Under the Same Sun

Published 11/7/07

By: Kasey Henricks

Anytime human judgment is involved, unbiased opinion is not possible.

News is about presenting information. Behind every piece of information is an agenda. Contrary to what Fox News would like its audience to believe, it is not “fair and balanced.” And no, the token liberal co-hosting “Hannity & Colmes” isn’t fooling anyone. And for those liberal-minded people out there, MSNBC isn’t much worse. Having conservative Tucker Carlson host his own show doesn’t cover up or balance out MSNBC’s liberal bias.

Let’s speak truth about objective reporting in the complex social world: It’s not possible. For every piece of information, there’s a choice to present that information and how to present it. Partial realities describe the content presented by newspapers, magazines, TV and other media outlets. Everyone has a bias, including journalists. Forming a bias cannot be avoided. Things like experiences, interests and norms shape the way individuals think. And journalists bring such backgrounds to their job everyday.

To truly accomplish objective reporting, the world would have to be ideal. That is, ways of seeing would have to be the same for everyone. Objectivity is a state that occurs only when people have the same interests and experience base. Everyone would have to have the same point of reference. Everyone would have to possess the same logic. Everyone would need to have the same expectations. Such an environment leaves no room for dissenting opinion. Only in this ideal world could journalists consider all angles of a story.

Truth looks different to different people. A wise man once told me: “For every way of seeing, there’s a way of not seeing.” Viewing the social world is like looking at a multidimensional object. How an object appears depends on where a person stands. A different vantage point shifts the entire image. Journalism is much of the same. News is simply a narrow account of the complex social world. Each account is not a full description, but merely an introduction to the world as that person or group sees it. It’s a one-dimensional view for a three-dimensional world.

An alternative approach to journalism would be to admit these limitations. Admit that there is no all-encompassing method to presenting the news. Acknowledge that the social world is complex, and a five-minute news presentation or 500-word article cannot include all of the contributing factors as to why certain events occurred the way that they did. Confess these shortcomings, but commit to aggressively striving for truth with an open-mind.

Journalists should strive for a profession rooted in fairness and accuracy. The media must commit to considering more than “both sides of a story.” Traditional ways of thinking must be revised. No longer should it be acceptable to believe that two versions of a story are the only versions out there. Instead, journalists should ask: “What questions am I missing?” Much consideration should be given to the knowledge that remains unknown. The alternative approach to news could start with what is not known, not what is. Journalists should disclose what factors may have influenced or motivated their way of viewing an issue or event. Generally when individuals admit an interest in an issue or event, reasons exist for that interest. Providing such information would better inform audiences of what lens an issue or event is being looked through.

Journalism with an admitted bias opens the door for accuracy in reporting. Such an approach would spawn endless debate. But this type of debate may be exactly what the public needs. After all, this question and verify-everything approach serves democracy as a better method of holding government accountable. For example, it would have benefited the American public if the so-called “liberal-news media” would have lived up to its reputation prior to the invasion of Iraq. If the media hadn’t been consumed with the “Shock and Awe” campaign that showed America flex its muscles with close-up images of tanks and fighter jets, journalists might have stopped to ask: “Is Iraq a threat to America? Does Iraq have weapons of mass destruction? Is Iraq connected with Osama bin Laden and al-Qaida?” An admittedly biased media outlet could have benefited America at such a time.

Honesty is perhaps the most-needed quality when dealing with issues or events that involve uncertainty. The media operates with limitations. But an approach that asks fellow journalists to add to the conversation of news serves as a better model of media. The need for fact-checking works best when the presented information is assumed to be false until proven true. Constant verification is a good thing.

Perfect media will never exist. But committing to foundational pillars in journalism is the first step to creating a more perfect media – a media that’s fair and accurate, but limited by its inherent shortcomings. Oh yeah, and the wall must come down.