The issue is not whether there is bias or not, but whether a writer or a newspaper or magazine or some site on the web identify their bias. Such overt acknowledgement is more important now than at any time in history because of how quickly a lie or a partial lie in an image or in words can spread.
To that end: my political bias is that a social democratic state (most countries in Europe, Canada, Australia, etc) hold as inviolable the division of power (a duly elected government -with oversight by duly elected opposition parties, the judiciary and the enforcement of the law) and that all citizens are equal and under the rule of law.
Another bias is that all entities-inanimate, corporate entities as well as human citizens- that benefit from a social democratic society must pay an equitable and progressive tax to maintain that society. Those inanimate-merely law created- entities and human citizens who hide their earnings and cheat on their taxes should be prosecuted until they pay their due taxes and penalties to government. It is also government’s duty and responsibility for the sake of social stability and fairness to enable such prosecution and closing of loopholes that allow some to pay far less tax than they should. By ‘should’ I do not mean ‘within the tax law’ because this law can be changed and used to enable some to hide and cheat. By ‘should’ I mean all persons-inanimate and human- should pay enough tax to support society because they benefit (rule of law, safety etc).
My third bias is that reporters and their employers should publicly note their biases and then make their arguments in the spirit of accuracy and completeness. Many do; I am concerned about the ones that use their bias to promote a person or an idea by means of declarative sentences but no facts or arguments for the same. Such articles proliferate under the sanctity of alleged superior knowledge and wisdom.
On July 11, 2024, Pierre Poilievre gave his first speech to First Nations chiefs. https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/poilievre-to-make-first-in-person-speech-at-assembly-of-first-nations-1.6959511 .
The Victoria Times Colonist in its paper version on July 12 printed a short review of the same, culled from The Canadian Press (author, Ryan Remiorz). The title was ‘Poilievre applauded as he delvers first speech to First Nations Leaders‘. This version, in words and in the picture that went with it, leads a casual reader to believe that Poilievre’s speech was well received and not controversial.
However, when one turns to the online version, https://www.timescolonist.com/indigenous-news/poilievre-delivers-first-speech-to-afn-leaders-confront-him-about-harpers-legacy-9204764 one notes that the title, content and authors are different.
The title of the online version was ‘Poilievre delivers first speech to AFN, leaders confront him about Harper’s legacy.’ Poilievre was confronted by some of the chiefs with what he left out of the speech. There is no room to list them here; read the article. The authors of this version were Alessia Passafiume and Stephanie Taylor, The Canadian Press.
Why was one version a more accurate representation of what happened than the other?
The picture used in the paper TC was the same used in the online version. The title for the picture was in essence the title used for the paper version. The person credited with the picture in the online version was the person credited with the first, and inaccurate, paper version.
The paper version was edited to present a different, and more pleasing, to some, version of Poilievre’s speech and reception than in the online version. The paper version was either edited in an unthinking and sloppy manner or it was edited with bias. The rending of a fulsome version of the events down to something that can mislead the incurious reader, if multiplied dozens if not hundreds of times across media, is problematic at best. It is subversive at worst.