Bias means “an inclination of temperament or outlook.” Everyone has it, but not everyone admits it.
People want the newsmedia to do the impossible. They ask the media to give an unbiased report. The media could not present a single issue to us without bias. The way that one presents facts is a bias. Even deciding which facts to present is a bias!
I know what people mean by “unbiased.” They want the media to be like a referee at a game. The media should oversee the game without giving preference to one team over the other. When covering a controversial issue, they should present both sides fairly. This requires a kind of neutrality.
I still don’t agree that bias is the problem. The newsmedia’s proper job is to inform the public of relevant events. I see a lot of space for bias in there.
Furthermore, some times we don’t want a balanced report. We do not want a balanced report on Joseph Stalin, for example. We don’t need to give equal time to supporters of a dictator and mass murderer.
Recently, I’ve seen people define “bias” as statements with emotionally charged words. By associating bias with emotion, they reveal their view that the impersonal cosmos is the ultimate source of objectivity and that a scientist speaking in monotone about the “facts” can stay above the “enigma” of bias. They stamp others with the “biased” label while considering their own views unbiased, objective thought.
There is a reason though, that we associate the calm authoritative voice with objectivity. This calm unhurried voice reflects the sovereign reign of an omnipotent being whose plans are not subject to anyone else. I hear this voice reflected in the vast immeasurable expanse of the cosmos whose galaxies follow perfectly the laws of God.
This does not make God impersonal. A friend told me that God is “beyond” personal, but that can’t be so. If God were an impersonal force, he would not understand our thoughts. A personal God is beyond a mindless impersonal one. Only a person can think thoughts at all.
