What is bias?

Bias is a prejudice or favour for or against an individual or group. It is often an inaccurate and unfair judgement. We are all biased. It’s normal, although it is not desirable

Our brains have to process a lot of information in a short time. It therefore sometimes takes shortcuts. This ability can help keep us safe. We quickly assess whether or not the unknown person approaching us is a threat or harmless.

Factors affecting our unconscious bias

• Our background and upbringing
• Personal experience
• Societal stereotypes
• Cultural context

Unconscious bias can lead to inaccurate assumptions

Journalists should not make assumptions. They should base their judgements on facts and reliable evidence.

• Unconscious bias can lead to damaging stereotypes.
• It can lead to the assumption of innocence or guilt.
• It can mean only a few types of people are interviewed and have their views broadcast or published.
• It can mean that the best people are not hired for the job.

Different types of unconscious bias

Unconscious bias means we do not knowingly show bias, but bias is evident in what we produce. If we are aware of the different types of bias, we can take steps to try to avoid it.

Affinity bias

This bias occurs when we are drawn to people we are like. We are biased in favour of those with whom we share an affinity. That’s to say: people like me.

Confirmation bias

This bias occurs when we favour information, which confirms what we already believe. For example, if we are not in favour of policy X, we are more willing to believe that minor setbacks are major problems and proof that ultimately policy X will fail.

Anchor bias

This bias occurs when we rely too heavily on the first piece of information we receive and we are anchored down by it. For example, if the first piece of information we receive comes from an official who says Y is a problem – we will see Y as a problem rather than questioning whether or not this is true in the first place.

Bandwagon Bias

Jumping on the bandwagon means joining in something just because it is fashionable or popular. Journalists often follow stories or trends because other media outlets are doing so. Journalists need to keep up with current trends, but just because other media houses are following a story it doesn’t necessarily mean it’s important or true.

How to avoid unconscious bias

• Be aware of the different types of unconscious bias.
• Think about the situations where you are likely to be susceptible to unconscious bias.
• Find your trigger points when you are likely to make snap judgements.

Possible triggers for unconscious bias

• Under pressure of a deadline.
• Under pressure from your boss to come up with stories.
• When you are tired, stressed or hungry.
• When you are in an unfamiliar territory or with unfamiliar people.
• When you feel threatened or judged.

Measures for tackling unconscious bias

• Step out of your comfort zone. Talk to as many different types of people as you can.
• Put yourself in the other person’s shoes. See things from their perspective.
• Counter stereotyping by imagining the person as the opposite of the stereotype.
• See everyone as an individual rather than a type.
• Flip the situation. Imagine a different group of people or flip the gender. Would you still come to the same conclusions?
• Be careful with your language and images. Make sure they do not contain assumptions, harmful stereotypes or inaccuracies.

Test your knowledge of unconscious bias

Question 1: Unconscious bias is a quick judgement based on limited facts and our own life experience. True or false?

Answer = True. Biases are often based on quick judgements. Examining your assumptions is a good way to counter bias.

Question 2: The manager agrees to let one of your colleagues work flexible hours. You view this as an indication that they are not as committed as those who work regular hours. This is not unconscious bias if they later do turn out to be trying to avoid certain responsibilities. True or false?

Answer = False. In this case, someone who believes that employees who work flexible hours are less committed than those working more traditional hours may start to develop perceptions of colleagues who work flexibly which confirm that belief. This is unconscious confirmation bias.

Question 3: If you choose to recruit candidate Z because you get on with them because you studied at the same college – this is not affinity bias if they are a different gender and ethnicity to you. True or false?

Answer = False. It is affinity bias because you still feel an affinity to them through a shared experience of college.

Question 4: Unconscious bias is based on the following:

1. Gender
2. Appearance
3. Previous experience
4. Ethnicity
5. All the above

Answer = All the above.

Question 5: What is affinity bias?

1. Believing something because your friends believe it.
2. Being more receptive to people who are like you.
3. Looking for evidence which backs up your beliefs about someone.
4. Creating stereotypes about different groups of people.

Answer = b is correct

Question 6: Unconscious bias can give people an unearned advantage and unearned disadvantage. True or false?

