I research, select, write and publish news stories. A decade ago, I considered an article unbiased if the story received a roughly equal number of complaints from Republicans and Democrats. That must mean the story fell roughly in the middle, right?

Many of those stories had something to do with a Congressional bill on a controversial topic that fell across party lines, meaning close to 100% of Republicans opposed it and 100% of Democrats supported it, or the other way around.

One day I realized that I lost readers early on – that the story’s reason for existence, whether budgets or social issues or something else, didn’t matter. Drop the name of a political party into the first sentence, and some readers immediately picked sides and declared loyalty.

As a result, I stopped mentioning political parties. When writing, I focused exclusively on the debated issue using the words “Republican” and “Democrat” no earlier than the fourth paragraph or at all. In short, I nixed an important fact from the news stories for what I considered a good cause: To coerce readers into considering the actual issue instead of shaking their team’s pompom.

I’m not sure if that’s right or wrong, but here’s the thing: I took a newsworthy element out of the story. The writer (me) showed a bias, even if that bias had a praiseworthy goal.

No news story is ever unbiased. It can’t be. Single words can mean many things, and the reader – not the writer – interprets them.

Is the news I watch/read biased?

It’s biased. The question is how much?

Check your go-to news sources for the following:

Adjectives: Avoid news stories with a lot of adjectives. “The Senator cursed” is fact if the Senator actually cursed. “The belligerent Senator cursed” is half fact and half reporter’s opinion. He cursed, but is he usually belligerent as the adjective suggests? And if so, what does “belligerent” mean? The reporter may think it means “feisty.” I may think it means “asswipe.”

Adjective bias is tricky. It often feels like facts, especially if the viewer already believes this Senator is belligerent. A story’s facts help readers form opinions. Most adjectives tell readers what to think and reflect a reporter’s opinion.

Quotes: Good stories have quotes from both the pro and con side, and with two quotes, one of those must appear first. In journalism, a first quote carries more weight, in part because readers don’t always finish reading a story. As a result, the opinion of the person quoted first gets more weight.

Of course, someone must be quoted first. It’s a matter of physics. But if your news source almost always quotes a right- or left-leaning voice first, it’s biased.

A story’s placement in the full newscast: First is better. If 50 people died in a 28-car pileup in South Dakota, and your news source’s lead story has something to do with the Democratic vice-president’s latest gaff, it’s leaning to the right. If your newscast focuses first on the latest Louisiana state Republican to slam gay marriage, it’s leaning to the left.

Editors discuss stories and weigh importance, so the placement of stories indicates their political leanings.

Percent of newscast: Television editors decide how much airtime a story gets. That 28-car pileup in South Dakota could be granted one minute, for example. If the vice-president’s gaff gets four minutes, your news leans right. If your station does a historical backdrop on the anti-gay Louisiana lawmaker to “give the story perspective,” it leans left.

Perspective: Say a group like People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) trashes a lab for experimenting on bunnies. They did this to A) save the bunnies, and B) get news coverage on the evil treatment of animals for medical experiments as a way to recruit new members who caught the 5 o’clock news.

This is a tough one for journalists because writing a story, but itself, rewards the crime by giving the bunnie-springers exactly what they want. They committed a crime to get media coverage, and they got it.

But at the same time, it’s an actual news story. It should be covered. Hard-and-fast rules don’t work for perspective, but note it when reading or viewing.

Does the media actually lean left?

Colleges train journalists to be unbiased – it’s almost a religion. But like most jobs, reality sets in after graduation. Once working, journalists discover that A) editors want stories that sell because circulation equals success, and B) the advertising department wants stories that sell because revenue keeps the publication in business.

Due to our pick-your-editor options today, a lot of news channels –TV, newspapers or online – follow the “If it bleeds, it leads” theory of reporting. (Translation: A sensationalist story that involves mangled body parts.)

That means the monetary rewards of bias can override the religion of good journalism.

With that said, the media sometimes does lean left. Here’s why: What you see with your eyes, you feel with your heart. (That’s a Swahili saying stolen from Disney’s Animal Kingdom.)

It’s one thing to read about human trafficking in the newspaper when you’ve never seen it firsthand. It’s another to do a story on human trafficking and talk to dozens of victims. When writing that trafficking story, would the reporter’s copy “lean left” by subtly suggesting the U.S. should spend more tax dollars on the human trafficking problem? Has his heart been affected by what he’s seen?

Maybe. So look for the adjectives.

Related story: Ability to pick-an-editor polarizes Americans

 

© 2015 SmithTakes.com