Should factual products contain bias?

Much controversy is made over the apparent political bias of the BBC. The corporation’s news channel more specifically has been accused of being anti-left wing as well as anti- right wing. Pro-left wing as well as pro- right wing, this is just the tip of the iceberg of the many biased accusations made at the BBC. Across the Atlantic and U.S news corporation Fox News face similar accusations. However due to their independence from the government, the BBC are required to remain impartial. Fox News use slogans such as: “Fair and Balanced" and "We Report. You Decide”. Even if a factual product is biased does it really matter?

Factual products should remain a provider of facts. For example; news media outlets, should exist solely to report the news. This should be done in a fair and balanced manner, stories should be promoted based on their importance, rather than it’s potential to help or hinder an agenda the outlet is trying to promote. In England two newspaper companies from either side of the political spectrum: The Guardian and The Daily Mail are often accused of bias. The Daily Mail will often have on their website, vast coverage of a negative left wing story where the bravado of the headline, far out-weight the importance of the story. The same can be said for the Guardian who like the Daily Mail may also give less coverage to a major story if it does not suit their agenda. The danger of this bias and a major reason that factual products should not contain bias; is that it can create a warped view of the world for its loyal consumers. You may only have to go to the comments section of the two respective websites to see an example of this.

This problem of a distorted view, brought on by biased factual product can be seen on a much larger scale in the U.S.A. Fox News is often mocked by social commentators for its major right-wing bias and with the relentless 24 hour coverage available coverage of agenda based news, this would surely have a major impact on its viewers. Indeed, many surveys have been conveyed by PIPA (Program on International Policy Attitudes); in which Fox News viewers have been proven to have many misguided views. In a 2003/2004 survey, 67% of Fox viewers believed that the "U.S. has found clear evidence in Iraq that Saddam Hussein was working closely with the al Qaeda terrorist organization", in truth, despite the many reports and commissions, no evidence has ever been found. The belief that "The U.S. has found Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq" was held by 33% of Fox viewers; in truth no weapons have ever been found.

These findings were not coincidence. The wave of false information and barrage of support for the Iraq War by Fox News gradually implanted itself into the mind-sets of Fox News viewers. In the build up to the Iraq war Fox News had the least amount of critical commentary along with CBS in the whole of the U.S. Whilst this was happening the company owned by Pro-Iraq war supporter Rupert Murdoch, was stating lie after lie in its propaganda war to warp its viewer’s opinion on the Iraq war. These claims included documents being found in a scientists house that showed plans of using lasers for uranium enrichment. Iraq were also accused of having small pox and anthrax stockpiled by Fox News as well as this the war was often referred to as an “engagement” by the channels presenters rather than war. This should not happen on a factual product, Fox News should not be a platform for presenters to spout biased opinions, and it should simply be a job to report facts in a fair and balanced manner and for the viewer to draw their own conclusions from these reports.

This not to say however, that all factual products that contain bias promote negative causes. Ant-smoking campaigns that act as overwhelmingly biased deterrents to teenagers are no doubt a

positive thing as they help reduce the number of youth smokers as well as cancer sufferers. However, it could be argued that the method by which this information is conveyed to teenagers is wrong. Perhaps a teenager should be trusted to make his their own decisions once being given all the relevant information. The majority of teenagers could be trusted to come to the conclusion that smoking is outdated and bad for your health, the ones who choose to smoke anyway, would probably not have been stopped by the biased campaigns anyway.

To conclude, in an ideal world everyone would tell the truth, no-one would be biased and factual products would remain genuinely impartial. This is not going to happen, if a consumer believes that a products is biased they are now able to find an alternative product that is biased towards the consumers own views. Instead of being annoyed and that raging impartiality of many products, consumers should instead, thrive on the differences of opinion. There are products that are biased towards a view available to everyone and consumers are quick to accuse a product of bias if it holds a view different to their own. With this bias the world would be a colourless, boring place. Bias is a natural human action and thought; consumers of the world have to accept this.