Bias, bubbles, and black holes: Prejudice in political journalism

Eliminating contentions of prejudice in political journalism is being increasingly understood as a Sisyphean task. The nuances of what is deemed to be partiality make it so that such can rarely be absent in any piece. Whether or not an author takes a hard stance on an issue isn’t necessary to bring about bias. Instead, what is more common are ‘nudges’ to a specified direction.

These ‘nudges’ are the inclusion and exclusion of information that serve to inform readers or leave them in exploitable ignorance. To exclude excess information and report solely on the barest of facts is in line with a vision of journalism that believes doing so is engaging in neutrality. However, is neutrality even possible? For the sake of argument, let us assume so. With that in mind, is it desirable?

In the context of political journalism, no it is not. And why it isn’t can be explained by a simple ideal: democracy. At the heart of any democratic system is the transmission of information from politicians to the public. Journalists jump into the fray to aid with the goal of any democratic nation come election time, an informed decision by its citizenry. 

Yet, if the figment of neutrality is at the forefront of journalistic minds, such a mission is not possible. If neutrality does in fact exist, it entails the barest of facts. An absence of additional information that may lead viewers. But that goes against democratic principles. For it is often not possible for the general public to make an informed decision with mere reporting that fails to connect the dots to the past and the future. Simply because, awareness is not equivalent to understanding.

Take the recent herald of the apocalypse known as the 2024 US election as an example. 

If you heard Trump throughout his campaign, you would be aware of the growing migrant crime rate. You would have seen the rioters of January 6 as victims rather than perpetrators. You would have been reminded that democracy’s true enemy sits within the White House after Joe Biden stole the 2020 election. You would know the disastrous health conditions in the US, which only RFK Jr. could possibly fix. 

However, if you were ever so slightly ‘nudged’, you would understand that not only are violent crime rates dropping within the US, but studies have shown that immigrants have lower incarceration rates compared to native born citizens. You would understand that Trump comparing rioters to Japanese internment camp victims is even more farcical than one would think, when learning that the president-elect has advocated to reuse the very act that put Japanese people in US internment camps in the first place. 

You would understand that Trump’s claim of a stolen election was planned before the votes in 2020 began being counted, as the former president was informed by his advisors that mail-in ballots would result in Biden taking the lead. You would understand that the person Trump is nominating to be the head of the Health and Human Services Department is a known anti-vaccination conspiracy theorist who ignores hundreds of peer reviewed studies as he advocates for more research into the links between vaccines and neurodevelopmental disorders. 

These ‘nudges’, that bridge the gap between awareness and understanding are where some may cry bias. For these pieces of information that add clarity, showcasing the truth in what is peddled to the masses, may paint one’s favourite politician as a liar. And the dubious journalists responsible are labelled as democratic shills. Ironically, it the inclusion of research that often leads to staunch supporters claiming prejudice, which entails a lack of reason. Yet, without such additions, readers would be left ignorant of the necessary background information that is needed to make an informed decision. 

Those who would still argue for the opposite do so while making two assumptions. First, they believe that making an informed decision is possible without clarification. However, in the age of social media, where misinformation runs rampant, how can such ever be the case? Not to mention the required time and patience needed to sift through information as they look for facts pertaining to the sensational statements they hear from politicians on a daily basis.

Second, they believe that excluding clarifications excludes prejudice. But that is just another ‘nudge’ in the opposite direction. Maintaining the illusion of being a truth teller by creating an absence of background information influences readers just as much as the alternative. That is the paradox of bias. No matter which way you lean, it exists. Yet the key difference is one of the two is inherently more malicious than the other. You should decide for yourself which that is. 

But can you? Even if you have all the time in the world and all the know-how to accompany it, would you truly decide for yourself? Or will you regurgitate and perpetuate what is already told? To say that bias is unavoidable because it exists in each direction is only half of the picture. It is awareness. But to understand, is to witness the gravitational pull of the echo chambers that prejudice spawns. 

One of Trump’s tried and true disqualifying tactics is to dub all media which question the sincerity of his statements as ‘fake news’. Such a condemnation erects a bubble which surrounds all of his supporters. As they look outside it, their vision is distorted by the thin film they peer through. All they see beyond are saboteurs, specialising in deception to control the masses and the state they occupy. What they don’t recognise is that they merely see the reflection of the political actors that tower above them.

Take immigration. Many who voted for Trump point to it as a key issue that informed their decision. But what about migrants specifically rouses their fears? The prevalence of migrant crime may be one facet, and to reiterate a previous point, has been proven to be far from the truth. A lack of jobs may be another, with Trump trying to mobilise black and hispanic voters by stating that migrants are taking positions they traditionally fill. 

The undertones of racism aside, black and hispanic populations commonly occupy positions in management, sales, and office support roles according to the latest US Bureau of Labor Statistics Current Population Survey. In contrast, migrants often occupy positions in agriculture and food processing, jobs that a majority of Trump supporters don’t want, according to a recent Pew Research Centre poll. 

The bubble makes it so that Trump supporters echo his claims of the detrimental effects of immigration without taking note of how migrants prop up the US economy. The American Immigration Council revealed that 1 in 8 workers in both the fields of construction and agriculture are immigrants, as well as 1 in 14 workers in the hospitality industry. Thus, the council found that mass deportation of immigrants would likely reduce the US GDP by 4.2 – 6.8 per cent. Similarly, Bloomberg Economics found that mass deportations would result in a 7.9 per cent drop in GDP. Even if Trump’s plan focused solely on the 11 million undocumented immigrants as the president-elect claims it will, huge portions of the labour force occupying positions in health care aid, agriculture, and the service industry, would be removed from the country, in turn crippling the American economy.

However, to trust in such claims would mean escaping the bubble. Distrust is an indelible force, akin to a black hole, and its gravitational pull drags those which have been branded by fear back to the centre over and over again. And that fear-mongering stems from the very politicians they look to for protection. 

Trump is playing the political game, capitalising on his supporters’ real fears, the economic situation of the US prime among them. He knowingly ignores how nations around the globe saw price increases as global supply chains seized up during the COVID-19 pandemic, instead blaming marginalised populations.

But that is exactly why journalists must keep fighting the good fight. To counter the farce and to point to the facts, no matter how often they are smeared as prejudiced shills. Otherwise the tenor of political discourse will forever be defined by the lack of it.