News Neutrality is Dying

And that’s a good thing!

A reporter’s job is to inform readers of the news in a clear and unbiased way. Often, however, reporters are criticized for taking a stance or leaning a story to best match their own beliefs. Conventionally there are certain standards a journalist much follow, but over the past few years those standards have been pushed to their limits. A new form of reporting is starting to appear; one in which the facts are given alongside opinions. Journalism and the media are becoming less and less neutral, and it might be a good thing.

The traditional stance is that neutrality is the best position to take when reporting a story. This is a concept deeply engrained in the ideals of conventional journalists and readers across the nation. Walter Cronkite, deemed “the most trusted man in America” (by a 1972 Oliver Quayle poll) said, “In seeking truth you have to get both sides of a story.” The media, however, regularly receives criticism from the public about a lack of neutrality. In fact, according to a 2009 Pew Research Center survey, 48% of Fox’s own viewers described it as “mostly conservative” and a Public Policy Polling showed that Fox’s credibility has hit a record low at only 41% of voters trusting the network. In 2013, Pew’s ‘State of the Media’ classified 85% of MSNBC’s content as “commentary/opinion.” But according to the public, 64% of servey participants said they “prefer getting political news from sources that don’t have a particular point of view.” Yet cable news ratings revealed that shows airing on Fox News hold the top 14 slots while numbers 15 and 18 are held by MSNBC. CNN, who is regarded as the least partisan among the cable networks by a Pew survey, only had one show in the top 20 slots.

Those numbers all come down to one thing; the networks viewed as the least credible and most opinionated have better ratings. This is an enormous problem. Networks have a responsibility but also have to remain profitable. They are criticized for what they air but receive huge viewing numbers for it. In addition television and print news outlets are receiving competition from internet only news sources. It is clear news outlets cannot continue with a strictly neutral point of view. It seems that the media is trying to find a median between opinion and neutrality while also remaining relevant. But is a subjective, curated delivery of the news the best option?

More neutral outlets tend to try and balance the perspectives so that each side of the argument gets a fair and equal share of the attention and glory regardless of the validity of the stance. Rather than insisting on showing a central viewpoint, the media should encourage the truth despite whom it may benefit. As mentioned above, 85% of MSNBC’s content is classified as “commentary/opinion” but a separate Pew survey in 2012 showed that MSNBC has the most informed audience between the three major cable news networks. Clearly opinionated news is not all bad. The problem arises when journalists feel the need to be neutral in spite of the truth.

It seems that neutrality is only a vail for journalists to hide behind and perhaps criticism of the media would decrease if journalists were open about their opinions to begin with. It is apparent that a more subjective viewpoint attracts a larger audience and more people consuming the news, in whatever form, means a more informed and educated public.

The media is at a point between the old pattern of reporting in which authority is given to those who hide their opinion and a new standard in which authority is given to those who are transparent about it. No one is surprised that intelligent people have opinions about the very subjects they spend entire careers studying. Reporters should not feel a professional obligation to support a bipartisan plan because it is more neutral. Journalism presented in a neutral way distorts the facts and misleads the public because it treats both sides equally even if one point of view isn’t valid.

The statistics seem to represent a public that is tired of slanted views being called neutral. It is a public that would rather get opinionated views form sources that are open about their stance. The media should not produce watered down stories and call them neutral. I want to truth, regardless of whether or not if hurts my own point of view. We are not quite there, but I think we are on our way.