Juan Ignacio Valdivia Cox

28/02/2022

Bias in the media

In the past couple of years, we have seen how every news source in the world has

begun to gravitate to the news of the moment: the covid pandemic. Slowly these

media sources have modified this topic based on their own respective biases, which

are based on their need to cater to their audiences. The following essay will

concentrate on how popular news sources engage in biases based on differences in

their geographical locations and consumers by deconstructing news articles about

Britain’s elimination of covid restrictions at the beginning of 2022. When these articles

were written the Covid pandemic was still a controversial subject that had different

perspectives, with some people being in favor of maintaining and some of removing

public health measures. The following News sources that will be examined shall be

CNN, ABC, and The Guardian. On one hand, we have two American news sources seen

in CNN and ABC News, these as expected will project the news article into the debate

that was occurring at the time in the US while The Guardian will give a more specified

approach as it comes from the land of the news, however, they are both also

conditioned to bias by their tradition. Contrasting these two types of sources will give

insight into how geographical differences can subsequently translate into different

types of bias, whether this being in the form of including certain figures and languages,

symbolisms, etc.
Headlines are fundamental in creating tone and this case is no exception. CNN titles its

article most neutrally, by stating “Boris Johnson announces the end of covid

restrictions”, they are simply giving a factual statement, excluding any keywords that

might modify the reader's perspective. Conversely, the Guardian has decided to

include a clear negative tone, stating that “Covid restrictions and free mass testing to

end in England”. What they are stating is not only that covid restrictions will go away

but also including the detail of “Free” testing, by doing this they create a sense that

they are taking something from the citizens of the country. The most biased title would

be that of ABC News, “Boris Johnson scraps remaining covid restrictions”. The keyword

in this title would be “scraps” and “remaining”. The combination of both of these

words creates a sense that Boris Johnsons was simply removing the leftovers of past

restrictions giving the reader a sense that the effects will probably be relatively low,

furthermore the word “scraps” is linked to the notion of trash, opening the

interpretation for the reader to assume that Johnson is not treating the covid

restrictions with the importance that they deserve.

One of the places where one can appreciate the differences in bias when reading news

articles is in their beginning, it is here where the author sets the tone for the

paragraphs that will follow. CNN decides to begin describing the news in a clear-cut

fashion, without the use of details, a logical conclusion to this would be because their

audience is not normally informed on the nature of what is happening across the

Atlantic therefore it seems necessary to start by depicting the news directly. The

following article of ABC news decides to directly quote Boris Johnson choosing to

include his words “Today is not the day we can declare victory over COVID… But it is
the day when all the efforts of the last two years finally enabled us to protect ourselves

whilst restoring our liberties in full.” And, that these were “two of the darkest, grimiest

years in our peacetime history”. By giving Boris Johnson's words one could think that

they are not leaving much room for bias however it is important to note that there was

a process in which they selected his words, by choosing which sections are most

important the article is also partaking in bias even if aspiring not too. Finally, The

Guardian decides to go full in on details, mentioning political figures such as “Rishi

Sunak”, this can be assumed to be done because it is valuable information to those

British readers who know the protagonists in more detail, additionally, they include a

plentiful of keywords such as “fear”, “poor”, “vulnerable” and “swept”. These words

reinforce the negative tone that predominates in this article, pushing the reader to

believe that the actions of Johnson will be hurtful for their country, something which

blocks the reader's ability to form a critical perspective of the event.

Another fundamental tool used in the creation of bias is seen in the use of the queen’s

image during this news. The royal family, and by extension the queen, tend to be

figures of interest for the American public as they have been increasingly marketed as

characters of gossip. ABC News and CNN take advantage of this, deciding to add her

news story in the middle of the ongoing one, stating that amid this governmental

change of policy she has contracted Covid, something which has nothing to do with the

news. Adding gossip figures in real news further helps distract from the original news,

forcing it to fall into the webs of news sensationalism, a bias in the name of selling.

