Checking our ideology at the door

Many of us hold strong opinions on certain issues that come up daily in our news reading.  In fact, we often seek out stories and publications that will support our viewpoints and contentions.   And sometimes in the process of reviewing stories for NewsTrust, we also like to assert the righteousness of those views and opinions.

We might absolutely agree --or completely disagree -- with the viewpoint or overall ideology expressed in an article.  We might believe that, on a particular issue, one publication's got it right while another's got it totally wrong.  Or we might even feel that we know far more than the reporter or anyone else who’s reviewed the story knows about the subject matter.

But when these opinions end up in our reviews, are we really rating the journalistic integrity of the article?  Or are we instead merely expressing our own ideological viewpoints, as reflected through the very high (five star) or mighty low (one star) ratings we give in our NewsTrust review?

Some of you might answer "absolutely!  If the article is presenting an issue in a way that I feel isn't right, then its journalistic integrity is compromised!" 

Now, please roll your chair away from the computer for *just* a moment and hold that thought. Is it that you feel the story isn't right because of its political slant, or do you believe it's not right because you know of other stories or sources of information that could counter its main thesis?  Do you know for certain that the reporter in question is continually biased on certain matters.  Or is it just that this publication leans more toward or away from your own political ideology?

The political position of a publication or ideology of a reporter may not necessarily reflect on the integrity of the journalism. A story may be well-crafted, balanced, supported and meticulously edited — and you still may not like it, simply because it leans one way or another, because it doesn't depict your candidate nicely, or doesn't support your personal viewpoint

Rating the journalistic merit of a story on its political slant isn't the mission nor purpose NewsTrust. Helping people to find and share quality journalism is what we strive to achieve. So, grading a story's value on the political slant of its publication isnt' what we had in mind at NewsTrust,  Rather, we are hoping that you, like us, will find that journalistic merit (balance fairness, context, sourcing) are more helpful for understanding the journalistic merit of a news story.
 

Further reading: Check our Quick Review Tips to find out more about how we evaluate stories for fairness, context, evidence and other core principles of journalism

Comments

[Tom Grey]

You should also include a second, separate rating for "reviewer bias positive - negative to the point of the article".

Thus, for a reasonable story that I am strongly biased against, I could then rate the story at 4 but also -5 for my own bias, rather than a mixed 2 or 3 (or 1?) rating on the story itself.

[Deborah Emin]

I have to say that ultimately to believe that some article that is well written and edited and crafted and we can have no opinion about its slant and that simultaneously we can be objective is a fallacy. We read those articles that help us to gather facts where we might not have access to them, to learn what an interpretation might be and we also read to just enjoy the writing. But to assume that we can ever just push back our chairs and be totally objective is asking us to stop functioning from the neck down which seems pointless to me.

[Jim Lang]

I think that Tish is on the right track although we can quibble with some of the details.

I often read reviews that are based on whether the information in a simple news report, accurate though it may be, supports the reviewer's preconceived view (e.g., global warming is a crock, Bush is a disaster, nuclear power is our salvation, nothing good can be said about the war in Iraq). Those sorts of reviews weaken NewsTrust in that the quality and objectivity of the report aren't the principal considerations.

Analytical articles present a challenge because bias (the suppressing of some facts while emphasizing others) makes an article less valuable and poor journalism -- but each of us sees bias differently. While we can't check our ideology on entering NewsTrust, I believe we have an obligation to recognize our own bias and make an extra attempt to be objective in our reviews.

Opinion pieces by their nature present the writer's slant; however, what they present should be accurate and they should be well written and persuasive. I rarely find an opinion piece that changes my mind, although some have made me stop and reconsider. Those deserve a positive review. On the other hand, I sometimes encounter pieces that share my point of view but are nothing but sophistry. Those deserve a negative review.

Our individual reviews will never be completely objective. However, I believe that we betray the goal of NewsTrust when we don't even try.

[naomii]

One of the problems is that 'news' articles also are selective of facts - and even when a lot of apparently factual material is presented we have no way of checking their sources. I've seen a few articles presented where the 'facts' were blatantly and outrageously marginal, if not actually untrue. However, I suppose reviews can way downgrade such in the factual line.

[Linda mary grace adams]

*truth* is the fundermental premis*

ideology/opinion has no place other than influence..........