And no, that’s not a rhetorical question.

It’s one I find myself asking increasingly as I read, watch, and listen to news from all over the world these days.

I used to tell journalism students that there was no such thing as “unbiased journalism” - and I still stand by that - because we ALL have our biases, whether we realise it or not. Where we come from, the experiences we’ve had, our levels of acceptance and tolerance for things good or bad… they all influence the way we see the world, and therefore the questions we as journalists ask.

So if we can’t be truly and purely unbiased, then shouldn’t we at least strive for some kind of balance? Put forward both sides of an argument and let people decide for themselves?

It sounds so simple (because it is!) and yet it feels like this basic principle is disappearing from parts of our media.

In writing this post, I came across this interview with CNN’s Erin Burnett. It was conducted back in 2014, and personally I think the CNN she is describing back then is different to the one we watch now. Burnett and the interviewer Steve Adubato from PBS talk about CNN distinctly NOT having a point of view, which I don’t believe is the case - certainly since the Trump era.

But scroll through to the 5-minute mark and have a listen for a couple of minutes to what they say about being impartial, and why hearing both sides matters:

Some people would say “well if someone calls someone a horrible name, then why are you even going to talk to them about it?”… and in many cases the answer may be “well you wouldn’t”… but in some cases you do, because the person influences what a lot of other people think, or perhaps reflects what other people think… and people want to know ‘why did this person say that?’

I think this is so important.

You have to actually KNOW what all sides are saying if you’re going to have an opinion on it. Even if some of those views are deemed unpalatable by some, you still need to hear them - and preferably unfiltered.

Now if you’re reading this in New Zealand, then you will probably be well aware of the recent visit by British activist Posie Parker which sparked so much online unrest and media coverage.

Even before Parker arrived - when she was on an Australian tour which ignited the interest here - it was intriguing to see what could be seen as “accepted” biases in some of the coverage, which then continued during and after her aborted visit.

For example, what does an April 1 headline call Posie Parker?

So right from the outset, the reader is being TOLD four things - she’s controversial, she’s British, she’s anti-transgender, and she’s an activist.

Three of those are true (controversial, British, activist) but I can’t actually find anything in the article which confirms the fourth. There are references from others to her “repugnant” and “inflammatory, vile and incorrect worldviews” - but nothing of what the activist herself has said.

That, to me, is an example of an “accepted” bias. In other words, it has become publicly “accepted” that she is anti-transgender so the burden of proof has been diminished. She can be called that in a newspaper headline (which don’t forget influences a lot of people) and it is now considered a fact.

Let me be clear - I’m passing NO judgement either way on Posie Parker herself. Like most people in New Zealand, I hadn’t even heard of her before news of her pending arrival to these shores.

But if I’m going to be told about someone who is headlined as a “controversial British anti-transgender activist”, then shouldn’t I also be told what apparently makes her those things? I did read a few ‘who is Posie Parker’-type explainer articles, but again the detail was thin. She opposed certain laws, she claimed to be pro-woman, her rally in Melbourne had attracted people doing Nazi salutes - but there was little actual information on the words she’d said and why they’d been deemed anti-transgender.

Wanting to know what she has said and believes doesn’t equate to agreeing or sympathising with her, and a media outlet publishing what she has said doesn’t make them complicit with her agenda.

If we just deal in facts and information, without prejudice, people will be better informed for it. They’ll still disagree on things - because they’re human - but they will have been given the information to come to their own conclusions.

Perhaps that is what ‘balanced journalism’ looks like. Journalism without agenda.