« Previous | Next »
Be it: I agree with Jeff Jarvis on bias
Published on 18/02/08
by Zac Echola
Jarvis, an open Clinton supporter has this to say about political bias:
Media have an Obama problem they’re going to have to grapple with now or after the election: They love him. They hate Hillary. And the gap between the two is clearly seen in coverage, which surely is having an impact on the election.
This, to me, only gives more weight to the argument that journalists should be disclosing their allegiances and votes. Reporters are not just covering the story. This year, they are part of the story. The ethic of transparency that I have learned online and that journalists apply to everyone they cover should also apply to them. I say that journalists have a responsibility to reveal their own views and votes — even as they endeavor to report apart from them with fairness, completeness, accuracy, and intellectual honesty — and we have a right to judge their success or failure accordingly as we also have a right to judge their roles in the stories they are covering.
I’ve been getting increasingly pissed off at the discussion about whether or not journalists should be allowed to participate in the democratic process.
The argument that critics may use available information about how reporters or editors vote doesn’t stand logically. When someone would use this data to criticize the media as having bias it is a psychogenetic fallacy at best, meaning to assume that because a psychological motive can be inferred (I mainly vote Democratic or Republican), that another argument is invalid (I can report on Republicans or Democrats fairly).
The arguments given lead to absurd conclusions: Would you not allow reporters/editors of a certain faith (or lack thereof) to cover other churches? If your reporters/editors shop at Wal-Mart, should they be barred from covering stories about Target? I would argue that this information about journalists is easily gathered, too, yet there are no policies that trounce on these particular employee rights.
Why should we cater to lunatic or vague perceptions of what the media is or should be? We, presumably, as journalists are in the truth trade. We should not be perception peddlers. Isn’t that the whole point of the Fourth Estate? Our goal is to uncover the truth, so why do we hide from it? Ad hominem attacks against our reporters and editors shouldn’t affect our ability to work as journalists, or our ability to act as individual citizens. How can logically weak or completely invalid arguments harm our credibility as journalists?
Nobody seems to be discussing the credibility of journalism. We’re talking about the perception of credibility of journalism, which is an important distinction. Perception is not always reality, and we shouldn’t forget that. Ultimately your arguments come down to unnecessarily restricting newsroom employees’ personal freedoms to defend against possible (read: not imminent nor real) false arguments.
The fact of the matter is that we all carry bias. To fool our readers into thinking we don’t have bias by simply not participating makes little sense to me. Not allowing your staffs to participate distorts reality. This is a thin veil at best and actually harms our credibility as fair journalists at worst. We’re giving invalid arguments false validity when we play make believe with our leanings.
The better solution would be openness and transparency about our biases because we must be able to recognize them to overcome them in our coverage. Acknowledgment of bias is the first step to truly avoid conflicts of interest.
Don’t fear engaging your critics. Take them to task for their stupid beliefs. With logic and reason, not by hiding behind the curtain.
The end. Or is it?
Please leave a comment so I know what you think about this post. After that, check out It's randomonium! Or, if you're so inclined, take a gander at what I'm reading and my del.icio.us links.
Trackback URL: I agree with Jeff Jarvis on bias.
Tags: , , news is dumb sometimes