Should Factual Writing Contain Bias?Henry Buckham

The United Kingdom has one of the world’s best human rights ratings thanks to our free, liberal society where free speech is not grounds for prosecution or imprisonment. Thanks to this, our media industry is legally obligated to publish what they want as long as it stays within the codes of conduct, meaning that they cannot publish anything outright obscene or offensive. They are not however restricted from publishing the opinions of their writers to be read by the masses. This is known as bias and is defined as preferring one side of an argument to another, and is usually used to refer to political alignment (where a person’s beliefs are related to either a left or right wing view.)

Bias is most prevalent in most tabloid newspapers as each major paper has their own alignment on the political spectrum. Bias can be useful to see a differing opinion to your own if you happen to have beliefs that sit on the other side of the scale as opposed to one of the major papers. The difference can be seen very easily with two of the more extreme papers, the left wing Guardian and the right wing Daily Mail, with their passive rivalry hinted at through the words of their columnists and commentators. If the newspapers were all mutual in their reporting of events then it would be difficult for us to find one side to agree with. For example, if in a mutual report of a car crash caused by human error there was no hint of bias towards one particular side; it would be difficult for us to find someone to blame when obviously there was someone at fault. This is sometimes essential in a world where not everyone can get along without blaming somebody.

On the other hand, bias is sometimes a problem with factual writing as it is a known factor for misinterpretation, particularly with the use of sensationalism that is commonly found in right wing newspapers such as the Daily Mail.

Above are two reports of the same story by the BBC (left) and the Daily Mail (right) The right report uses a lot more emotive language that is written to stir up readers, with such words as ‘severe’ and comparing the killer to Hannibal Lecter. The BBC article seems much more calm in regard and most notable lacks the brutally honest description of the attack that is included in the Daily Mail, instead only reporting it as ‘an act of cannibalism.’ The bias is also prevalent in the right article as much of the wording seemingly blames the police as a scapegoat for allowing the attack to happen, with the capitalisation of the word ‘hours’ in the headline suggesting that he reoffended as soon as he was released. This in common in papers as part of their agenda, where if they do not support something (political or social issues, smoking, drinking or playing video games) they will use it to put the blame on in certain stories. This was highlighted with the Daily Mail’s reporting of the schoolboy killing the teacher in a classroom, using the fact that he played violent video games as an excuse for the killing and ignoring the possibility that there may have been severe mental problems to blame. Bias is sometimes a problems thanks to articles like this, as to fit with a certain paper’s agenda certain words can be used to invoke feelings in the reader or facts can be left out so that something can appear better or worse than it actually is, meaning that the reader is not getting the full, true story.

However, there are certain media outlets/formats where bias is more clear, accepted and even encouraged. An example of this is interviews or debates, where it is natural that there will be people with different opinions and who will prefer one side to the other. In these situations it can be useful to have bias as it opens up the possibility of more discussion on a factual topic, such as global warming, immigration or green energy. For example, in an immigration debate between and left wing supporter and right wing supporter there will obviously be conflicting ideals thanks to the differing stances on the topic, but eventually they may come to a consensus that works with both parties, benefitting both sides and having a solution that solves the problem at the same time. Bias is also encouraged for column writing, which exist solely for the purpose of giving a regular writer and outlet to express their opinions over a certain topic. While not entirely factual at times these columns can give readers and extra insight into a certain topic and allow them to form their own basis/thoughts on the matter.

There are certain outlets where I believe that bias should not be present though, and one of these is a review site, where readers can find out information and thoughts about a product before they buy it for themselves. My reasoning is that it is common for reviewers who have a clear love for one company and find them to be the pinnacle of the market, and when

they review a competing product they tend to compare it to this product they support. A popular example of this is fans of Apple, who typically tend to compare any other product to Apple product and will decrease the score for reasons that include the lack of a feature on a phone that the iPhone already has as standard. Because the purpose of reviews is to provide fair thoughts on the product, I believe it is important that a writer keep fair minded throughout their review and understand that while it may be easy to compare a product to an existing product that they like, it is unfair to not also compare to all the other similar products out there.

More reasons for bias in this market include being paid off by the manufacturer to give a good review, which means that the score is not representative of the product’s quality. This has been a recurring case with video game publishers, who have been frequently accused of paying off review sites to give games 9/10 scores, which they believe is the only score that sell. This is also due to the fear of a publisher/developer withdrawing their advertising from a review magazine if they happen to publish a negative review, which is fuel for reviewers to inflate their scores to please them.

I believe that is important for headline news to be free from bias as when the news first hits, people will want to know what has happened/is happening without the reporter’s personal opinions on the matter. As said above a reporter may choose to omit key facts/figures or use sensationalist language in order to incite certain feelings or follow the paper’s agenda. The appropriate time for bias would be after the news first hits, when the reporters have time to take the news in a discuss it, relating to their own opinions.

Concluding this essay I hold my belief that bias is acceptable under the right circumstances. I do not believe that it is something that should be erased completely from all media formats, but it should not be present in headline journalism or media that relies on trust to buy a product, like reviews. Bias is essential for discussion and debate and should always be welcomed and encouraged in interviews and columns, allowing people to get an insight on the writer’s opinion of a current or past event.