IndyStar's bias?

During their recent absence, Indiana House Democrats garnered public attention and polarized public opinion, facing scrutiny and calls of cowardice from the right and accolades of heroism from the left. This was only to be expected.

What was not expected, however, was the seemingly slanted coverage provided the Indianapolis Star during the five-week holdout.

In their time away, the Democrats have been “closeted” away and “far out on a limb,” having “forced changes” and “killed bills.” Disconcertingly, such language was not found in commentary, but in supposedly unbiased news articles. While this vivid language might add intrigue to long, wearisome coverage it compromises the journalistic integrity of the story.

Journalism has always been a discipline centered upon neutrality and objectivity. Whether good or bad, the facts are facts and are to be reported as such. Journalists are charged with providing the truth of the situation and allowing audiences to decide for themselves.

Reporters are supposed to inform, not entertain. Part of maintaining level coverage is selecting a neutral vocabulary. While colorful diction might embellish a story and create a more desirable dynamic for an article, it can also erode journalistic detachment into media bias.

Whether you agree with what the Democrats did or whether you find it absolutely revolting, there’s a section of the newspaper that is specifically marked and measured for espousing the various vantages of journalists and commentators. However, the front page of the newspaper should never be mistaken for the opinion section. Let’s hope the headlines surrounding the abortion debate, like “House GOP tames Dems’ efforts on abortion bill,” are not indicative of this trend continuing.

­— smech@indiana.edu