Answer = True

Take a look at these other modules on Media Helping Media to help you keep your journalism up to the highest standards.

False equivalence and false balance

Accuracy in journalism

The post Unconscious bias and its impact on journalism first appeared on Media Helping Media.

Allegations are made about an incompetent medical surgeon and a subsequent cover up at a hospital. People have died.

Your news editor asks you to investigate. The only problem is – the surgeon is your cousin. What do you do?

1. Investigate the surgeon thoroughly. The fact they are a relative will not deter you from doing your duty as a journalist.
2. Try to dissuade your news editor against the story. You know your relative to be a competent and committed surgeon. Sometimes things go wrong during operations and patients die.
3. Tell your news editor that you are related to the person in question and ask for someone else to be assigned to the story.

Suggested action

It is difficult to be 100% impartial when dealing with stories about family or friends. Also, public perception is important. Even if you do investigate the allegations thoroughly and write the story – your audience still has to believe that your professional integrity was not compromised. By separating yourself from the story at the outset the audience can continue to trust your news organisation. So option three is probably the best course of action.

Related training modules

Impartiality in journalism

Fairness in journalism

The post Editorial impartiality – scenario first appeared on Media Helping Media.

Our role as journalists is to unearth information, prepare it and then display it for the benefit of the audience. We are not there to fabricate, manipulate or force. We are there to uncover facts, not plant them. So what are the essential attitudes needed when going out on a story?

A journalist must not have an agenda

I wrote this training module after an experience in the Caucasus when a young journalist interviewed me. I was told the interview was going to be about the course I was running.

However it became clear that the reporter had only one question in mind. She wanted to know what I thought of the political situation in her country, and she kept repeating the question, clearly eager to hear the answer that she wanted to hear from a visiting journalism trainer from England.

She kept returning to the same question to which I was only able to tell her that I was there to deliver journalism training and not to comment on the country’s political situation. But she wouldn’t give up, and each time she asked the question she became more and more animated adding opinion and some anger to her leading questions.

It was an approach that I had not personally been exposed to before. And it made me think about how important it is for journalists to remain objective and impartial not only when reporting about events, but also when planning interviews.

It also reminded me of the many times I have gone out on a story with an end result in mind.

Like all journalists, I always wanted my story to run, either in print when I was a newspaper journalist, or in the bulletins and current affairs shows when I was a radio and TV correspondent.

I also wanted it to be hard-hitting, insightful, memorable and – let’s be honest – to win me praise and make me look good.

Looking back, and with the Caucasus interview in mind, here are a few thoughts on how to make sure journalism relates to reality and not our own idea of how a situation should play out.

1: Retain an open mind

It’s fine to set off on an interview having done your research and with one burning question in your mind. In fact, not to do so could be seen as sloppy and could leave you open to manipulation.

However, you need to retain an open mind and accept that unexpected things may happen. It may be that there is a stronger line of questioning than the one you had thought of as you set off for the interview.

You will probably not spot that opportunity if you are working to a set script and have an end result in mind.

So it’s important to be prepared to leave your script behind and retain an open mind when you meet your interviewee.

2: Don’t force an issue

Some journalists misinterpret resistance to questioning to be an admission of guilt, and that if the interviewee refuses to answer, or avoids the question, they have something to hide. It might not mean that.

It could mean that it was a bad question not relevant to the topic.

It could also mean that the person you are interviewing genuinely doesn’t have an answer or opinion.

It could mean that you don’t understand the complexity of the issues being discussed.

Press too hard at times like these and you could end up looking silly and damage the integrity of the media organisation you represent.

Confrontation is not necessarily a sign of good journalism – just because you get a reaction doesn’t mean you have made a good point.

3: Be firm but fair

You can be rigorous and robust in your interviewing and remain fair. You probably won’t achieve this with a shouting match and a standoff.

It will need clear questioning and sensible interpretation of the answers.

Your role is not to appear smart and score points against the interviewee. Your role is to inform the public debate so that the audience can make educated choices.

Be prepared to back down if you have asked a question that is clearly irrelevant and off-topic.

Be prepared to admit when you are wrong or when you are still learning.

Be prepared to acknowledge a good point if the interviewee offers a plausible explanation.

