The Society of Professional Journalists' Code of Ethics embraces the 'traditional' form of journalism as that which seeks to be... neutral. The first code demands that journalists be "honest, fair, and courageous in gathering, reporting and interpreting information."
However, in today's journalistic world, we see 'transparency' sites, like The Huffington Post, where professional and amateur journalists alike share their political views and make judgments based on 'the facts'. This 'transparency' lies in how journalists use the news facts to prove their opinion the stronger choice, attempting to make a compelling argument so their audience may agree with their point.
The truth of the matter is that facts can be perceived differently by any one individual. Therefore, journalists -- no matter how committed they may be to unbiased news coverage -- carry their own biases with them wherever they go.
After the announcement of the selection of Sarah Palin as the Republican vice-presidential nominee by the McCain camapaign, professional journalists and bloggers tried to find out anything and everything they could about the governor of Alaska, whom not much was known. Journalists and politicians began questioning Palin's experience, scrutinizing her thin resume and asking if she's qualified to become the next vice-president of the United States. Some in the McCain campaign interpreted the intense questioning as a bias against their VP nominee.
Jay Rosen quoted a New York Times public editor as saying, "bias is a tricky thing to measure, because we all bring our biases to the task." Rosen proves a good point in that no individual is completely devoid of any sense of bias. Our backgrounds, languages, cultures, upbringing, etc., all add to our biases. So does this mean we can't cover news objectively? Or do we need to be 'out of the closet' with our political values before we seek the truth, so our audience can interpret which journalists they believe are giving the accurate facts?
At the Republican National Convention this past week, we saw a lot speakers and politicians accuse the mainstream media of having a 'liberal bias.' Gov. Sarah Palin, the Republican vice-presidential nominee, even went as far as to attack the media for unfair treatment in their coverage of her:
And I've learned quickly, these past few days, that if you're not a member in good standing of the Washington elite, then some in the media consider a candidate unqualified for that reason alone. But here's a little news flash for all those reporters and commentators: I'm not going to Washington to seek their good opinion -- I'm going to Washington to serve the people of this country. Americans expect us to go to Washington for the right reasons, and not just to mingle with the right people.
Journalists at CNN -- 'the MOST trusted name in news' -- were caught having to face allegations of biased coverage concerning Palin's experience over the air.
Political correspondent Cambell Brown then had to defend her questions, citing that her reporting was meant to be fair and neutral. Was this necessary for her to do, or was it done to protect CNN's image (one that has been labeled part of the liberal media by conservative scholars)?
Regardless if whether one is transparent with their political views or maintains a 'neutral' reporting approach, it seems as though the audience will have the final say in determining what they view, read, and/or hear to be fact and what they deem to be as 'bias' coverage.
By Cheryl Dablo
September 7, 2008 8:28 AM
Great example with Campbell Brown's interview. Almost used that one myself!
I think the problem with the inherent criticism of the media is that the media is set up to be a critic in its own right. We are criticizing the critics.
Of course sticklers like Campbell Brown are paid to ask the tough questions and to avoid backing down in combative interviews. She did later acknowledge that Gov. Palin did have some control over the National Guard when as wildfires throughout the state broke out. Still begs the question on whether that is sufficient "military" experience . . .