I became a reporter at the tail end of fifth grade. My place of work? Bizbee News. My breaking news? An exclusive with the mayor of JA Biztown. My story? Front page.
While “star-reporter for a simulated, educational city” might not look impressive on my resume, it was still an integral first step in my future as a journalist. At 11 years old, there’s not a lot you know about the dreams you chase–just an amorphous idea of desire. What exactly a journalist is doesn’t solidify until you’ve grown a little taller.
One thing I did know for sure was this journalistic duty of impartiality.
Fairness is supposedly the essence of a democratic government, and with the press considered its unofficial fourth branch, bias is often frowned upon. But in an increasingly polarizing political climate, this image of impartiality is slipping, sullying the public’s perception of what a “journalist" is. With podcasters and social media influencers riding the new digital wave into journalistic spaces, the consumption of news in America is shifting dramatically. Political reporting has a new look, blurring the lines between “journalist” and “political commentator.”
But, I’m only one person, and this issue is too complex to dissect alone. A closer look requires some additional assistance.
Scott Parrott currently teaches in USC's journalism department but previously wrote for newspapers in Alabama and North Carolina. He began his career at 18, investing early in political reporting before exploring special projects on mental health, substance use and crime.
His formative years as a journalist taught him to never insert his opinion.
“ I was not necessarily concerned at all about political parties and opinions and commentary or interpretation,” Parrott said. “It was mostly you try to collect the information, present it in a way that anyone can read and help them to make informed decisions about who to elect or what to do. You give them the information, they make the decision. That's democracy.”
While Parrott aligns himself with what he calls “straight journalism,” he does find value in opinion journalism. There’s room for both, but the challenge lies in audience understanding, which can sometimes generalize publications or news networks.
“ There were times when readers would get mad at me because they assumed that since I worked for the same organization, that whatever the editorial board published was my opinion as well,” Parrott said. “And I think when people understand how the news operates they can differentiate, but I don't think a lot of people can.”
For some reporters, political journalists and political commentators are not mutually exclusive titles. Jackson Gosnell is a senior at USC studying mass communications, but he has a surprisingly hefty portfolio for someone so young. With 175,000 followers on TikTok, Gosnell has established himself as a political influencer across multiple platforms, though he identifies as both an independent journalist and a political commentator.
“I started with a journalism background and I still have a deep interest and respect for journalism,” Gosnell said. “However, I enjoy politics much more. And since the two mesh so closely together, that's why I keep my roots in both of those things.”
Gosnell views political commentary as a defense or debate of the factual information and analysis imperative to journalism. But he claimed that the pervasiveness of politics in the press is what brings those two together.
And he's not wrong. This relationship between politics and the press goes back farther than we may think.
The news landscape after the American Revolution was not shy about its subsidized connection with warring political factions—the Federalists had the “Gazette of the United States” and the Democratic-Republicans had the “National Gazette.” It’s uncannily similar to the current moment, when Republicans and Democrats rely largely on different sources for news.
After World War II, journalism became more standardized, creating policies like the Fairness Doctrine. Introduced in 1949, this doctrine was the conception of perceived impartiality - broadcast networks were required to offer contrasting perspectives regarding matters of public importance. But when the Federal Communications Commission abolished the Fairness Doctrine in 1987, American broadcast started reverting to its journalistic roots. Radio was hit first, then it spread to cable news networks.
"And then of course, the internet hits, and now you can really just go to whatever corner you want, right?" Andy Burns, a USC professor and accomplished broadcaster well-versed in SC politics, said. "Then podcasting hits, so now you don't have to worry about the radio anymore. You can just spew whatever you wanna spew. And then in order to get ratings, the cable networks have to play that same game, right? And so we're kind of right where we were at the founding of the country with the political commentary."
It's clear journalism and politics aren't mutually exclusive, but journalists aren't embodiments of their practice. The audience expects a degree of plausible deniability in order to establish trust in your reporting, according to Parrott.
“ One of the most important things as a journalist is to nurture trust with your sources and your readers or your audience,” Parrott said.
Even the perception of bias could threaten this trust. Parrott finds that any gesture, big or small, can cause misinterpretations.
According to the Pew Research Center, 56% of Americans say it’s rarely or never acceptable for journalists to express their political views in their reporting, and 42% say journalists should not express political views on social media. For many Americans, impartiality remains central to credibility.
Gosnell argues that, due to the current politically tense atmosphere, impartiality is almost a luxury.
“That is what we have been taught, and I think that is good,” Gosnell said. “But the problem is that where things stand politically in today's day and age, it is very, very difficult to have no bias.”
Burns echoed this sentiment, claiming this argument of objectivity is a false one. He says you can't be completely objective, especially in the name of injustice. When the facts are all laid out, opinion is practically imminent.