Always challenge yourself more than you challenge the interviewee. If not, you will appear arrogant and lacking in objectivity and impartiality. Interviews should be conversations, not lectures.

Interviews conducted with a desired end result are rarely more than rants, and fitting only to those media organisations that have vested interests controlling their editorial agenda.

The post How to avoid make-believe journalism first appeared on Media Helping Media.

Can a journalist also be an activist for a cause without compromising the core editorial values of journalism? I began thinking about this after being invited to contribute a chapter for a handbook for journalists living in exile.

In the email, the reason for inviting me to write a chapter was expressed as follows, “because you are an experienced journalist and a media activist.”

If journalism is meant to be objective, impartial and fair, then surely a journalist can’t be an activist?

But what if that journalist campaigns for freedom of expression, can that be achieved without compromising the editorial ethics listed above?

The following is an edited extract of a chapter I wrote for the book Becoming a journalist in exile.

Journalism, news and activism

I was honoured when I was invited to write the opening chapter for a book designed to be a guide for journalists in exile who are currently experiencing freedom of expression issues. I have never met the person who invited me to contribute; our only contact has been over the internet.

Our lives couldn’t be more different. He is working, unpaid, as a reporter, editor and publisher in a network of refugee camps, and I have a comfortable lifestyle in England thanks to a long career in journalism.

When I first read the email asking me to write the introduction chapter “because you are an experienced journalist and media activist,” it made me think.

If length of service equals experience, then I guess I qualify as an experienced journalist. I started as a reporter at my home town newspaper in the 70s, moved to radio, became a TV correspondent, and then a political editor before moving to online journalism to be the managing editor of both BBC News Online and CNN.com Europe, Middle East, and Africa.

I have worked as a journalist and manager in print, broadcast and online, but, as far as certificates go, my walls are bare. I passed a few basic exams for shorthand, typing and the essential law for journalists more than 30 years ago, but that’s it.

I have never thought of myself as a media activist. In fact I have always thought of activism as being incompatible with true journalism and I have always considered an activist to be someone who pushes a cause without aiming to reflect an alternative view point. If that is the case, and if an activist makes no attempt to remain objective and impartial, how can they also be a journalist?

Journalists must always aim to be removed from the issues they are covering. They must avoid becoming emotionally and politically involved, because once they do they are likely to lose their objectivity. So from my Western perspective I have never considered myself to be a media activist, but I think I understand what the person who contacted me is referring to.

For the last eight years I have been working with journalists in transition and post-conflict countries, and countries where freedom of expression is under threat. In all cases, I have been trying to help them establish strong, independent, high-quality media organisations. In those conditions, I can see the term activism being used in a different way by those who don’t enjoy the levels of freedom of expression that I enjoy in the West.

Perhaps the phrase media activist reflects the realities of what journalists in the majority world face day to day.

I come from a society where journalists are taken out and wined and dined by the powerful and influential, whereas many journalists in the majority world are simply taken out with bullets and bombs.

In that atmosphere it is understandable to come across journalists who view themselves as activists.

However, if a journalist’s role is to seek out truth, reflect the voices and opinions of those who don’t usually have a say, and to represent the whole audience regardless of race, religion, political affiliation and social status, then perhaps a journalist is, essentially, an activist for freedom of expression.

One dictionary definition of journalism is ‘the profession of writing for newspapers, magazines, radio, TV and online’. However, I would argue that journalism, without clearly-defined journalistic ethics, can easily deteriorate into public relations (PR) and marketing.

Journalism has to be accurate. It is all about clear, irrefutable facts that are tested and well set out. Journalism also needs to be well-sourced. All evidence must be checked and verified. All elements of the story need to be thoroughly tested to ensure that they are not misleading and that they don’t magnify one side at the expense of another.

We should use clear, precise wording to tell the story and avoid comment and opinion that could add confusion. We need to be open about what we know, what we think we know and what we don’t know.

Journalism needs to be impartial, objective, balanced and fair. We need to be fair and open-minded and reflect all significant opinions as we explore a wide range of disparate views.

If we decide not to use some views, we need to be clear why. We need to ask ourselves why we are omitting some information or views and including others.

