Can the media truly report an election impartially?
Recently, the media has been under criticism from the public for potential biases seen in elections. We can see this through the coverage of larger parties being the main focus for journalists, leaving the smaller parties out of the picture. This is because vote share is massively important in elections and the higher the share, the more likely a journalist will report on them. (Gatterman K, 2022).
Personally, I believe that as a journalist you can be impartial when covering elections. As a journalist, it is your job to share all the facts from all sides of elections so that the general public has the whole story of what is going on. The OFCOM guidelines for impartiality state “5.12: In dealing with matters of major political or industrial controversy and major matters relating to current public policy an appropriately wide range of significant views must be included and given due weight [...] Views and facts must not be misrepresented” (OFCOM, 2021). This guideline reinforces my belief that the media can be impartial when covering things such as elections.
I also believe that it is important to share all these angles of a story so the public can make up their own minds when choosing who to vote for. If this doesn’t happen, the public is essentially forced to support certain parties. An infamous example of this can be seen through Josef Goebbels using the media to brainwash the German public into supporting the Nazi party. During the 1932 election in Germany, Goebbels made the Nazi Party the largest party in Germany, taking up 37% of the vote. Goebbels managed to achieve this by “producing films of Nazi rallies, speeches, and other events to show at meetings to further inspire and activate core supporters.” (United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, 2019). This strategy not only boosted the support for the Nazis but also snuffed out any backlash and criticism as during the period of “Gleichschaltung” in 1934, the Nazi Party had majority control of the German government.
Another example was seen In 2016 when the public had to vote for “leaving” or “staying” in the EU during Brexit, It was found that the media often showed pro-Brexit opinions on the topic, and this pro-Brexit bias made its way into newspapers, TV Programmes and social media in the run-up to the 2016 referendum. (UKandEU.com, 2020).
Social media is also another key factor, that may affect biases in elections. An example of this is Twitter being used during elections for people to spread their opinions on certain parties. In 2016 and 2020, Twitter became a vehicle for spreading opinions, particularly from Democratic-slanted users, on Trump. This may have persuaded voters with weaker priors, to vote against Trump in the presidential election. (Fujiwara et al., 2024, page 40). Journalists reporting on these kinds of elections shouldn’t share their biases on platforms such as Twitter, as it may end up with backlash from other users. Former Northamptonshire Telegraph journalist, Kate Cronin said “The state of Twitter. It’s becoming impossible to even post a local news story without dozens of weird replies about free speech from people in America.” (Sharman, 2024).
Social media also allows journalists and other business to share their news to a younger audience, through video platforms such as TikTok and YouTube. Video is becoming a more important source of online news, especially with younger groups. “Short news videos are accessed by two-thirds (66%) of our sample each week, with longer formats attracting around half (51%).” (Newman, 2024)
On the other hand, sometimes you have no choice but to report on elections with bias. This can come from pressures from journalists bosses or the company itself that they work for. If a reporter is working for a certain paper or company that has publicly shown support for one party over the other, you may be tasked with writing stories on elections favouring that certain party. Journalists may also come into the industry with implicit biases that may affect their output when writing on certain groups. (Bailey, 2018)
In an article written by American Journalist, Gabrielle Cruciata, he has a quote from a colleague who says “Impartiality is a two-edged sword. On the one hand, it’s valuable, on the other hand, I wonder whether being impartial in front of serious issues such as human rights, for instance, is fair or not.” (Cruciata, 2019)
The article also mentions that some topics need a biased opinion as it creates ‘meaning’ for the topic. If a journalist shares their opinions on elections, and publicly state that they support the party that will reduce homelessness, their audience may be swayed to also support that party as they are campaigning for a good cause. This can be seen as a good reason for journalists to give their opinions when covering elections as it can lead to changes for good, but as Cruciata also says “We need to be fair and transparent to our readers and avoid biases.” (Cruciata, 2019).
In conclusion, I believe that journalists can be impartial when covering elections. As a journalist, it is your job to give the facts whilst being objective and fair. The global population deserves to know the whole story from all sides of elections. Being impartial when covering elections allows the public to decide who they want to vote for. I believe that people should make up their own minds when reading news about elections as it prevents cases like the Nazi Party from arising again, where they made people sheep to the media. However, I understand that in some cases this isn’t always possible. Journalists may feel attached to certain topics during elections, such as what each party is campaigning for, and may feel like they have to be biased and give their opinions as a way of calling out those parties. I think that in the world we live in now, it is important for journalists to produce reports on elections and other topics with as much impartiality as possible.
References
Bailey, I. J. (2018, November 13). How Implicit Bias Works in Journalism. Nieman Reports. Retrieved October 30, 2024, from https://niemanreports.org/articles/how-implicit-bias-works-in-journalism/
Cruciata, G. (2019, December 10th). Should Journalists be impartial? https://medium.com/@gabrielecruciata/should-journalists-be-impartial-b9af82c0ea28
Fujiwara, T., Müller, K., & Schwarz, C. (2024, June 7th). THE EFFECT OF SOCIAL MEDIA ON ELECTIONS: EVIDENCE FROM THE UNITED STATES. (1), 45. https://www.princeton.edu/~fujiwara/papers/SocialMediaAndElections.pdf
Newman, N. (2024, June 17). Overview and key findings of the 2024 Digital News Report. Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism. Retrieved October 30, 2024, from https://reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk/digital-news-report/2024/dnr-executive-summary
OFCOM. (2021, January 5). Section five: Due impartiality and due accuracy. Ofcom. Retrieved October 24, 2024, from https://www.ofcom.org.uk/tv-radio-and-on-demand/broadcast-standards/section-five-due-impartiality-accuracy/
Sharman, D. (2024, August 20). Northamptonshire Telegraph reporter reveals X death threat - Journalism News from HoldtheFrontPage. HoldtheFrontPage. Retrieved October 30, 2024, from https://www.holdthefrontpage.co.uk/2024/news/weekly-reporter-receives-death-threat-after-story-reaches-elon-musk/
UKandEU.com. (2020, July 13). How balanced was the debate over Brexit? UK in a changing Europe. Retrieved October 24, 2024, from https://ukandeu.ac.uk/how-balanced-was-the-debate-over-brexit/
United States Holocaust Memorial Museum. (2019, December 18). Joseph Goebbels | Holocaust Encyclopedia. Holocaust Encyclopedia. Retrieved September 22, 2024, from https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/joseph-goebbels-1