We do not owe you both sides: How neutrality gives credibility to harmful viewpoints

Emme Bowe

eb730819@ohio.edu

Image by  John Cook

Since the popularization of the term "fake news" during the 2016 election, journalists have been under fire for showing bias in their writing and not executing their duty to defend the truth. Personal belief leaks through the writer's tone and framing of the article. One begins to wonder if they will ever know the whole story or if the public will constantly be fed one perspective that aligns with the individual who presents it. 

 

Journalists cannot be expected to be without bias, however, because they are humans who have personal feelings, values, and beliefs just like everyone else. In their book, The Elements of Journalism, Bill Kovach, and Tom Rosenstiel explain that objectivity does not mention the perspective journalists present but their information methodology. As long as the process of reporting is thorough, justified, and transparent, journalists can and should report their conscience. They do not need to be neutral or present multiple perspectives to be deemed trustworthy. In other words, journalists owe the public objectivity in their methodology but not neutrality in their position.

News organizations have made great strides by expressing concerns within our democracy after the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol. But unfortunately, articles forfeited the customary paragraph designated for alternate viewpoints. They did not share voices defending the insurrection because including this would skew the actual evaluation of the facts: that the event was a threat to democracy. 

Still, journalists who fear backlash for seeming biased will practice neutrality, giving credibility to another "side" even though that perspective does not hold the same integrity. While there are typically no ill-intentions behind neutral reporting, its ability to bring support to an argument that should not exist is partially to blame for polarization on issues that should be easily agreeable. 

Why are there still climate change deniers when 97 percent of climate scientists say it exists and humans are to blame? Would more of the public fight for federal action on climate change if journalists focused on scientific studies and excluded statements supported by fossil fuel industries? If journalists did not entertain the idea of a rigged election, would the Jan. 6 insurrection have been catastrophic? 

In an attempt to express unity and balance, journalists continually cause more harm and polarization through neutral reporting. It needs to stop. 

It is the responsibility of both journalists and the public to put an end to neutral reporting. Journalists' first obligation is the truth, their first loyalty is to citizens, and their obligation is to their conscience. To fulfill their duties to all parties, journalists must stand firm in the truth and not give way to improbable perspectives simply out of fear. It is also the responsibility of the public to recognize what is objective truth versus misinformation for the sake of balance. Trust and true objectivity can be restored when these two groups learn to monitor each other, critique shortcomings, and work together.