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.