The Slant
We call the people “behind the news” journalists. They are the reporters, writers, anchors, producers, editors, and managers who determine news coverage every day. If news consumers (e.g. viewers, listeners, readers) depend on one media or print outlet to give them the news, then those consumers place all of their news eggs in one basket. The same is true if they depend on a variety of news outlets with the same “slant” on the news. The consumer will end up with only one “view” of the news. What if that side, that slant, isn’t accurate or is trying to hide something from news consumers?
Slanted news is a real problem in our time. What I mean by that is a group of journalists purposely presenting the news “from a particular angle, especially in a biased or unfair way” (Oxford Languages). That would be similar to disinformation, which we looked at in the last newsletter.
Gallup and the Knight Foundation released a survey on Trust, Media and Democracy in 2018 that found —
Americans believe the news media have a critical role to play in U.S. democracy but are not performing that role well. One of Americans’ chief concerns about media is bias, and Americans are much more likely to perceive bias in the news today than they were a generation ago.
Some of the key findings of the survey are that Americans believe 62% of the news they consume “is biased,” and that 80% believe the news they see on social media is biased. More than eight in ten U.S. adults report “being angry or bothered” by seeing biased information.
Journalists may lean left or they may lean right — liberal or conservative. They are human and humans have personal leanings. Right? So, what’s wrong with them expressing their personal lean or slant through news reporting? A lot!
What’s the solution? Objectivity.
Be Objective
Objectivity simply means a “lack of favoritism toward one side or another: freedom from bias” (Merriam-Webster). Fortunately, I had old-school professors and news directors who drilled into me the importance of being objective with every story I covered — from asking questions, to researching the answers I received, to writing stories, to selecting the soundbites from interviews to insert into the story-telling process, and how I presented the stories visually, audibly or in print to ensure objectivity.
We were taught not to take any side in any story. We were not even allowed to take a position politically in our community. That included having campaign bumper stickers on our cars or campaign signs in our yards. I remember news directors asking how people could ever trust a journalist if they knew their political or social leanings.
I started my career in the 1960s as a political independent and am still an independent to this day. If a news manager even heard a hint of bias in something we said to someone in the newsroom or to a contact on the phone or in a live report or in our writing and reporting, we would be called into the manager’s office and our job would be in jeopardy. I wonder if that’s still being done in newsrooms today?
Why were those older professors and news managers so tough on us young journalists? Many of them were reporters ten or twenty years earlier and had helped fight for a strengthening of journalistic principles. They weren’t about to let a bunch of young reporters take the profession backward. I’m so glad for that kind of tough conditioning as a young reporter. That early training was the foundation for my career as a journalist.
Bias
Let’s talk about the elephant in the newsroom — bias. Everybody is biased about something. There are hundreds of different types of bias. Some are explicit (conscious) and some are implicit (unconscious).
A conscious bias means people are aware of their bias. An unconscious bias means people are not aware of their bias. Both can affect how people respond to other people or groups of people. Bias toward people because of their religion, race, gender, age, weight, etc. are examples. Whether we realize it or not, most of us have one or more biases.
What do we do with that? Admit we have biases. Admit that the elephant in the room is actually in the room. Once journalists and news consumers admit they have biases, they will be able to do something about them.
Open Mind - Open Eyes
Journalists should approach every news story with an open mind and open eyes.
Let’s begin with the idea of an “open mind.”
We often add the word “keep” to the statement — keep an open mind. What does that mean?
a willingness to listen to or accept different ideas or opinions — Merriam-Webster
to wait until you know all the facts before forming an opinion or making a judgment — Cambridge Dictionary
To avoid making a judgment or decision about someone or something without full knowledge about them or it — The Free Dictionary
Notice the emphasis on “waiting” until we know all the facts, “avoiding” making a judgment or decision without having a full knowledge. That’s part of what it means to be a trustworthy journalist.
Most of us can probably think of some journalist or talk show host who has jumped to conclusions about news stories before knowing all the facts. Even when all the facts come out, some people in the news media either don’t correct their error or double down to defend what they reported incorrectly.
It’s easy to jump to conclusions, especially because of our biases. It’s hard to wait to reach a conclusion until all the facts are in about a news story. Objectivity demands that we report what we learn about a story, but not present our findings as final or conclusive until we have covered every aspect of a story.
Journalists need to demonstrate to news consumers that they are objective in the way they cover stories. We report what we know to be factual, but “wait” until all the facts are in before we reach conclusions about a story. There’s no harm in letting readers, listeners or viewers know what you’re doing. Be honest with them. Report what you know and what you don’t know, without putting any spin on the story. Show news consumers that you care deeply about objectivity and keep an open mind about the news stories you cover.
