Once you start paying attention to this, it can no longer be unseen. If they don’t like someone, they’ll use a bad picture of them and vice versa. It’s a good tell even if the article itself seems neutral.
Once you start paying attention to this, it can no longer be unseen. If they don’t like someone, they’ll use a bad picture of them and vice versa. It’s a good tell even if the article itself seems neutral.
Anti-anything in journalism is still bias, even if you think it’s common sense. Bias just means the outlet has a consistent slant or preference - it doesn’t automatically make them wrong.
That’s why it’s useful to notice bias. If Fox News and the New York Times - outlets with very different biases - both criticize Trump for the same thing, that convergence makes the criticism harder to dismiss. Recognizing bias doesn’t mean ignoring the point; it helps you weigh it more accurately.
I think the point was more along the lines of “what if the person you’re reporting on always looks bad, do you need to go out of your way to achieve ‘balance?’”
That’s definitely part of what I meant. A mistake (not only in my opinion) many European media outlets made wrt far-right populism.