What impact does that have on the piece? Does it help clarify issues, or does it confuse? If it confuses, what could be the consequences of that confusion and who is likely to gain?

We need to be honest with ourselves about our motives and reasons for covering a story. We need to ask searching questions. We need to talk to all sides, particularly those who hold public office. And, in doing so, we need to provide the basis for a healthy and robust public debate. All journalists will have their own political points of view, but these must never creep into our journalism and they must not have any bearing on the choice of stories we cover or the way we cover them.

Perhaps this is where the real meaning of the word activism becomes relevant. When all these conditions have been met, a journalist will have served as an activist for freedom of expression. If so, count me in. Not only do I qualify by definition, but I am proud to be a member of that global fellowship.

However, as far as using journalism to fight for a particular cause, that is a difficult one. In those cases the journalist probably needs to accept that they have crossed a line in the same way that a journalist who moves into public relations (PR) does. Once crossed they are using their skills for a different purpose. They are no longer aiming to reflect all significant strands of opinion but, rather, they have chosen to focus on one and make that their editorial priority.

The post Are journalism and activism compatible? first appeared on Media Helping Media.

Journalism, PR or propaganda?

If the content you produce pushes an agenda, spins a line, favours a sector of society, promotes a certain initiative without question, is manipulated to achieve a subjective outcome, or has a desired objective, you are probably producing public relations copy or even propaganda.

Real journalism is based on applying strict editorial ethics to all we do so that we can examine the issues that have the most impact on the lives of our audience.

So, does your journalism pass the test? Consider the following questions to see whether your journalism is ethical or not.

Eight questions to consider

1: What is your journalistic purpose and what do you hope to achieve by doing the story?

2: What is your personal motivation? Do you have any vested interests in the outcome?

3: Have you included different perspectives and diverse ideas so that the journalism you produce is thorough and informative?

4: Have you ignored any elements that might appear to weaken the story you are writing?

5: Have you considered what motivates those you are interviewing?

6: Are all your questions fair, or are they leading or manipulative? 

7: What are the possible consequences of the story you are producing both in the short term and long term?  

8: Are you using those you choose to interview in order to strengthen your article without considering the possible harm they might suffer once the story is published?

9: Are you able to justify your editorial decisions to your colleagues, to those who you interview, and to the public?

10: Is your journalism original, well-sourced, accurate, and honest?

Seven rules for getting it right

1: Keep your eyes wide open – seek truth and report it as fully as possible.

2: Act independently – owe nobody and don’t seek favours or favourites.

3: Minimise harm – protect your sources, respect privacy, be aware of possible consequences.

4: Assess all facts – don’t ignore the uncomfortable, or that which goes against your script.

5: Seek out independent sources – don’t follow the flock, find fresh voices and perspectives.

6: Thoroughly check the validity of information – take nothing at face value and make sure you have researched and can justify the inclusion of every fact.

7: Be wary of subjective manipulation – don’t be swayed by those who want you to put a positive spin on news.

Seven attitudes of mind

1: Be honest, fair, and courageous in your news gathering and reporting.

2: Give voice to the voiceless, scrutinise the executive and ensure your journalism holds the powerful to account.

3: Guard vigorously the role a free media plays in an open society.

4: Seek out and disseminate competing perspectives, especially those which are rarely heard.

5: Remain free of associations and activities that could compromise your ability to publish the truth.

6: Always consider how your journalism could impact the lives of those who feature in your coverage.

7: Treat all with respect, and not as a means to achieving your journalistic end.

A dozen rules on accuracy

1: All work must be well-sourced.

2: It must be based on sound evidence.

3: Your writing must be thoroughly fact-checked.

4: It must be presented in clear, precise language.

5: Avoid spreading unfounded speculation, rumour and gossip.

6: Accuracy is more important than speed. Never rush a story to be first with the news. Better to be second and right rather than first and wrong.

7: Ensure you always weigh all the relevant facts and information in order to get to the truth.

8: If an issue is controversial you must always include all relevant opinions so that your reporting is not one-sided.

9: Gather material using first-hand sources wherever possible.

10: Ensure you read through everything you write.

11: Check the authenticity of documentary evidence and digital material.

