Bias is inevitable, don't believe in perfect objectivity

Not long ago I listed, as one of the special features of the blog world, its "transparency". Blog writers tend to be very open and clear about their biases and personal opinions on any issue, even those who make an effort (or I should say a "claimed effort") to cover all sides of an issue. I don't believe that it's humanly possible to be perfectly objective and unbiased, no matter how well trained and well intentioned the reporter. The highly skilled and disciplined people who do medical research determined generations ago that bias is inevitable and take elaborate measures to eliminate it from their studies. Medical researchers, however, are much more accountable for their results than journalists. Journalists have long claimed to be able to do something that scientists cannot, remain perfectly objective about issues on which they have intense personal interests. Only the journalists themselves are fooled. The rest of us can clearly see that reporters and editors, like the rest of humanity, have opinions and assumptions that color the way they perceive and describe events in subtle ways that defy conscious control.

The release this week of the formal investigation report into the "RatherGate" scandal at CBS has reignited discussion about bias in the major media outlets. Apparently this report (no, I admit it, I haven't read the thing yet) falls short of finding that CBS's reporting on this story was biased. On the surface, such a finding is nonsensical. CBS loudly reported one side of a claim, and did not report, nor even adequately research, opposing viewpoints. I think, however, that what the investigators are saying is that they do not believe that CBS was deliberately slanted in its coverage. I suspect that that's true, neither Rather or his producers intended to publish false evidence; I believe they honestly thought they had a real story in hand. This investigation finding, however, wildly under-estimates the impact of inadvertent bias, where a person's pre-existing opinions and emotional state effects the way they perceive, think, speak, and act.

Joe Gandelman at Moderate Voice is not satisfied with the report:

One issue has been whether the CBS report was due to political bias, CBS says that while "the panel found that some actions taken by CBS News encouraged such suspicions, “the Panel cannot conclude that a political agenda at 60 Minutes Wednesday drove either the timing of the airing of the segment or its content.”

So it can't find concrete evidence of that -- but that is NOT the only issue at play here:

Perhaps the biggest issue is how could a bunch of highly paid executives and Rather violate basic journalistic confirmation rules that are taught in any Journalism 101 class and not confirm this report?
The program had gotten enough red flags on this story to hold a bullfight in Madrid...

As Joe points out, these are not innocent errors made by beginners, these journalists claim to be the best. I also find it unconvincing that they were driven by competitive zeal alone. They believed that they had exclusive access to the documents, and had no reason to put their credibility on the line to be the "first to break the story". I find it very easy to believe that people who clearly want to see the President lose an election might be a bit too willing to accept evidence that damages his campaign, and too deaf to the warning signs that were easy to see in hindsight.

Catherine J. Lopez of the National Review Online, in an interview with the Columbia Journalism Review, (tip to Roger L. Simon ) says that some level of inadvertent bias is an inevitable result of being a particular individual living in a particular place and knowing a specific group of people.

No, I don't think reporters necessarily say, "Good morning, boss, how can I best help kill the Bush campaign today?" But they go to the news desk with certain biases. I understand completely how it happens. To so many in the MSM (Mainstream Media) -- as some of us have come to call it out in the "alternative media" -- it is just common sense: Liberal bias is not "liberal bias," it is just what most of the people you are around (I'm talking about liberal reporter X) know, think, and say.

Some of the comments to Roger's post are worth reading (some, sad to say, aren't). Gerard Van der Leun (of American Digest) comments:

I've learned over the years to be very suspicious of those who proclaim they've no axe to grind. There's always an axe. It is merely a question of how big it is and whether or not it is in plain sight. The single and signal strength of the blogs is that the bias is right out there. Indeed, the bias makes the blog.

I'm inclined to agree, but other commenters on Roger's post see it differently:

Now, everyone is claiming "no one can be objective, so what are you complaining about?" Excuse me, but I thought that was what journalism (as a craft, profession, vocation, whatever) was all about. The idea is not that you can have human beings without any established viewpoints, prejudices or preferences. The idea behind practicing journalism is to follow guidelines to limit such things from seeping into your coverage. Now, everyone is a "journalist-activist". Now, everything you were supposed to do; check your sources, give both sides, disclosure, NOT FABRICATE FACTS OR DOCUMENTS NOR PASS THEM ON, etc, has been thrown out the window. There are ways to avoid bias in reporting, but most claiming to be reporters don't know what they are or don't really care.

and...

