*WARNING: the following post contains bias*
But then again, what doesn't?
I would say that I am, first and foremost, a creative writer. I don't often delve into the realm of the research paper or news article. But the world of informative writing is, I think, just as intricate and fascinating as the world of creative writing. Writing even the most straightforward blurb in a newspaper requires skill, even if it is the skill of restraint more than the skill of expression. The main difference between a creative and informative piece is the amount of subjectivity we expect.
Right now, I'm using the term ''informative writing'' rather broadly. Informative writing is actually distinct from expository writing; the former is simply the impartial presentation of information, while the second may include opinion or bias, though it is expected to be backed up with some sort of proof. Interestingly, an article I read about the difference between these two types of writing listed newspaper articles under expository writing. How can that be true? When we read the newspaper, don't we expect to find an entirely unbiased account of the events in the world? Which of course raises the question, can a human write without bias? And what does an unbiased account actually look like? I decided that this was an interesting (and important) question to explore, so I looked up the definition of bias.
Naturally, humans are raised in environments and have experiences that form their ideas and beliefs. For example, if you are raised in a particular religion, your faith in the teachings of a religious leader influence your actions and how you relate to the world. I don't believe it is possible to relate to the world in an unbiased way. In a philosophy class I am taking, the teacher asked us what it means to be unbiased, and whether or not such a state can be achieved. Some of us reached the conclusion that it is impossible to be unbiased since that would require understanding and having no preference among every possible perspective on an issue, but that a person can become closer to eliminating their bias by examining and trying to understand as many separate biased viewpoints as they can. I don't know if this is true or not, but it seems like a good theory to apply to journalism.
A journalist can not be without bias. Say he or she arrives at a protest with the intention of collecting information and writing an informational account of the event. This account isn't unbiased unless the journalist interviews every person in attendance, every spectator, and anyone that is involved in any way. By selecting two or three people to interview (say, a leader of the protest, the person they are protesting against, and one spectator), he or she is favoring their opinions over the opinions of many other people and therefore showing bias. This isn't to say that the journalist's work is bad or wrong. The definition of bias outlines it as prejudice that is considered to be unfair. If the journalist interviews three people who are representative of the three main groups involved in the protest, he or she is not being unfair. While the journalist's article may not be purely informative, it is as close to unbiased as a human can come within the limits of reason.
Of course, bias is also represented more obviously in language and in the way a piece is written. Some pieces are meant to include bias, such as editorials and opinion pieces, but the danger comes when an author claims to be neutral while using subtly leading language. An organization called Accuracy In Media (AIM) gives several examples of language that expresses opinion without overtly stating it, such as using the phrase to "steal'' a page from someone's book rather than to ''take'' a page from someone's book. This shifts the connotation of the sentence to negatively represent the person doing the action (in this case, President Bush). It is important to note, however, that while AIM makes several valid and important points about bias in media (saying that language can not be used without bias, so the bias must at least be minimized and acknowledged), they themselves express bias by only correcting language that goes against their political beliefs. In fact, the majority of their own news reports center on specific political beliefs and have inflammatory, connotative headlines.
Why is it important for media to be unbiased? Because we rely on the media to shape the way we see the world. Not everyone has access to the information and/or resources that journalists have, so we rely on what they tell us to shape our opinions on politics and other important facets of life. The truth, however, is that the media is not neutral. Humans are limited by their own experience, and journalists often bring bias to the table beyond what is necessary. So as people trying to understand the world, it is important that we follow the (somewhat hypocritical but still applicable) advice of AIM and "be mindful'' of the language used in the media we consume. We need to consider what is said, what is left unsaid, and which words seem highly connotative. There has always been bias of some sort in the media. "Yellow journalism" during the Spanish-American war, newspapers for every political party that has ever existed, and of course the gap between Fox and MSNBC today. But if we acknowledge the inherent bias of the media and still accept their information without further thought, we are becoming more biased rather than more informed.
Why is it important for media to be unbiased? Because we rely on the media to shape the way we see the world. Not everyone has access to the information and/or resources that journalists have, so we rely on what they tell us to shape our opinions on politics and other important facets of life. The truth, however, is that the media is not neutral. Humans are limited by their own experience, and journalists often bring bias to the table beyond what is necessary. So as people trying to understand the world, it is important that we follow the (somewhat hypocritical but still applicable) advice of AIM and "be mindful'' of the language used in the media we consume. We need to consider what is said, what is left unsaid, and which words seem highly connotative. There has always been bias of some sort in the media. "Yellow journalism" during the Spanish-American war, newspapers for every political party that has ever existed, and of course the gap between Fox and MSNBC today. But if we acknowledge the inherent bias of the media and still accept their information without further thought, we are becoming more biased rather than more informed.
http://www.englishforums.com/English/ExpositoryInformative/vwjbm/post.htm
http://www.cnn.com/2014/07/07/us/california-six-flags-roller-coaster-accident/index.html?hpt=hp_t2
http://www.aim.org/on-target-blog/media-bias-in-strategic-word-choice/
Image Credit
http://rsnash7.files.wordpress.com/2011/11/newspaper_20icon_15b15d.jpg
http://www.cnn.com/2014/07/07/us/california-six-flags-roller-coaster-accident/index.html?hpt=hp_t2
http://www.aim.org/on-target-blog/media-bias-in-strategic-word-choice/
Image Credit
http://rsnash7.files.wordpress.com/2011/11/newspaper_20icon_15b15d.jpg
A friend asked me a question about this post that I thought I should address. The question was: do you really think all journalists should be unbiased and present as many perspectives as possible each and every time? He brought up the Civil Rights movement, asking how "both sides'' could be presented when there were people being beaten and killed. I think this is a very good point. I think I would find it very hard to be unbiased as a journalist. There are some cases in which presenting the hard and fast truth of an event or situation would fit with my own agendas and ideas of what is morally right (for example, if a human rights abuse was occurring and I was able to shed light on this, I would not need to express bias to show that what was happening was wrong). But there are times when the events of the world or the opinions of other people do not fit my own agenda, and I would find it extremely hard to maintain any sort of neutrality. For example, if someone expressed an opinion that I found offensive, it would be difficult not to subtly condemn them through an unflattering description or negatively connotative language. But while it is easy for me to say that someone's opinion is morally wrong and condemn them for it, it is equally easy for anyone else to do the same. So if in my writing I used bias to negatively portray, say, someone who made homophobic comment, it would be equally easy for someone to use the same tactics and negatively portray an activist for positive change. I don't honestly know the answer to the question of whether or not it is ever permissible to be purposefully biased in a newspaper article that is proclaimed to be strictly informative. Every human being has their own complicated definition of right and wrong, yet there are many things I believe should never be tolerated (such as racism, sexism, homophobia, and other forms of discrimination and prejudice). Maybe bias can be used positively, I don't know. I just felt I should try and answer that question to the best of my ability. (Thanks to Nilo Exar for the question, if you want to check out his blog it's at www.itstomorrowsnews.wordpress.com).
ReplyDeleteAlso, if you are having trouble figuring out how to comment, you have to click the button that says "no comments'' below a post.