12: Corroborate claims and allegations made.

Six considerations regarding impartiality and diversity of opinion

1: Always strive to reflect a wide range of opinions.

2: Always be prepared to explore a range of conflicting views.

3: Never ignore any significant strands of thought or under-represented groups.

4: Exercise your freedom to produce content about any subject, at any point on the spectrum of debate, as long as there are good editorial reasons for doing so.

5: Ensure to avoid bias or an imbalance of views on all issues, particularly controversial subjects.

6: You will sometimes need to report on issues that may cause serious offence to many. You must be sure that a clear public interest outweighs the possible offence.

Seven criteria for deciding when news is in the public interest

1: Exposing or detecting crime.

2: Highlighting significant anti-social behaviour, corruption or injustice.

3: Disclosing significant incompetence or negligence.

4: Uncovering information that allows people to make informed decisions about matters of public importance.

5: Protecting the health and safety of the public.

6: Preventing the public from being misled.

7: Protecting issues of freedom of expression.

Fairness

Be open, honest and straightforward in dealing with contributors, unless there is a clear public interest in doing otherwise. Where allegations are being made, the individuals or organisations concerned should normally be given the right of reply.

Privacy

It is essential in order to exercise your rights of freedom of expression and information that you work within a framework which respects an individual’s privacy and treats them fairly while investigating and establishing matters which it is in the public interest to reveal.

Integrity

Always remain independent of both state and partisan interests. Never endorse or appear to endorse any organisations, products, activities or services.

Sources

Accept information from any source, but know you will need to make a personal decision as to which information is worth considering and which is not. Sources must always be checked, especially when dealing with first-time sources that have never been used before. It is important to protect sources that do not wish to be named.

The post Is your journalism ethical? first appeared on Media Helping Media.

Being impartial means not being prejudiced against any particular person, group, or point of view. All journalists have their own views, and yet, to deliver comprehensive and authoritative coverage of news and current affairs, they must rise above their own personal perspectives. Only by reflecting the diversity of opinion fairly and accurately can we hope to offer a true picture of what is really happening.

Impartiality in news

News is about delivering facts that have been tested, sourced, attributed and proven. Impartiality is essential for robust news coverage. It’s not about being soft and bland. It’s about stripping out the personal, and allowing the audience the dignity of drawing their own conclusions free from any thought pollution injected by the journalist. It means that we must strive to:

• reflect a wide range of opinions
• explore conflicting views
• ensure that no relevant perspective is ignored
• avoid any personal preferences over subject matter or choice of interviewees
• be honest and open about any personal interests/history.

Editorial freedom

In terms of editorial freedom, journalists should be free to:

• cover any subject if there are good editorial reasons for doing so
• report on a specific aspect of an issue
• provide an opportunity for a single view to be expressed
• cover stories that might offend part of the audience.

When we invite people such as academics, industry experts and social support workers to comment on issues, we need to take into account that they may have their own agendas for cooperating with us. They will probably not be offering an impartial perspective. They are the voices who can help us include multiple perspectives.

The choice of who we invite to contribute to our journalism is important. Here we must be fair. Ideally, we should try to find time to include all perspectives, but that might not be realistic.

And it may not be possible to offer equal time for all views. Again, we need to make choices. But with all these challenges we need to be true to ourselves, our colleagues, our editor and, most importantly, to our audience in order to demonstrate that we have been fair and that we have not ignored any significant voices.

We might know someone involved in the story. It could be a friend or a relative. We might have covered a similar story before, and there might be some historical issues that we are aware of that could compromise our ability to report accurately and fairly. In all cases we need to share these involvements with our senior editorial team.

Sometimes we may not be able to see the possible conflict of interests or areas that could lead to accusations that we have not been open and impartial. It’s always best to talk these things through with senior colleagues. Keeping quiet is not an option and certainly never the solution.

Editorial discussions with colleagues will help formulate this policy case by case. A journalist should not struggle alone.

Controversial subjects might involve the coverage of politics, religion, sexual practices, human relationships, and financial dealings. In all cases, we must ensure that a wide range of views and perspectives is aired.

