There is no such thing as unbiased news media 

There is a misconception deeply embedded into the conversation surrounding news media: the notion that news outlets should strive for a complete lack of bias in their reporting. This ideal and the voice employed in pursuit of it is commonly referred to as “the view from nowhere.” However, the idea that something can be devoid of bias at all is unfounded. The decisions made about what words should be used, what stories get reported and the perspective chosen are all affected by bias. The issue isn’t that there is bias in this way, but that they try to present themselves as without it. It sows distrust in media. If news media outlets voiced their biases and made their perspectives clear, it would increase trust and transparency more than the current tack. 

The established perspective taken by news media, the so-called “view from nowhere” is an attempted call to authority by use of a voice that intentionally distances itself from what’s happening down on the ground. But the whole point of reporting is providing information obtained by being there on the ground, or at least by digging deeper into public information than others have time for. These acts have their own authority. Instead of expressing an individual’s well-informed perspective, however, the view from nowhere would rather levy criticism at both sides without regard for right and wrong. This means the bias that is present in the written perspective is passed off as nonexistent, which has its own unintended and dangerous consequences. 

By granting equal credence to both sides of every argument, one tends to amplify the position of the more socioeconomically dominant group. There are situations in which giving further voice to a certain view, especially without acknowledging it as being a fringe and extreme position, can platform and legitimize dangerous, hateful ideology. When reporting on war criminals, it is not necessary to defend the perpetrator, much less criticize the victim. When reporting on peaceful protests, there is a reason that activists are referred to as dissenters or rioters and that the protest is described as chaotic. These manipulations, sometimes done in good faith, warp our sense of the truth of matters.  

Perspectives are not born from individual bias alone, though. A study by the scholars Theine, Bartsch and Tröger found that journalistic content is objectively affected by the ownership of the outlet. This means that over time, as outlets claim a lack of bias, they are instead reinforcing the worldview that benefits their owners and those in power; if they’re owned by billionaires, which many are, they find themselves advocating for the most powerful and influential minority in the world as if they were disadvantaged in society. Herman and Chomsky, in an introduction to their book Manufacturing Consent, wrote: “the media serve, and propagandize on behalf of, the powerful societal interests that control and finance them.” This is a serious issue, and I believe it heavily contributes to a lack of faith in the news media. It has been found, however, that publicly owned newspapers are more objective than privately owned newspapers. By publicly funding journalism, we could reinforce faith in news reporting. 

The problem isn’t that journalists have perspectives. It’s their refusal to acknowledge them. The “view from nowhere” protects the powerful, amplifies dominant voices and brushes over structural injustice to avoid coming off as biased. Genuine transparency means acknowledging bias, scrutinizing power and refusing to legitimize harmful positions through falsely “balanced” arguments. The most ethical reporting is not always unbiased; it is often pointedly biased journalism that uses facts to defend its angle.