We often hear about biased media outlets, and many people express the desire to have news reporters who do not express their personal ideology or biases into their own coverage. Two terms are often used to describe such reporting: objectivity and neutrality. Although these two words are sometimes used interchangeably, they are not synonyms. The difference between objectivity and neutrality has important implications for news coverage and public knowledge.
Objectivity in news coverage means that reporters are not influenced by their own personal biases when writing or talking about events of the world. Even if the truth contradicts the ideology of objective reporters, they will still report the facts as they are, and will not attempt to skew reality towards a certain world perspective. For example, an objective reporter would cover climate change by examining what the actual data says about the state of our climate. As the evidence shows that the earth is indeed warming, the reporter would conclude that climate change is occurring.
Neutrality, on the other fact, refers to not taking any side at all in a debate. A neutral reporter reports on what either side of the debate is saying, puts both arguments into a news segment, and then lets the viewer or reader decide what is true. Regardless of which side is telling the truth or represents the majority opinion, the neutral person gives each side equal weight. Neutral reporting on climate change, long dominant in the mainstream media, showcases how some people say the planet is warming because of anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions, while others say that nothing is happening to Earth’s average temperature. The views of both sides are put into a report, and the audience is left to decide whether or not climate change exists.
As the previous example illustrates, it is objectivity that we should seek in news coverage. Facts and real events do exist out there in the world. We should not pretend that all sides should always be given equal credence. When reporters act like two opposing arguments have equal standing regardless of reality, it is a disservice to the audience. They are left with no new knowledge about the world. Instead, they have only a mess of conflicting opinions to choose between.
Neutrality itself can even be called a bias. The determination to see all arguments as equal means that you are not going to approach a story with the goal of reporting on the truth of the situation. Instead, your work always winds up stating, “This is what one side says. This is what the other side says. Who’s right? Who knows!” To facilitate intelligent public discourse, we can’t live in a world where all sides of an argument are right.
Furthermore, neutrality towards an issue all too often serves those in power. There is a reason why writer, professor, and political activist Elie Wiesel said that “Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim.” Think back to the climate change issue again. For decades, media outlets have given equal credence to climate scientists and some person without a degree in atmospheric science who likely has ties to the fossil fuel industry. This neutral coverage has served to spread public confusion about the validity of climate change. This confusion has helped serve the interests of the fossil fuel giants. They have been able to continue with business as usual as the debate about climate change dragged on for a needlessly long time. Neutrality is often a call to complacence. A lack of definite information tells us that we must wait until the matter is settled, instead of acting now.
Of course, neutrality bias does not just exist in climate change reporting, but the simplest examples of this phenomenon can be taken from that area of the news. Neutrality is also a useful tactic with which one can smear political candidates. When a news segment says that “The opposition says that a certain political candidate said this horrid statement. The candidate says that they did not,” the candidate in question looks guilty in the eyes of the audience. An objective reporter would not write such a “he said she said” type of article. Objectivity would mean debunking the smear of the political candidate. Although the reporter may be accused of being biased, the only thing that the reporter has done is to state what actually happened. Sometimes the truth can be hard to accept for people across the political spectrum, but just because a truth is uncomfortable doesn’t mean that reporters should pretend like it doesn’t exist.
Of course, reporters are still human beings (I used an objective approach to come to this conclusion and ignored by own personal biases!). Like the rest of us, they have biases of which they cannot rid themselves. Often reporters will approach a story already wanting to come to a certain conclusion. What can be done when we cannot rid our reporters of their worldviews? What I think is optimal is for all newscasters and reporters to make their ideologies and biases evident up front. Make a disclaimer to your audience and let them know how you view the world.
One news reporter/political commentator who I think does a wonderful job at this is Kyle Kulinski of Secular Talk. He lets his audience know where he stands on the political spectrum, something that no mainstream media news anchor would do. To me such an approach is far more honest than pretending like you are an empty vessel with no ideology whatsoever. The next time you are watching or reading the news, ask yourself: is the coverage neutral or objective? Or neither? Understanding the differences between these three options is critical towards getting a better grasp on the nature of the issues we face as a nation.
90% chance of no post on Sunday due to a conflict.
Green Humanist 