An Assessment of Bias and Objectivity in the News Media

Authors Avatar

An Assessment of Bias and Objectivity

in the News Media

1.0 – Introduction

     Bias and objectivity are frequently used as ideological standards to assess the news media. The media has a duty to provide the citizenry with impartial information on public events and they have a positive, and even democratising function in regard to public enlightenment. However, if they fail to factually mirror reality, they place a certain slant or bias on the news. The inordinate power and authority of the news media enables it to influence the views of the public. If the public are not aware of certain biases, they may accept journalistic opinion as reality. In a survey, 60 per cent of respondents found it difficult to distinguish between fact and opinion in a selection of news articles. This reveals that bias could easily sneak in to articles without public knowledge. If the media fail to adequately inform the citizenry, they are not only failing to fulfil their duty, but have the potential to thwart the democratic process.

Since bias and objectivity are frequently used as instruments to evaluate the performance of the media, this essay will first define these two terms. Secondly, we must question whether it is in fact possible for the news media to achieve objectivity and be genuinely unbiased. The answers to these questions will determine whether the standards of bias and objectivity are appropriate in evaluating the news media.

2.0 – What is meant by ‘bias’?

    Bias is favouring a certain interpretation or belief over others. To be bias, an individual or collective entity permits certain interests or causes to influence their views. Wissner-Gross emphasises the importance of an individual’s environment and exposure to different milieus in shaping their biases, and claims that no individual can be completely free from bias. Bias, however can be acceptable in different circumstances. For example, in relations with friends and family, Street suggests that it is reasonably acceptable for an individual to be biased. However, it is not perceived as acceptable for the media to be bias by the public and politicians.  This is because journalists present themselves as unbiased, and thus a journalist who communicates a prejudiced viewpoint, is generally considered to be neglecting his or her responsibility as a reporter. 

     Numerous writers have defined the term bias, and have advocated various methods of dissecting such an abstruse term. McQuail provides a straightforward and clear approach to bias, through the identification of four types of bias. The first is partisan bias, which is explicit and deliberate. An example of partisan bias would be an editorial which clearly reveals the editors view.  The second, propaganda bias, involves the intention of supporting a certain party or policy. Yet the reporter fails to explicitly state such an intention. The third is unwitting bias, which is not deliberate or conscious, and involves selecting which articles are to be included or excluded. While McQuail’s fourth type of bias, ideological bias, concerns the use of established norms.

    Although McQuail provides a clear and simple approach to such an elusive term— these norms or ‘standard models’ are ‘grounded’ in ideologies and thus are inherently biased. When defining such types of bias, the predominant issue that arises is that definitions are prone to subjective notions. One individual may perceive propaganda bias to permeate one article, while another may observe the same article as unbiased and balanced. This is problematical, for how do we prove the existence of a particular type of bias within an article? An individual’s own biases are prevalent even when detecting the biases of another — and thus different people will use different methods to discover bias. The detection of bias is therefore prone to bias itself. This initiates the question of whether there is a simpler and clearer method of defining and hence detecting bias.

2.1 – What is meant by ‘Objectivity’?   

   Doll and Bradley suggest that rather than defining bias, it is favourable ‘to treat it negatively, as the absence of objectivity.’ So what does it mean to be objective? To be objective is to be uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices. This principle contends that facts and personal values can and should be completely segregated. Academics such as Iyengar have endeavoured to define and dissect the elusiveness of objectivity. However Iyengar’s anatomisation of objectivity fails to provide an adequate explanation of what factors exist when an article is objective. In contrast, Entman clearly discusses the two principal requirements that exist when an article is objective. The first requisite is depersonalisation; this demands that articles are free from personal ideological or substantive evaluations. The second requirement is balance, which endeavours for neutrality in articles. The reporter is obligated to present the views of conflicting sides in a dispute, and is also required to provide both sides with ‘roughly equivalent attention.’ Therefore, objectivity requires depersonalisation and balance in reporting.

Join now!

     Objectivity and its role within the media has been perceived differently by numerous writers. First, Schudson asserts that objectivity is not merely a claim about what kind of knowledge is reliable, but it is also a moral philosophy. This accentuates the moral and ethical decisions that are prevalent when constructing articles. Schudson takes this one step further, and maintains that objectivity is the ideal that actually legitimises the journalistic profession. Hence any news organisation that provides information on public affairs must be impartial when reporting — otherwise it is probable that it would be perceived as a dereliction of their duty ...

This is a preview of the whole essay