Contrarily The Guardian has decided to ignore this gossip and concentrate further on

the news at hand, it can be assumed that this is because the public is either

disinterested in this, or already knows the news at hand. Whatever might be the
reason this approach is the most unbiased allowing readers to concentrate on what is

important.

Scientific research or opinion is generally seen as an unbiased tool, however in

this case it can be both There is a clear separation of the articles based on the number

of times it is mentioned. Normally one would think that the more scientific bases the

better however more important than the amount is the quality. Starting with the worst

example we have CNN. This article mentions science only two times, with these being

just to point out how the government is trying to follow up its decisions based on it,

making it seem that its inclusion is just to validate this decision. However, what is not

explained is where this information comes from, something that can lead to thinking

that this statement is based more on the writer’s opinion rather than factual

statements. On the contrail, we have the Guardian and ABC news which both mention

science five times. The Guardian uses science to demonstrate the opposing view of the

measure, describing this community as “anxious” and “cautious, different to the

“gung-ho” politicians, this highlights the article's negative tone, demonstrating that

Johnson's actions are made more out of political pressure than real logic, pushing the

reader to conclude that they are detrimental for Britain’s future. Furthermore,

different from CNN this article mentions exactly where the information comes from,

stating sources such as “Chris Whitty” and chief advisor “Patrick Vallance”. This allows

for the reader to comprehend that there is a part of the scientific community that is

against this measure, not generalizing the community like CNN, whilst also giving the

impression that although these actors support the restrictions it does not mean it’s the

correct decision. Additionally, by quoting two known health advisers to the British

government they are demonstrating how the current prime minister doesn’t even care
what his advisers say, further cementing the image of an incompetent leader. As

demonstrated before by the Guardian so did ABC news write where their information

came from, giving names such as “Trish Greenhalgh” from the university of oxford and

as before “Chriss Whitty”. By including two health experts from different backgrounds,

with Trish being part of the academia and Chris of the government, they are achieving

a more objective ground, demonstrating how the science varies in its approach to the

lifting of restrictions. This inclusion goes in the same logic, skipping the possible

generalization of CNN.

The end of any news article can prove a fundamental tool in finding its bias. It is here

where CNN finally gains its famed reputation as a rather democratic left-wing news

source. By ending the article highlighting Boris Johnson's past political mistakes, such

as when he participated in a party in the middle of the pandemic, they are hinting that

his measure comes more from political pressure than anything else, therefore

removing the validity of his action. In typical British fashion, the Guardian ends the

article comedizing the whole situation with the addition of previous information it

gives the sense that it simply believes that the current change in the measure will have

little to no impact. The most objective finish is done by ABC news which ends its piece

stating that neither it nor the participants deny the continued existence of the covid

disease, not inserting any judgment of the situation.

Geography can lead to a plentiful of different biases, something which is seen in the

above text with the way authors choose to include or uses certain language and facts.

This phenomenon can be seen in most of the news written far away from the origin as

they tend to be filled with the pre-conceived notions and realities of their determined
nations. To achieve an unbias approach to these texts it is important to seek news

made by people living the stories. Although I do not deny that these also present their

own bias, the combination of both is the best way to achieve the closest possible to an

unbias text.

1) McGee, L. (2022, February 21). Boris Johnson announces the end of Covid

restrictions in England. CNN. Retrieved March 7, 2022, from

https://www.cnn.com/2022/02/21/uk/boris-johnson-drops-covid-restrictions-intl-

gbr/index.html 

2) Guardian News and Media. (2022, February 21). Covid restrictions and free

mass testing to end in England. The Guardian. Retrieved March 7, 2022, from

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/feb/21/boris-johnson-says-free-covid-

tests-in-england-will-end-on-1-april?amp%3Bamp 

3) Lawless, J. (n.d.). Boris Johnson scraps remaining COVID restrictions in

England. ABC News. Retrieved March 7, 2022, from

https://abcnews.go.com/Health/wireStory/scientists-cautious-england-set-end-

covid-curbs-83023393