There's been a lot of talk over the last while about news sources and what constitutes fair, balanced and unbiased journalism. Most debates usually end with mud-slinging between right-wingers who favour the FOX News style stations and bash the CNN's and BBC's of the world and left-wingers who do the reverse. One thing that most people can agree on is that both sides have their culprits when it comes to bias. Bearing in mind that it is pretty much impossible to have zero bias, given that somewhere along the line humans are in charge of the journalism process and each person brings their own bias to the table I would posit that the following principles at least contribute towards balanced journalism...
1. Presenters and anchors shouldn't input any personal opinion or slant on the news items. Just read what happened i.e. facts, times, locations etc. This means no sensationalism, a news outlet should not try and make a story out to be something more than it is by making their own inferences. If opinion is to be presented as part of a news piece it should be the opinions of people directly connected to the story in question. I disagree with the new phenomenon of including vote-in polls and email comments relating to news pieces as they are too easily manipulated and skewed.
2. Ideally don't have any presenter at all, just use a neutral voiceover like Euronews does. This removes one layer of bias from the presentation of the news at least.
3. Don't ever say 'sources say' or 'some people say' in a news segment, you'd be crucified in a debate for that and no news station should take the piss by using that as some sort of valid source in a news piece just because there is no one there to pull them up on it.
4. Go easy on the flashy graphics. Leave the entertainment to the movies and TV shows and don't EVER include ambient music in a news piece...that is an extra layer of bias - a little bit of dark synth music can go a long way so cut it out!
5. Complete separation of news and opinion-based chat shows. These two should not mix because sadly the majority of the idiotic general public are not discerning enough to tell the difference.
6. Don't ever use the tactic of 'accidental' semiotic association, it's devious and cynical. For example a news piece about the Iraq war in the headline but a picture of the twin towers as the main image but relating to a smaller story. Human nature will lead the reader/viewer to build associations on a subconscious level when presented with such a thing, this is how modern media have managed to get around pesky laws regarding subliminals and believe me it's very deliberate - most graphic design courses teach designers how to use semiotics effectively.
7. If the news services of a particular nation are to be subject to a watchdog or regulator then this watchdog should be State funded and comprised of several members of varying backgrounds and all cases of objection should be published and made available for all to see in the public domain.
And always remember that the following factors can add bias to any news piece:
> Choice of images
> Editing
> Background music
> The language and wording of the news piece itself
> Presenter (tone of voice, manner, facial expressions, gestures, personal opinions)
> Semiotics (how images, text and graphics are combined together, even if they are from separate news pieces)
> Selection of stories (is the story truly newsworthy or just following a specific agenda?)
1. Presenters and anchors shouldn't input any personal opinion or slant on the news items. Just read what happened i.e. facts, times, locations etc. This means no sensationalism, a news outlet should not try and make a story out to be something more than it is by making their own inferences. If opinion is to be presented as part of a news piece it should be the opinions of people directly connected to the story in question. I disagree with the new phenomenon of including vote-in polls and email comments relating to news pieces as they are too easily manipulated and skewed.
2. Ideally don't have any presenter at all, just use a neutral voiceover like Euronews does. This removes one layer of bias from the presentation of the news at least.
3. Don't ever say 'sources say' or 'some people say' in a news segment, you'd be crucified in a debate for that and no news station should take the piss by using that as some sort of valid source in a news piece just because there is no one there to pull them up on it.
4. Go easy on the flashy graphics. Leave the entertainment to the movies and TV shows and don't EVER include ambient music in a news piece...that is an extra layer of bias - a little bit of dark synth music can go a long way so cut it out!
5. Complete separation of news and opinion-based chat shows. These two should not mix because sadly the majority of the idiotic general public are not discerning enough to tell the difference.
6. Don't ever use the tactic of 'accidental' semiotic association, it's devious and cynical. For example a news piece about the Iraq war in the headline but a picture of the twin towers as the main image but relating to a smaller story. Human nature will lead the reader/viewer to build associations on a subconscious level when presented with such a thing, this is how modern media have managed to get around pesky laws regarding subliminals and believe me it's very deliberate - most graphic design courses teach designers how to use semiotics effectively.
7. If the news services of a particular nation are to be subject to a watchdog or regulator then this watchdog should be State funded and comprised of several members of varying backgrounds and all cases of objection should be published and made available for all to see in the public domain.
And always remember that the following factors can add bias to any news piece:
> Choice of images
> Editing
> Background music
> The language and wording of the news piece itself
> Presenter (tone of voice, manner, facial expressions, gestures, personal opinions)
> Semiotics (how images, text and graphics are combined together, even if they are from separate news pieces)
> Selection of stories (is the story truly newsworthy or just following a specific agenda?)
Last edited by Braddock (2008-07-09 15:53:54)