Next, let’s look at what it means to keep your eyes open —
to look or watch closely in order to see or find (something) — Merriam-Webster
To remain vigilant or carefully watchful (for something or someone) — The Free Dictionary
pay attention; be watchful — Vocabulary.com
to be especially alert or observant — Collins Dictionary
One of the key ingredients to getting news stories right is “observation.” In fact, it’s the first thing journalists should do in covering a news story. I’ll get into that in more detail when we look at the process of journalism, but it’s worth mentioning that being alert (keeping eyes open) is vital to objectivity. How can we be objective about a news story if we don’t see what happened? Even worse, how can a journalist be objective if they purposely close their eyes to factual information in a story?
The job of a journalist is to “see everything” that pertains to a story. Reporters should take mental and written notes of everything they see and hear. Photographers should get video and photos of everything available about a story. That’s especially important for investigative stories where we can see and hear everything that might become evidence in our coverage.
So, open mind and open eyes. Journalists must have both. Fairness is the objective.
Fairness
Fairness is more than just talking with everyone involved in a story. It also means being fair to everyone involved in a story. Here are a couple of examples —
You often hear journalists say this at the end of a news story —
“We contacted the other side for a response, but they haven’t returned our call.”
While that has the appearance of fairness — is it? How do news consumers know for sure that the journalist made a good-faith effort to get a response from the other side?
The reporter may have called once and let the phone ring twice. The reporter may have called and left a voice mail message just minutes before they went on the air. They may have sent an email ten minutes before broadcast or publication. Is that fair?
The reporter may have also called multiple times and left many voice mail messages over a period of several days. They may have sent several emails and text messages as well during that time. They may have gone to a person’s home or office to try to meet with them in person. Is that fair?
I recommend that journalists include their contact process as part of any news story where fairness may be in question. Let the public know the extent of what you did to be fair to everyone. If you called once and let the phone ring twice, say that. If you called and left a voice mail message just minutes before broadcast or publication, let your audience know. If you sent an email ten minutes before broadcast or publication, include that in your report. If you called multiple times and left many voice mail messages over a period of several days, tell your audience. If you sent several emails and text messages that went unanswered, include that information as well. If you went to a person’s home or office to try to meet with them in person, let your audience know. The more news consumers know about your efforts to be fair, the better. The audience will know whether the journalist made a good-faith effort to be fair — or not.
[A special note to news managers — another benefit of having your journalists include their process of fairness in covering stories is they may work harder to be fair since they will have to report how they covered a story — for all to see.]
Here’s a personal example from 40 years ago.
I had interviewed everyone connected to an investigative story who would talk to me. Some people wouldn’t answer my questions or refused to answer my calls. I went to homes and offices to talk with people, but some didn’t answer the doorbell or my knock on the door. I usually left my business card with a written note in the door as well.
This was long before the days of emails and phone texts, so I had done everything I knew to do to be fair. However, one of the people I interviewed toward the end of my investigation revealed some new information that I had not known earlier. That new information affected someone I had tried to reach previously. Since the person I had tried to reach earlier had refused to talk with me, wouldn’t it be fair to just go ahead with the story?
I thought about the meaning of fairness and determined that it would not be fair since I had new information that implicated the earlier person. Even though it delayed the story by another day, I went back to the person’s house and rang the doorbell. No answer. Since my objective was fairness, I left my business card in their door one more time with a note about the new information I had received. That worked. The person called me and gave me a quote over the phone. I reported the investigative story and was able to include his response to the allegations. I also included a mention in my story about the process of getting that final response so the public would better understand the journalistic process. Anything we can do to help news consumers know that we’re reporting in the public interest goes a long way to building trust.
I knew I had been fair to everyone in the story. Did it take more time? Yes. Was it worth it? Absolutely. Fairness is the objective.
Next Newsletter
We’ll look at the importance of accuracy in journalism.
Comments Welcome
I hope these thoughts are helpful to you as a journalist or news consumer. Please share your comments and I’ll respond as quickly as I can. If you like what we’re doing in this newsletter, please let your friends know about it so they can subscribe.
Newsletter Purpose
The purpose of this newsletter is to help journalists understand how to do real journalism and the public know how they can find news they can trust on a daily basis. It’s a simple purpose, but complicated to accomplish. We’ll do our best to make it as clear as we can in future newsletters.