Objectivity=Bias?!?

Is media coverage biased? 

Alexandra Hambleton

ah941711@ohio.edu

     The media has been covering Kim Davis more and more based on what the public wants. But is it what the public wants? Or does the media just tell the story because they believe it's a good story? When do journalists have to think about objectivity compared to biased? 

     There is a great blog done by Rob Pegoraro who says that journalists become very opinionated and passionate about really anything after getting out of the news. This isn't because they started to finally understand politics, or just randomly became interested. It's because they have been under strict regulations that restrict what they can or cannot say on the news. They have to follow certain codes of ethics that say they must not be biased. Pegoraro says, "everyone who works for AP must be mindful that opinions he or she expresses may damage the AP's reputation as an unbiased source of news". And it is not just the AP code of ethics that we are talking about here. We are talking about every other journalism code of ethics such as SPJ and RTDNA. Although, because of social media being such a critical source of news for many people, now journalism is taking a different swing on news stories.

    For example, the Kim Davis story was done by plenty of news outlets. One in general, was done by the NY Times, which is a huge news outlet for many Americans. The story was about how Pope Francis met with Kim Davis in private while he was touring in the United States. One of the quotes from the story read, "yet his meeting with Ms. Davis raises the question of whether the pontiff was again shifting directions, seizing on an issue- conscientious objection- typically embraced by liberals but instead of framing it around Ms. Davis." The article gave more small questions to think about the Pope and his schedule of touring the United States.

Kim Davis (credit to Barbwire.com)

     Journalists have been covering Kim Davis more and more because of all the new interest from the public and all of the differences in opinion on her stand against legal gay marriage. As journalists we must think about whether covering someone like her all the time starts to show biases' for one side of the story. This is something we will always face as journalists. Do we stay with the popular story, or do we look outside of the box and find other stories within the one being told by every other news story?