have a bias or a preference for one thing versus another.  We are taught to have biases at an early age. To say otherwise is to deny reality. The problem, however, is when biases creep into our journalistic work through word choice, interviewee and quote selection or by excluding voices that represent different opinions.

Let’s be clear: Different ideas do not necessarily make the ideas deficient. Multiple perspectives included in a story don’t make one perspective better than the other – it’s just different. It’s important for your audience to evaluate a topic from different angles.

For example, it’s pretty obvious if you were covering a boxing match, you’d want to cover both contestants. However, if you were covering a story about property taxes, interviewing only two sides wouldn’t be enough. In addition to interviewing the legislators who sponsored the increase, you would want to talk with the people most impacted by the increase – good or bad. The average reporter would talk to a homeowner opposed to the taxes. But what about the homeowner or renter who does not oppose the increase because it means the school district will be able to hire more teachers? And what about the business owner who also must pay more as a building owner or renter of property? The owner might have to raise prices, which impacts customers. The more perspectives you include, the more comprehensive your story.

When I was a reporter in Florida covering the abortion debate, it was important to always include “both sides of the story” – the anti-abortion perspective and the abortion-rights perspective. Even the order in which I placed those perspectives could have meaning to my audience. The best compliment I received was when both sides said I had favored the other side. This meant I did my job to be fair.

It was also hard work. My own perspectives and experiences meant that some resources were easier for me to reach and more top-of-mind. The key is to acknowledge and recognize your bias, then work to counter it with multiple voices and those voices that are often silent or ignored. In the case of the abortion story, how often do we include comments from the people who are conflicted about abortion? It is the variety and nuances of ideas that make for more comprehensive reporting.

Look for sources who are underrepresented in media as well; they will bring nuances they bring to your story. For example, when you’re assigned to cover the next pandemic, look for medical sources beyond the stereotypical white male doctor. After all, as of this writing about half of the students in medical school are female. Rural doctors and urban doctors experienced very different pandemic emergencies. How might hearing their voices on the same issue impact your audience’s understanding?

Just as our reporting should include historically underrepresented groups, we should avoid “missing white woman syndrome,” the over-reporting of young, white attractive white women who go missing.  (Since beauty is in the eye of the beholder, attractiveness is certainly a biased notion if there ever was one.) We should strive to cover all individuals who go missing as well: Black, Asian American, Native American, Latina, middle-aged, elderly, average-looking, etc.  According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the most recent of which cover 1960 to 2007, men are more than three-quarters of the homicide victims with Black men comprising  41 percent of homicide victims, despite making up only 6% of the U.S. population. In general, we don’t cover men who get murdered in the same way we do women. We should ask ourselves why and whether it is fair coverage.

Be consistent with using racial identifiers. How we identify people in our story can be a major indicator of bias. The use of “white” when referring to race can be a default for good, while Black can imply the person is more dangerous. For example, in crime reporting, a reporter who only identifies the suspects’ race if they are Black but does not identify race if the suspects are white, is coding their reporting with bias. Instead, if race is relevant to the story, be sure to mention all races involved. Contrarily, if you would not identify your subject’s identity or identities if he were a cisgender, white, heterosexual, Christian male, then the identities of someone who does not fit those categories probably should not be mentioned either.

We should also be cognizant of the words we use in stories. When reporters use biased language, they tell their audience what to think. Instead, journalists should avoid using adjectives such as “good” or “bad” to describe a situation. Instead, stick with the facts and let the audience decide. Otherwise, you’ll be considered an editorial writers if you provide your informed opinion.

Again, ask yourself whose perspective or what opinion you have not considered. What don’t you know that you need to know about this subject? Most importantly, ask yourself what you don’t know that you don’t know. The response might lead to an even better story.

Patti Wolter is a contributor to this piece.  

Image Credit

Multiple Perspectives from Innovative Genomics Institute is licensed under a CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.