"If you verify the claims that are being made and you're fully contextual and everything you say you prove is true, it's okay if you have your bias," Burns said.
Gosnell finds trust in authenticity, proudly proclaiming his political affiliations. Bias is less of a product or appearance and more of an identity, which allows him to garner trust.
“I am openly admitting to people that I do have a right-leaning bias in the stories,” Gosnell said. “I think that allows people to trust you more than pretending that you have no opinion and really trying to underscore it in your work.”
And Gosnell isn’t the only one.
The Pew Research Center found that almost half of those who get their information from news influencers believe their authenticity is what makes them trustworthy. Gosnell is upfront about his willingness to call out “BS” from the right regardless of party loyalty, which plays into this promise of authenticity between audience and reporter. Still, reporters are just as human as the rest of us. What you may consider genuine is subjective.
”There are a lot of people who aren't trained journalists who are calling themselves journalists, and maybe they're not behaving up to the norms of the profession,” Parrott said. “So it reflects poorly upon the profession. And another thing is a talking head on television at night, like a commentator, is not necessarily a journalist.”
In a world where 22% of Republicans use the podcast "The Joe Rogan Experience" as a source of reliable news, it’s unsurprising how audiences are unable to distinguish between objectivity and subjectivity. But these political podcasts aren't anything new.
Burns blames the shift to 24-hour news networks, which CNN launched in the 80s. Suddenly, story roundups went from a 30-minute block to around-the-clock commentary.
"You have to comment on the news because you got to fill the time, right?" Burns said. "I can tell you the news in two minutes, but now what am I gonna do for the next 58 minutes? Well, I guess they better comment on it, so let's bring people in to talk about it."
And here we are now, in an era of polarization dictated by a network's perceived level of bias, creating pockets of information founded on familiarity.
Democrats pull their news from a larger net of sources, while Republicans are more concentrated, according to the Pew Research Center. Fox News is most common among Republicans, with 57% tuning in to the network, which is at least double the share who check other sources. For Democrats, just below half sticks to networks like ABC, NBC and CBS. Burns also found that audiences are more loyal to conservative networks than to liberal ones.
"Liberal radio shows don't do as well; liberal podcasts don't do as well," Burns said. "What Fox does beautifully, they turn their viewers into friends, right? Their viewers are loyal. Their viewers view Fox as a family member."
But not everyone sticks to what's comfortable. Gosnell leans towards conservatism, but he does tune into more liberal news outlets for a "well-rounded approach."
“I read left-leaning work,” Gosnell admitted. “I read from Atlas, that I know hates the president, and I read that to be a well-informed person and form my own conclusion. So I think if you're a good consumer of information, it doesn't necessarily matter if you only use one source that claims to be unbiased that's not.”
Parrott found that political polarity in the news has always been an issue, but it has specifically been heightened due to social platforms’ access to larger audiences. Parrott has published a handful of journals dissecting how mass media impacts mental health. From his understanding, the virality of news succeeds in making an audience feel worse.
“There have been studies that look at what makes a tweet viral, what makes a news story viral,” Parrott explained. “You know what it is? Anger. Sadness. And so you have to be cognizant of what you're exposing yourself to.”
The Pew Research Center found that Americans are more likely to say news makes them feel negative emotions rather than positive ones. While a majority of people say the news keeps them informed, anger and sadness are close behind. Parrott links this to overexposure. Digital algorithms can feed mass audiences the same story every day for weeks, creating bubbles of polarity fueled by anger and sadness. The final product? Fatigue and exhaustion.
Wow. That's a lot, I know, but bear with me. The easiest conclusion drawn from these beautifully conflicting accounts is this: journalism and politics are intrinsically tied to one another. Their existence hinges on each other.
This draws out a harder conclusion: objectivity is, in itself, subjective.
Today, you should fear the perception of bias rather than the existence of bias. Audiences are completely fine with consuming bias; they just don’t want to see it. But how a person views bias — political or otherwise — is based on their own idea of what bias looks like, when and where it is acceptable, and how it may be wielded. Authenticity, neutrality and trust are abstractions that distract a divided population from the root of politics and the root of journalism: the presentation of fact and the subsequent interpretation of truth.
When I asked Burns if it's a journalist's duty to be impartial, he immediately told me no. It was an unexpected answer, and it felt like a wake-up call. In the face of injustice, objectivity becomes a luxury. When centuries of fact fall at your feet, it's only human to feel a certain way about it. Here, a journalist's duty no longer rests on impartiality. It becomes something tangible, a concrete concept.
"Embedded in our mission is a little bit of an antagonistic relationship against the rich and the powerful," Burns said. "It is not necessarily an objective relationship with them."
