Reporters sometimes, too often, will interview sources who will state that a subject’s reputation is ruined and then that becomes as a clickbait-type headline when in reality, that isn't an accurate analysis.
I'm not arguing that it's never accurate. I'm contesting the clickbait it's always factual.
That’s a disservice to readers, viewers and listeners and harmful to the person being discussed.
Those distorted, false conclusions, communicated and widely disseminated, can, at their lowest, become unethical journalism because what is being communicated is not critical thinking but it is highly controversial and unfairly inflammatory.
Keep in mind that regardless of what people may confidently argue that bias even infects (yes, infects) professionals who are sources for journalists and writers. Bias affects journalists, writers and those who speak to the masses. Not because they are always bad characters (just sometimes) but because they are human and that’s how the mind, tongue and fingers (typing) work.
Know that bias regularly generates distorted and grossly wrong conclusions, ones that get passed off as credible expertise about a person, people and a situation. Readers, viewers and listeners will believe it as factual and truth. It’s quite possible it’s neither.
Why am I writing about this for you today?
If you're a person, figuratively said, getting figuratively shot up in the media, be slightly comforted that reporters’ expert sources or commentary may be premature, misleading, willfully ignorant or fully wrong.
Not mostly but more often than you might think and believe.
Michael Toebe is the specialist at Reputation Intelligence, helping individuals and organizations with matters of credibility, trust, decision analysis, communications, relationships and reputation.
You can DM him on Substack or contact him below for consulting, risk analysis, coaching, ongoing advisory, a variety of proactive and responsive communications and reputation (not legal) representation.


