The document discusses whether factual writing should contain bias. It argues that factual writing is meant to inform readers without opinion so they can form their own views based on facts. Bias undermines this goal by selectively presenting information that supports one side over others. Examples are given of media outlets like the BBC and The Independent omitting important details or angles in their coverage of events like the Scottish independence referendum and a terrorist attack in Jerusalem in ways that appeared to show bias. The document concludes that factual writing should not contain bias as the media's role is to fully and fairly inform the public without manipulation.

1. Task 2
Should factual writing contain bias?
To define factual writing it would be the explanation of events in the world. It is
designed to give the reader a valid source of information that is not interrupted by
opinion. This can appear in a variety of media formats with journalism being the
most common.
A biased Journalist would provide facts and figures to support their own opinion
whereas a good piece of factual writing would include evidence of argument and all
sides to a topic. Bias is when a statement reflects prejudice for or against a person,
object, or idea.
Should factual writing contain bias? Absolutely not. When receiving a job role in the
media you are making a declaration to follow all the guidelines that are set. When
looking into the National Union for Journalists, they clearly state that the
'information disseminated is honestly conveyed, accurate and fair'. The word fair is
paramount because without this you are not providing the public a service.
I understand that freedom of speech is important within the media and journalists
should be able to type what they want if they feel it would benefit the reader. I also
understand that in many countries such as North Korea, the media is forced to
produce work that is extremely exaggerated and one sided.
Having an opinion is something everyone in this country is allowed, however when it
is controlling the piece of work you are creating then it is wrong. Showing a balance
of ideas and not forcing someone to believe what you have put, such as in North
Korea, is vital.
Bias can come in many forms in relation to the media. It is a common misconception
that bias is just choosing one side over the other and that it is the only indictor of it
found within pieces of work.
Bias by omission, by not including one side to an argument you are going against the
codes of practice set and the ethics of the media industry. This was perfectly
demonstrated by the recent Scottish Independence referendum. The BBC were seen
to produce a report where a representative of the 'Yes for independence' campaign
refused to answer one of questions thrown at him during a press conference.
In this report they failed to mention that one of their reporters were supposedly
'heckling' him and that they threw multiple questions that were not relevant. This
accusation of bias on the British broadcasting corporation and that they were against
the idea of independence was supported by almost one thousand protestors.

2. This alone explains the power that the media can have over people, especially when
such a large corporation is being accused. The BBC did in fact make a statement
denying any wrong doing and explaining that their coverage was been fair and
impartial.
Another example of bias is story selection. This is demonstrated in a recent
newspaper and was based on the conflict in Jerusalem. A Palestinian deliberately
drove his car into a crowd of people disembarking Jerusalem’s Light Rail, killing a
three-month old baby and injuring several more, in what was clearly a terror attack.
This was reported by almost all the media around the world as somewhat of a shock
and tragedy, however, The Independent that are known for being 'Left wing' and
capable of leaving out important information for the public produced a different
headline.
Israeli soldiers 'blindfold and detain' disabled Palestinian boy for 'throwing stones'
I understand this can be very disturbing however it came to light that the boy was
only kept for 15 minutes before returning to his father. The story briefly
mentions the death of the three month old baby in comparison to a full piece on
a boy supposedly 'throwing stones'.
This media bias must stop as it is giving the public information that they think
they might want rather than true, hard facts on what actually happens. Keeping
to the same story and the premise that corporations are keeping the truth from
the public then the heading by the BBC on the topic is somewhat not acceptable.
For a corporation that have built around the idea of being truthful, accurate and
fair this was a surprise. 'Nine hurt as car hits pedestrians at Jerusalem station'
The BBC fail to mention the idea of this being deliberate and go on to explain it
being an accident when it was quite clearly an act of terror.
This story and the hiding of the truth is an example of bad journalism as it is not
taking part in factual writing and providing that service the public need.
I am a strong believer that factual writing should not contain any traces of bias in
and whatever form they come in. I however understand and accept that there are
many people who believe that draining a story of all bias can drain it of its
humanity, and its lifeblood.
Having a controversial piece of work can provoke the reader and ultimately make
sales. In contrast to a fair piece of work that does not excite the audience. With
newspaper sales rapidly decreasing it is understandable that the media are
competing with each other and producing different takes on the same stories.
This is wrong though. It is manipulating the reader to believe what is being said and
agree with that companies opinions. Freedom of speech should not be taken for
granted.

3. An example of good factual writing would be someone who focuses on an unbiased
approach and is not influenced by the personal opinions of the writer or publisher.
Not being influenced by personal opinions does not mean that they cannot be
included, but they must be followed by facts, figures or experts that agree with the
point made. By using these and showing what others may feel it creates the
impartial piece of work that is needed.
In conclusion I feel that factual writing should not contain bias as it is not providing
the reader with the chance to make their own opinion on a balanced argument. Plus
it is the job role of the media to inform the public of all the facts rather than what
they believe is correct.
The examples used support this idea. The protestors of the 'Yes' campaign were
rightly angry due to a piece that made their representative look foolish. The power
the media has over people in this country is overwhelming and they should take it
more seriously.