One of the first things people are told when they start writing in a journalistic form is to be careful that they’re not “biased.” Obviously, this does not apply to things like opinion editorials or entertainment reviews, but in every other aspect of journalistic writing, this is beat into the writer. If one writes with “bias,” then they are a sensationalist, a yellow journalist and an untrustworthy source.
Does that mean a journalist must stick to neutrality on topics where there are true injustices going on? The simple answer is no, it doesn’t because that’s not what it means to be unbiased.
For some reason, many people in the journalistic community have begun to take the word “unbiased” to mean completely and utterly neutral of any argument or advocacy, but this just plainly isn’t true.
According to Merriam Webster, one of the definitions of “unbiased” is “eminently fair.” This is extremely important to note because there are situations where it may be fair to write a piece of journalism that ultimately advocates for a certain group or thing.
An ideology that can be looked toward in these situations is one put forward by Desmond Tutu, a human rights activist who said, “If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor … If an elephant has its foot on the tail of a mouse and you say that you are neutral, the mouse will not appreciate your neutrality,” according to The Guardian.
Sometimes we need to acknowledge that the most fair and unbiased thing to do in journalism is to provide a platform for those who feel unheard, for if we ignore them like the rest of the world has, then we are complicit in the atrocities occurring.
More specifically, it seems there is a fear to use words like “racist” and “sexist” in journalism. Avoiding this language does not result in one standing on some all-mighty line of neutrality, it results in discriminatory incidents not being called what they truly are. When this occurs, it lets people and institutions who commit oppression off the hook.
The AP Style Guide, the holy grail of journalism as many view it, has said it is okay and encourages journalists to say when something is racist.
Finally, one must consider the fact that we all are somewhat biased. When any journalist walks out of a room after an interview, they feel something toward that subject. They may question the validity of the interviewee and agree or even disagree with them, but there is no way to avoid those feelings. As humans, we are all inherently biased towards certain people or topics. This is completely okay, as long as we acknowledge it instead of sweeping it under the rug and pretending journalism is some all-mighty place that is absent of human nature.
It is often said that one cannot write a non-biased article if they become emotionally invested in the topic. This is untrue when you consider the true definition of unbiased, especially because the most passionate journalists are the ones who make waves, and that is because they care. A journalist who does not care will produce flat, lifeless articles that don’t make a difference to the reader, the topic or the writer.
Bias should, of course, be acknowledged and removed from pieces when possible, but sometimes it is an infeasible choice. Ultimately, we need to stop obsessing over the impossible task of removing bias from journalism and instead use it to fight for those who have been disempowered.
Kara Burke is a communication major junior who wants to be Greta Thunberg when she grows up.