Have I Got Views For You! Bias Through Language

A look at how bias is subtly presented through language in newspapers

Ryan Flack

 

Perhaps sometimes newspapers aren't particularly subtle when it comes to bias. It's obvious that the journalists in the Daily Mail are likely to have an entirely different view to those of the Guardian, and every general election many newspapers go so far as to openly endorse or support a party. Nevertheless, bias and ideology is evident even on the much more subtle level, that of the language used in the stories themselves.

 

If events are being described, then it is impossible to avoid containing a point of view within that description, but often this is overlooked. Cameron (1995, Verbal Hygiene) suggests that choice of language in newspapers is not really challenged, suggesting a journalist writing an article is seen as the same sort of 'omniscient narrator' that can be found in fiction books. Similar to this narrator, the journalist guides the reader through the characters and their actions, but whereas the author of a fiction book is creating the events themselves, the journalist chooses what they include and how they word it from actual events, and so these choices create bias.

 

Cameron gives the example of 'collateral damage' for how lexical choice can influence bias. This being a euphemism, it would be chosen in order to avoid the negative connotations around the subject, and thus avoid evoking a negative reaction. However, bias cannot be avoided even by using what could be seen as 'plainer' words, such as 'the killing of civilians' or, simply, 'murder'. The lexical choices made will reflect the views or ideologies of the writer, and it is almost impossible to be 'neutral'. Cameron also gives the example of naming. Whether a journalist chooses to refer to the (former) Prime Minister as 'Major' or 'Mr Major' can make a significant amount of difference to how the reader perceives the character, with 'Mr' implying (the necessity for) negative politeness or perhaps being a sign of their authority.

 

But word classes can also have a difference. Adjectives used for description rather than classification (generally evaluative adjectives) will inevitably portray an opinion, as can choice of adverbs, particularly choice of adverbs portraying certainty (epistemic adverbs, such as 'certainly', or 'probably') and those portraying attitude ('surprisingly', 'predictably'). Certainty can also be expressed through modal verbs ('may', 'might', 'could'), as can obligation ('should', 'must'), and even some other verbs such as to be ('is to') or to have ('have to') can do so as well. If a journalist is expressing levels of certainty, doubt or obligation, then they are naturally putting forwards an opinion.

 

Grammar itself also comes into play when portraying bias. Take, for instance, the use of either the active or passive voice. Active voice puts the focus onto the subject or 'doer', whereas the passive instead shifts the focus onto the object or 'target' and the 'doer' can even be removed altogether. For example, in the active voice, 'the police shot a demonstrator' clearly focuses on the police and their shooting, rather than the demonstrator. Compare this to the same story in the passive voice: 'a demonstrator was shot by the police', the demonstrator is now the focus and the police have been 'backgrounded'. Another step on and, despite it still being an interpretation of the same event, the responsible agent can be removed altogether: 'a demonstrator was shot'.

 

No matter what measures could be in place to prevent a journalist's individual opinion from being evident in an article (quality newspapers often have style models), there are many ways that their interpretations, views and ideology can be expressed simply through the subtle choices made in wording and grammar. Although some bias may be striking and obvious, it exists on every level, and when it exists unnoticeable to the untrained eye it can have a massive impact on the unsuspecting reader.