I work hard myself, and have spent years working hard, to write objectively about other people's work and ideas, whether I liked their work and ideas or not. For a third: if nobody's objective, why bother with courts, judges, juries, and scientific inquiry?

Another comment distinguishes between bias and conviction. I think the better word to use as a contrast is "advocacy". Some seem to be using the word "bias" to mean a deliberate attempt to use the news gathering system to push a particular viewpoint. While I strongly suspect that that sort of thing does happen, I believe that it's rare. Of course commentators, columnists, and bloggers are free to take positions on issues and express a consistent advocacy for a position. Indeed that's what distinguishes them from news reporters. There is no confusion with the reader (or viewer) that what's being presented is the particular viewpoint of a particular individual. However, even among the most professional and sincere journalists, the risk of a subtle and inadvertent bias is unavoidable.

This does not mean, as some have taken it, that all efforts to become balanced or more objective in reporting can be abandoned. Organizations and individuals who work hard to identify their biases and correct for them will be rewarded with loyal readers. Perfect objectivity may be impossible, but open-minded and carefully balanced news reporting is a worthy objective. One way to improve the objectivity of news reporting is to get multiple viewpoints, and don't limit your input to the same group of observers.

One of the quotes above references "juries and scientific inquiry." These are excellent examples of how our society works hard to get around the inevitable biases within a single individual's views. We recognize that different people will see things a bit differently and demand consensus, and sometimes unanimity, before we make a decision. News organizations that allow individuals too much control over content, or collect and filter their viewpoints through the same set of minds, risk allowing inadvertent bias to creep into their reporting. And the viewpoints of individuals whose opinions have solidified to the point of "conviction" or have a significant "interest" in the issue, should be discarded. Someone whose mind is already made-up or who has a personal interest in a court case is ineligible to sit on that jury. Similarly, a journalist who has a very strong convictions on an issue, or some personal interest or relationship to the parties, shouldn't be reporting on it.

It seems clear that both Dan Rather and his producer Mary Mapes had developed strong opinions, perhaps even "convictions", about the election, and that these strong opinions adversely impacted their judgment. This summer Peggy Noonan, who writes an opinion column for the Wall Street Journal, felt she had to leave her position for the remainder of the campaign because she could not maintain an appropriate objectivity. At the time she said:

My colleagues at the Journal have been sterling. They appropriately decided I cannot write for them during this time even now and then, because it is not the business of The Wall Street Journal to employ Republican or Democratic operatives. (I hate that word because it sounds so John Le Carre; but if you are trying to help a party you are operating in its favor, so there you are.)

Good for Peggy and the WSJ. If you are reporting the news rather that writing opinion, you must be even more careful about letting your own opinions and emotions get in the way. I'd feel a lot better about Dan Rather if he had announced that he was going to recuse himself from political reporting during the campaign and limit himself to opinion pieces and non-political stories. As an anchor and the standard bearer for the network, however, that's not really possible, a real flaw in the "news anchor system."

While we're on the subject of advocacy, the recent flap over Armstrong Williams and the payment he received from the administration exposed the important distinction between opinion (or conviction) and advocacy. LeShawn Barber has two great posts on the subject (Here and here). She notes that for an opinion commentator, the real issue is openness or transparency. A columnist with an opinion is free to change his or her ideas or express doubts and reservations. A paid advocate is not. If someone discloses their advocacy (even if it is unpaid), as Peggy Noonan did, readers can know what they are receiving.

At some point responsibility for dealing with bias in reporting falls on the viewer/reader. If no reporter or news organization can be entirely unbiased, then one should be sure to get their news information from multiple sources. Some will prove, over time, to be better balanced on some issues, but this is only apparent if you sample a range of viewpoints. This is what a jury is for, what the science community does, and what a reader can do in the blog world. Sometimes there is consensus, sometimes there are two distinct positions, and sometimes there is an diffuse cloud of opinion around an issue, but there is no substitute for the broad survey of voices. This is why I believe that the mass media and the "new media" support one another well. Smart journalists will sample the blog world both before and after they publish, and use it as a way to keep their coverage on the balance point.

NOTE: An excellent post related to this issue over at Centerfield. The tendency for bias comes from the increased partisan pressure in the political world.