The opinions expressed in The Lawrentian are those of the students, faculty and community members who wrote them. The Lawrentian does not endorse any opinions piece except for the staff editorial, which represents a majority of the editorial board. The Lawrentian welcomes everyone to submit their own opinions. For the full editorial policy and parameters for submitting articles, please refer to the about section.
Which words would you use to describe a good, reliable and trustworthy news source? Most Americans, if asked, would say “unbiased,” “neutral” or “objective,” without really examining what those words mean. I would argue that, while objectivity is integral to good reporting, the so-called “neutrality bias” practiced by mainstream journalism makes their reporting less effective and less legitimate.
Firstly, political neutrality does not exist. You can’t be neutral in the face of growing fascism, impending climate doom and widespread inequality that leaves the vast majority of the population, both national and global, struggling to make it, while very few at the top accumulate millions that they never worked for. To close one’s eyes, turn away from this reality and insist that they are politically neutral is to side with the ruling class and those who seek to cause harm to marginalized people.
Historian Howard Zinn titled his autobiography “You Can’t Be Neutral On A Moving Train” to make the point that when there are systems in the world that are oppressing us and shape the everyday lives of ourselves and our contemporaries and when the world is moving fast, politically as well as literally, you cannot stand neutral, because even if you try to, the world moves under your feet anyway.
When news anchors are neutral, politicians are allowed to spew blatant, often vicious and hateful lies on national networks largely unchallenged. When the weather report is neutral, the ramifications of intensifying weather patterns cease to become a result of climate change and instead become a series of anomalies. Even when war reporting is neutral, war itself is still not, and the independent press begins to function, effectively, as state-run media. When debates are neutral, both sides are presented as equally valid, even if one side is objectively wrong. When CNN had Senator Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn), then a member of the U.S. House of Representatives, “debate” Bill Nye on climate change, Nye was objectively correct and Blackburn was objectively incorrect. NBC anchor Al Roker began the “debate” with a false equivalency.
“Is it a natural cycle?” asked Roker. “Is it—is it due to human interference or human conditions that we have created? That remains open to debate. But there is no doubt the climate is changing.”
Roker was wrong. There is no debate. Throughout this discussion, Blackburn falsely insisted that there is not a scientific consensus on climate change, that carbon emissions have a lot of social benefits and that carbon emissions are at their lowest levels, among other absurdities. Not challenging these falsehoods allows them to pick up steam and propagate, and pushing false narratives on foreign and climate policy lulls people into a sense of complacency. Both can have deadly consequences.
Objective reporting, on the other hand, does not necessarily take one side over the other, but presents the truth as it is, regardless of how angry or uncomfortable that may make the powerful. It is unethical to pretend that, between those who affirm the legitimacy of the 2020 election and those who insist it was stolen from Donald Trump, both sides have valid points. Nor is it ethical to present climate change, transgender rights or any other issue of that magnitude as a two-sided debate with equally valid opinions. Joe Biden was elected legitimately, anthropogenic climate change is real and an existential threat to all life on Earth, trans people are not groomers, trans women are women and trans men are men. To point out these realities and call out the public figures that lie about them is not biased, it is objective.
It is important to me that journalists do disclose some of their opinions and biases, though. As a writer in the Opinions and Editorials Section, I have criticized Lawrence University publicly before, and recently had the opportunity to question the administration about working conditions at Wednesday’s protest in front of Raymond House. But as a News Section Editor and a consistent writer in News as well, I have to be cautious and deliberate about the opinions I express publicly. Despite this, a big part of my job, and all of our jobs—especially in the News Section—is to advocate for the wellbeing of students, staff and faculty. Sometimes that means writing an editorial; sometimes that means bringing an issue to an administrator directly.
No one, especially those involved in reporting the news, is apolitical. Everyone has opinions, and that includes reporters, and those opinions affect the way we do our work, whether all of us want to admit that or not. We’re biased in what we do and don’t cover, what we do and don’t include, what we emphasize more and many other editorial decisions. Even if we are not open about those biases, they still cloud our judgment; to pretend that you are not affected by these biases is either narcissistic or ignorant. We should be honest about those opinions so that our readers and viewers know which perspective we are coming from.
If you choose to pursue objective, investigative reporting, you’re going to make some people mad. Many politicians at the federal, state, local and university level do not like this kind of reporting. It’s all the more reason to keep doing it. If you strive to be neutral as a reporter, you likely won’t make anyone upset, but you’re not really doing your job. Although his legacy is racism, genocide and imperialism, Theodore Roosevelt really said it best.
“With a great moral issue involved, neutrality does not serve righteousness; for to be neutral between right and wrong is to serve wrong.”
What he said.