News articles are supposed to be as neutral and factual as possible
That is the conventional thinking, however we can’t remove all perspective from a news article - it’s not technically possible. So the “as possible” part of the statement is really a kind of magic that allows us to presume news agencies are in fact trying to limit any one perspective to the maximum possible while still being recognized as written communication.
But they’re not. Almost all corporate news has an agreed-upon point-of-view that they edit from. This is partially just practicality - if everyone writes to the agreed POV, then they don’t have to edit much. Things move faster when they’re in alignment.
And that agreed-upon-point-of-view is not neutral, although they possibly intended it to be read that way.
Opinion articles are there to let writers loose and say whatever - but make no mistake, news articles have opinions. Consider use of the term “environmentalist”.
As an old, I remember when it wasn’t ever a thing. And I distinctly remember hearing it for the first time - in a newscast. I remember thinking, “what? Who’s not an environmentalist? Does someone not live in an environment?” Sort of like “Oxygenists today said people aren’t breathing”.
But it was being used as a way to separate those who cared about pollution, extinction, and yes climate change, from those who didn’t.
It was envisioned as a “neutral” term - as factual as possible - but it said on the face of it, “environmentalists said …” meaning not us. It was a bias still in use today. Artificial and wielded as needed. Are you an environmentalist? You know - one of them?
So the “as possible” part of the statement is really a kind of magic
Not really, it’s just a reminder that every human has inherent biases and writing an entirely neutral article is thus virtually impossible. That doesn’t mean journalists should go around and give into these biases without clearly stating that, and making this effort despite knowing you will fail in it is one of many indicators which can help separate serious news sources from propaganda and advertisement outlets.
Who’s not an environmentalist?
Fossil fuel companies?
It was envisioned as a “neutral” term - as factual as possible - but it said on the face of it, “environmentalists said …” meaning not us.
I don’t know, I see it as media needing a term to apply to a (back then) relatively new societal movement, and environmentalist seems sufficiently descriptive and neutral to me to fulfil that role.
Are you an environmentalist? You know - one of them?
Yes. Are you? I don’t see the problem here.
Maybe the journalist is one themselves. They didn’t say? That’s the point.
That doesn’t mean journalists should go around and give into these biases without clearly stating that
How? I mean, I agree - but I think you’re probably saying that’s what an Opinion article is for. But a news article that doesn’t state its biases is not unbiased. And I haven’t seen any news articles where bias is stated.
Who’s not an environmentalist?
Fossil fuel companies?
True, in the corporations-are-people sense, but use of the term predates that.
and environmentalist seems sufficiently descriptive and neutral to me to fulfil that role.
Are you an environmentalist? You know - one of them?
Yes. Are you? I don’t see the problem here.
I don’t know what ‘an environmentalist’ is - as discussed, the news made it up. But as one, would you please define it and explain your bias, y’know, like a news reporter would?
Maybe the journalist is one themselves. They didn’t say? That’s the point.
Mmmnnoo, they didn’t say. You’re suggesting they would? Or that that is normally done? Again, I don’t know that I’ve ever seen that.
I think you’re probably saying that’s what an Opinion article is for.
Correct.
But a news article that doesn’t state its biases is not unbiased. And I haven’t seen any news articles where bias is stated.
True, no human produced piece of writing can ever be truly free of bias.
That said:
Normal news article: Best effort of not applying your biases and just reporting raw facts. Opinion news article: Intentionally applying bias to contextualise the raw facts.
That’s all there is in this distinction, but that’s nonetheless important I would say.
I don’t know what ‘an environmentalist’ is - as discussed, the news made it up. But as one, would you please define it and explain your bias, y’know, like a news reporter would?
environmentalist
n 1: someone who works to protect the environment from destruction or pollution [syn: environmentalist, conservationist]
My bias is that I have been hearing from reputable sources that we are destroying or at the very least damaging the ecosystems that supports our species for all of my conscious life. Literally all of it. Doing so seems like a bad idea.
