Opinion: In an era saturated with information, the demand for news and explainers providing context on complex issues has never been greater. However, not all explainers are created equal, and many fail to provide the objective, factual analysis that readers desperately need. Are news organizations truly fulfilling their responsibility to inform, or are they contributing to the noise?
Key Takeaways
- Explainers should prioritize factual accuracy and objectivity above all else, avoiding sensationalism or biased framing.
- News organizations should invest in training journalists to develop expertise in specific areas, enabling them to provide deeper contextual analysis.
- Readers should critically evaluate explainers, considering the source’s potential biases and the evidence presented.
- A call to action: Demand more from news organizations by supporting those that prioritize factual, objective reporting.
The Problem: Explainers That Explain Nothing
The internet is overflowing with “explainers,” but too often, these pieces are little more than glorified opinion pieces disguised as objective analysis. They cherry-pick facts, exaggerate claims, and ultimately, leave readers more confused than informed. I saw this firsthand last year when a client of mine, a local nonprofit, was misrepresented in an explainer about affordable housing in Atlanta. The piece, published by a small blog, took comments out of context and painted the organization as being against development, when in reality, they were advocating for responsible development that wouldn’t displace existing residents. This wasn’t an isolated incident; it’s part of a broader trend of sensationalism and biased reporting that undermines public trust in news media.
A Pew Research Center study ([https://www.pewresearch.org/journalism/2024/01/10/americans-trust-in-news-media-remains-low/](https://www.pewresearch.org/journalism/2024/01/10/americans-trust-in-news-media-remains-low/)) found that only 29% of Americans have a great deal or quite a lot of confidence in newspapers, television, and radio news reporting. This lack of trust is fueled, in part, by the proliferation of biased and misleading explainers that fail to meet basic journalistic standards. Perhaps it’s time we ask: Are we truly informed?
The Solution: Factual, Objective, and Contextual Analysis
The answer is not to abandon explainers altogether. When done right, they can be invaluable tools for understanding complex issues. The key is to prioritize factual accuracy, objectivity, and contextual analysis. This means:
- Rigorous Fact-Checking: Every claim must be supported by credible evidence, and all sources must be properly vetted. No shortcuts.
- Balanced Perspective: Present all sides of an issue, even those that may be unpopular or uncomfortable. Avoid cherry-picking facts to support a pre-determined conclusion.
- Deep Context: Provide historical background, relevant data, and diverse perspectives to help readers understand the issue in its full complexity.
- Transparency: Be upfront about any potential biases or conflicts of interest. Let readers know where you’re coming from.
For example, an explainer about the proposed expansion of Interstate 75 near the Howell Mill Road exit should include information about the project’s potential impact on traffic congestion, air quality, and local businesses, citing data from the Georgia Department of Transportation ([https://www.dot.ga.gov/](https://www.dot.ga.gov/)). It should also include perspectives from residents who live near the highway, business owners who rely on it for deliveries, and environmental groups who are concerned about the project’s impact on green spaces. This is especially true in Atlanta news.
The Role of News Organizations
News organizations have a crucial role to play in ensuring that explainers are factual, objective, and contextual. This requires a commitment to investing in training and resources for journalists. Specifically, news organizations should:
- Develop Subject Matter Expertise: Encourage journalists to specialize in specific areas, such as economics, healthcare, or environmental policy. This will enable them to provide deeper, more nuanced analysis.
- Invest in Fact-Checking: Dedicate resources to fact-checking departments to ensure that all claims are rigorously verified.
- Promote Ethical Standards: Enforce strict ethical guidelines that prohibit biased reporting and conflicts of interest.
- Embrace Transparency: Be transparent about funding sources and editorial policies.
I remember a case from my time working at the Atlanta Journal-Constitution. A reporter was working on an explainer about changes to O.C.G.A. Section 34-9-1, regarding workers’ compensation. The first draft was heavily biased towards the employer’s perspective. The editor sent it back, demanding a rewrite that included the perspective of injured workers and their advocates. That’s the kind of commitment to fairness and objectivity that’s needed across the board. To learn more, see our article on news without the noise.
Addressing the Counterarguments
Some might argue that objectivity is impossible, that all reporting is inherently biased. While it’s true that everyone has their own perspective, that doesn’t mean that objectivity is not a worthwhile goal. Journalists have a responsibility to strive for fairness and accuracy, even if they can never achieve perfect objectivity. Is it possible to bridge the credibility gap?
Others might argue that explainers should be entertaining, even if it means sacrificing some accuracy. I disagree. While it’s important to make explainers engaging, accuracy should always be the top priority. The goal is to inform, not to entertain.
According to AP News ([https://apnews.com/about/news-values](https://apnews.com/about/news-values)), “The Associated Press is committed to factual, accurate reporting. AP does not intentionally publish untrue information.” This commitment should be the standard for all news organizations.
What makes an explainer different from a regular news article?
While a news article typically reports on a specific event or development, an explainer aims to provide deeper context and analysis, helping readers understand the underlying issues and complexities.
How can I tell if an explainer is biased?
Look for signs of cherry-picking facts, unbalanced perspectives, and emotionally charged language. Also, consider the source’s potential biases and funding.
What should I do if I find an error in an explainer?
Contact the news organization and point out the error. Most reputable organizations will correct factual errors promptly.
Are explainers always objective?
No, not always. It’s important to critically evaluate all explainers and consider the source’s potential biases.
Where can I find reliable explainers?
Look for explainers from reputable news organizations with a track record of factual, objective reporting, such as Reuters ([https://www.reuters.com/](https://www.reuters.com/)).
Ultimately, the responsibility for ensuring the quality of explainers rests on both news organizations and readers. News organizations must commit to providing factual, objective, and contextual analysis, and readers must critically evaluate the information they consume. Only then can we hope to navigate the complex issues of our time with clarity and understanding.
If we demand more from news organizations and support those that prioritize factual, objective reporting, we can create a more informed and engaged citizenry. Contact your local news outlets and let them know you value in-depth explainers that cut through the noise. By doing so, you will be contributing to a more informed community. Readers should also try to cut through the noise themselves.
