![\"trump\"](\"http:\/\/ciresblogs.colorado.edu\/prometheus\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/36\/2016\/08\/trump.jpg\")
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
JSTOR Daily<\/a><\/em> The Washington Post<\/i> editorial board recently released a scathing op-ed<\/a>\u00a0calling\u00a0Republican nominee Donald J. Trump a national problem. Citing his Republican National Convention speech and messaging, the board notes that despite the board\u2019s\u00a0desire to remain neutral in its coverage of both candidates and conventions (AKA journalistic integrity), it cannot condone Trump\u2019s lack of qualifications, hateful campaigning, misdiagnosis of American politics, politics of division, and contempt for \u201cconstitutional norms.\u201d The board makes its case clearly and concisely, making clear it belief that\u00a0Trump is dangerous to American democracy.<\/p>\n Democratic nominee Hillary Rodham Clinton has also come under attack for issues of\u00a0ethics and integrity, with the\u00a0ongoing debates\u00a0surrounding \u201cher handling of classified information<\/a> on a private email domain as secretary of state\u201d and the recent Democratic National Committee email WikiLeaks<\/a>.<\/p>\n So how\u00a0does one\u00a0report the news in a fair and unbiased format when there might be\u00a0moral issues standing in the way?<\/p>\n In 2011, Trevor Jackson asked just this,<\/a>\u00a0although in reference to something much more scientifically rather than politically-oriented. Jackson\u2019s article \u201cWhen Balance is Bias: Sometimes the science is strong enough for the media to come down on one side of a debate,\u201d can also apply to how, when, and under what circumstances journalists should\u00a0weigh in\u00a0and\u00a0pick sides.<\/p>\n Jackson begins by telling the tale of Emeritus Professor Steve Jones who was hired to examine the \u201cimpartiality and accuracy of BBC\u2019s coverage of science.\u201d In his findings, Jones reported concern about the BBC\u2019s \u201cdue impartiality\u201d guidelines and the effect they might be having on readers. He found that \u201cin their quest for objectivity and impartiality\u2014entirely understandable aims in coverage of politics and arts\u2014[the BBC] risked giving the impression in their science reporting that there were two equal sides to a story when clearly there were not.\u201d<\/p>\n In his own words, Jones noted, \u201c[t]here is widespread concern that [the BBC\u2019s] reporting of science sometimes gives an unbalanced view of particular issues because of its insistence on bringing in dissident voices into what are in effect settled debates.\u201d He cites multiple examples such as media coverage of the MMR vaccine and climate change, both cases where Jackson notes that journalists \u201cmade people think that scientists themselves were divided\u2026when they were not,\u201d thus creating a \u201cfalse balance.\u201d<\/p>\n It is precisely this \u201cfalse balance\u201d and resulting forced neutrality that Jackson continues to explore in his case studies. He cites investigative journalist Nick Davies who \u201csays that the insistence on balance is one of the factors that stops journalists getting at the truth.\u201d He also cites Maxwell Boykoff whose book Who Speaks for the Climate? <\/i>suggests\u00a0that \u201cthe journalistic norm of balance in news reporting\u201d has in turn impacted both climate policy and related decisions by \u201camplify[ing] outlier views.\u201d Read more …<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" JSTOR Daily August 2, 2016 The Washington Post editorial board recently released a scathing op-ed\u00a0calling\u00a0Republican nominee Donald J. Trump a national problem. Citing his Republican National Convention speech and messaging, the board notes that despite the board\u2019s\u00a0desire to remain neutral … Continue reading
\nAugust 2, 2016<\/p>\n