By the way, today I learned there is apparently an older application of this term in the nature-vs-nurture debate amongst anthropologists for people who favour the nurture side of the argument (n2): https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/environmentalist
Anyway, people make up new words when they need them, I still don’t understand the confusion…
Mmmnnoo, they didn’t say. You’re suggesting they would? Or that that is normally done?
No, I’m saying they wouldn’t self-identify as such unless it’s an opinion piece, because that would be introducing bias into their articles instead of reporting on the facts.
That is the conventional thinking, however we can’t remove all perspective from a news article - it’s not technically possible. So the “as possible” part of the statement is really a kind of magic that allows us to presume news agencies are in fact trying to limit any one perspective to the maximum possible while still being recognized as written communication.
But they’re not. Almost all corporate news has an agreed-upon point-of-view that they edit from. This is partially just practicality - if everyone writes to the agreed POV, then they don’t have to edit much. Things move faster when they’re in alignment.
And that agreed-upon-point-of-view is not neutral, although they possibly intended it to be read that way.
Opinion articles are there to let writers loose and say whatever - but make no mistake, news articles have opinions. Consider use of the term “environmentalist”.
As an old, I remember when it wasn’t ever a thing. And I distinctly remember hearing it for the first time - in a newscast. I remember thinking, “what? Who’s not an environmentalist? Does someone not live in an environment?” Sort of like “Oxygenists today said people aren’t breathing”.
But it was being used as a way to separate those who cared about pollution, extinction, and yes climate change, from those who didn’t.
It was envisioned as a “neutral” term - as factual as possible - but it said on the face of it, “environmentalists said …” meaning not us. It was a bias still in use today. Artificial and wielded as needed. Are you an environmentalist? You know - one of them?
Not really, it’s just a reminder that every human has inherent biases and writing an entirely neutral article is thus virtually impossible. That doesn’t mean journalists should go around and give into these biases without clearly stating that, and making this effort despite knowing you will fail in it is one of many indicators which can help separate serious news sources from propaganda and advertisement outlets.
Fossil fuel companies?
I don’t know, I see it as media needing a term to apply to a (back then) relatively new societal movement, and environmentalist seems sufficiently descriptive and neutral to me to fulfil that role.
Yes. Are you? I don’t see the problem here.
Maybe the journalist is one themselves. They didn’t say? That’s the point.
How? I mean, I agree - but I think you’re probably saying that’s what an Opinion article is for. But a news article that doesn’t state its biases is not unbiased. And I haven’t seen any news articles where bias is stated.
True, in the corporations-are-people sense, but use of the term predates that.
I don’t know what ‘an environmentalist’ is - as discussed, the news made it up. But as one, would you please define it and explain your bias, y’know, like a news reporter would?
Mmmnnoo, they didn’t say. You’re suggesting they would? Or that that is normally done? Again, I don’t know that I’ve ever seen that.
Correct.
True, no human produced piece of writing can ever be truly free of bias.
That said:
Normal news article: Best effort of not applying your biases and just reporting raw facts.
Opinion news article: Intentionally applying bias to contextualise the raw facts.
That’s all there is in this distinction, but that’s nonetheless important I would say.
As per: http://dict.org/bin/Dict?Form=Dict2&Database=*&Query=environmentalist
My bias is that I have been hearing from reputable sources that we are destroying or at the very least damaging the ecosystems that supports our species for all of my conscious life. Literally all of it. Doing so seems like a bad idea.
By the way, today I learned there is apparently an older application of this term in the nature-vs-nurture debate amongst anthropologists for people who favour the nurture side of the argument (n2): https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/environmentalist
Anyway, people make up new words when they need them, I still don’t understand the confusion…
No, I’m saying they wouldn’t self-identify as such unless it’s an opinion piece, because that would be introducing bias into their articles instead of reporting on the facts.