Opinion and fact

We also need to ensure that opinion is clearly distinguished from fact. We might also need to ensure that some views are reflected in our output, even if we find them repulsive. We have a duty to inform the public debate regardless of our own personal point of view and preferences.

When our own media organisation becomes the story, perhaps bad financial news, a sacking, a drugs scandal, poor ratings, etc, we need to ensure that we are prepared to report on news affecting us as we would on news affecting others.

Balanced reporting

Sometimes journalists talk about offering ‘balanced’ reporting. That is not realistic. Life is not balanced and nor is the journalism that reports on life.

It might be that a story is so one-sided that to try to offer so-called ‘balance’ makes a mockery of the report. In such cases, we should aim to offer other perspectives later in the programme or in a later bulletin. We can ensure we offer all sides a chance to air their views in our online coverage.

Personal views offering one side of a story can often add fresh public understanding of an issue and encourage debate. These can include the views of victims and those who feel that they, or others, have been wronged. Such personal views can be highly partial. In such cases, it is important we make it clear to the audience that the views being expressed offer one side only.

Alternative points of view

For those involved in broadcasting there is a need to try to find alternative points of view within the same programme strand or within the next bulletin. In all cases we must:

• retain a respect for factual accuracy
• fairly represent opposing points of view except when inappropriate, defamatory or incendiary
• provide an opportunity to reply
• ensure that a sufficiently broad range of views and perspectives is included
• ensure that these are broadcast in similar output, measure, and time of day.

With online debates, we need to protect the audience from being led to believe that the views being discussed are endorsed by our media organisation. To do so we must:

• not endorse or support any personal views or campaigns
• make a clear distinction between our content and that created by the audience
• make clear what resources we are providing.

Take a look at these other modules on Media Helping Media to help you keep your journalism up to the highest standards.

False equivalence and false balance

Unconscious bias and its impact on journalism

Accuracy in journalism

The post Impartiality in journalism first appeared on Media Helping Media.

The Media Helping Media ethics section is designed to help journalists navigate some of the challenges they might face as they go about their work. The ethics modules are a set of guidelines, not rules. They need to be adapted to ensure that they are regionally and culturally relevant.

The guidelines are for journalists who want to provide robust, searching, issue-led journalism that informs the public debate so that the audience/users/readers can make educated choices.

The modules are based on a desire to deliver editorial excellence that reaches the whole audience regardless of race, religion, nationality, personal preferences and social status, with impartial, fair, accurate and objective information.

The material on this site has nothing to do with producing so-called ‘constructive news’ or ‘positive news’. Subjective value judgements sit uncomfortably with editorial ethics. These modules will help journalists deal with editorial issues affecting life as it really is rather than from a controlled perspective, which, in the view of the author of this piece, is not journalism.

Increasing demand for ethics training

The creation of this section follows a growing demand for training modules to help journalists cope with the editorial and ethical issues surrounding newsgathering and news delivery.

Many people have written editorial guidelines, and a search of the web will throw up dozens of variations. We have chosen to base the Media Helping Media guidelines on the BBC’s Editorial Guidelines. This is mainly because the two founders of Media Helping Media spent many years working at the BBC and have trained thousands of journalists in how to apply these guidelines.

However, the Media Helping Media guidelines are significantly different. Because they are used in training courses in various parts of the world, they are continually adapted and rewritten to reflect regional issues and sensitivities.

The issue in all cases is to deliver editorial excellence based on a clearly defined ethical code of practice that balances the rights to freedom of expression with editorial responsibility.

The modules in this section cover:

• Accuracy: Producing well-sourced information based on solid evidence
• Impartiality: Being fair and open-minded coverage while exploring all significant views
• Fairness: Operating in a transparent, open, honest and fair manner based on straight dealing
• Privacy: Ensuring we respect and never invade personal privacy unless it is in the public interest
• Offence: Delivering challenging journalism that is sensitive to audience expectations
• Integrity: Dealing with groups keen to use, manipulate or mould the media for their own advantage
• Interactivity: Engaging the audience in our output in order to ensure that we reflect public opinion
• Legal: Avoiding the courts while continuing to inform the public debate.

Check our ethics section for the full list of training modules.

The post Why editorial ethics are important first appeared on Media Helping Media.