@Jim910There are many ways that all media outlets could improve.
To reach better levels of objectivity, opinion and analysis pieces should not be published by news outlets.
-Interviews should give equal time to alternate view points.
-Reports of third-party reports should not be used as a loophole to push the viewpoint of the third-party.
-Either all grievances should be published without bias or none at all - I think not publishing them at all would be ideal.
e.g. We do not see articles detailing the grievances of MGTOWs and how (in their opinion) relationships with women are no longer viable. I do not agree with MGTOWs but their criticisms of women and society should be aired as much as those of their opponents; assuming the news should be giving a soapbox to any group that is.
It would also help not to use interview or press conference quotes as headlines and sub headings, since the quotes are inherently biased and give the impression that the news article is agreeing with the viewpoint. They are especially exploited within article sub headings by journalists who want to weave a particular narrative.
Example in-page sub heading: National conversation brought out 'triumphs' and 'hypocrisy'
Some would say that the journalist agrees with that characterisation of the outcomes of the conversation, but by injecting quotes, the entire sub heading effectively becomes an opinion.
Here are some examples of quotes in headlines from the ABC since we are discussing it:
Whelan article: Perhaps other people see him differently.
Grace Tame article: Perhaps not everyone agrees with that assessment of what Emma refers to as the political machine.
RATs: Others may describe the levels of "distress" differently.
These would be more objective titles:
"The story of Whelan the Wrecker"
"Emma Skalicky's opinions on Grace Tame's year" - NB: Emma was the only survivor interviewed for the article, so "survivor
s" (plural) is incorrect.
"RATs shortage impacting Queensland community services sector"
Removing subjective descriptions is another improvement that could be made:
"Hard to overstate" implies that the situation is dire. Maybe it is, but that should not be a call for the journalist to make. They should tell us what is going on as objectively as possible and allow us to decide how critical the situation is.
Describing WA as a "Hermit kingdom" can be seen as lambasting, ridicule, term of endearment, etc.. Such descriptions should be left out of headlines. Poetry, drama, satire, personification etc.. is better left for creative pieces, not news articles.
