Jamaican Journalists and Political Analysts: Objectivity, Bias, and the Myth of Neutrality

Professor Canute Thompson

There has been a debate, over several years, in Jamaica as to whether it is an appropriate act of professionalism and ethical duty for journalists and political analysts to declare their political allegiance.  There are several factors driving the debate, among them are:

  • That some journalists and political analysts are politically connected to political parties and are serving in various roles as (secret) advisors, speech writers, tacticians, strategists, and organizers,
  • That some operate media outlets that are closely, in some instances suspected as legally linked to political parties,
  •  That some have made consistently favourable comments and when not favourable comments only mildly critical of some political leaders while being consistently or largely unfavourable towards others, and
  • That some have moved from ‘journalism’ to political appointments almost seamlessly.

In view of the above facts, there are some who hold that it is both a practical necessity and moral duty for journalists to publicly declare their political allegiances.

Understanding Biases, Neutrality, and Objectivity

Everyone has biases.  There is no such thing as an unbiased person, and social psychologists agree that human beings constantly make decisions that are influenced by unconscious biases. Biases are beliefs we hold about certain social and identity groups, and these biases are formed in our upbringing and socialization.

Everyone has biases.  There is no such thing as an unbiased person, and social psychologists agree that human beings constantly make decisions that are influenced by unconscious biases. Biases are beliefs we hold about certain social and identity groups, and these biases are formed in our upbringing and socialization.

Our biases often shape, or influence, our interests. So, a person who, for example, was socialized to have a certain level of regard for nature, becomes an environmental activist. The issues about which he or she speaks and researches, reflect those biases and interests. And it is not that there are no other important things about which to speak or research, it is simply that this person has this deep interest and so spends time on this particular interest.

 Biases, therefore, are not only found in everyone, but they are also neither inherently good nor bad.  Researchers conducting research in contexts with which they are closely associated or among people they know, or on a subject matter to which they are connected, have an ethical duty to declare those biases and explain how they will manage those biases to ensure that the presence of those biases does not affect the validity of the findings.

Because we all have biases, we are rarely, if ever, neutral on issues in which we have an interest; and although we can be objective (state hard cold facts), we remain biased.  One arena in which this debate over neutrality has raged is in science.

An October 2021 article entitled “The Illusion of Neutrality in Science” written by Ann Kristin Montano highlights the fact that while a scientist can produce hard cold facts, the act does not preclude biases.  It is not merely the case of biases being possible but that the biases are present.  But though present, they do not necessarily undermine the factual nature of the assertions.

Thus, for example a scientist may make a finding that the earth has become warmer and supply data to substantiate that claim.  But, the analysis of that data, and the conclusions and recommendations made with respect to public policy or any other implications of that data, will reflect the scientist’s beliefs and perspectives, that is his/her biases.

In the same way, a journalist or political analyst may state, objectively, that (to use a recent issue) the PNP has increased the number of political divisions held in the municipal landscape, coming out of the February 26, 2024, Local Government Elections, from 98 to 115, an increase of 15.3%.  That is a hard, cold fact. But what that is interpreted to mean and how that interpretation is communicated, will reflect the interpreter’s (journalists’ / political analysts’) biases.

In the same way, a journalist or political analyst may state, objectively, that (to use a recent issue) the PNP has increased the number of political divisions held in the municipal landscape, coming out of the February 26, 2024, Local Government Elections, from 98 to 115, an increase of 15.3%.  That is a hard, cold fact. But what that is interpreted to mean and how that interpretation is communicated, will reflect the interpreter’s (journalists’ / political analysts’) biases.

Thus, it is the case that even when we are speaking to objective facts, our biases are present.

Another way in which our biases are shown is in the “objective” facts we choose to highlight. So again, using the last Local Government Elections, one analyst may choose to emphasize that one party won the popular vote, and now controls seven municipalities to the other party’s seven. On the other hand, another analyst may choose to emphasize that one party won seven parishes to the other party’s five, with two parishes tied. Both sets of assertions are factual but reflect a different choice of data on which to focus and the focus shows biases and non-neutrality.  

Towards greater transparency in public discourse

The issue of whether journalists and political analysts should disclose their leanings and allegiances is not, therefore, a question of whether in speaking they (we) present facts but the reason the specific set of facts is chosen and the interpretation that is made of those facts.

Given that the capacity to present facts is not the issue, the justification for the disclosure of political allegiance when discussing factual matters, is founded upon the ethical duty that a professional must be transparent.  Journalists and political analysts intentionally and unintentionally try to persuade, influence, and gain advantage in their pronouncements and have an interest in what people come to believe about issues.  By keeping one’s political allegiance a secret, and to pretend not to have an interest, the journalist / analyst is being dishonest. This dishonesty arises from the fact that the journalist / analyst purports to be indifferent to the facts and is offering ‘neutral’ interpretation when he or she is not.

Given that the capacity to present facts is not the issue, the justification for the disclosure of political allegiance when discussing factual matters, is founded upon the ethical duty that a professional must be transparent. 

But, as has been shown, there is no such thing as a neutral interpretation of facts. Interpretations are value-laden and loaded with our preferred way of what a thing should look like and thus how others should see it.

No shame: Nothing to hide!

Having a political preference is nothing about which to be ashamed and, therefore, there is nothing to hide…there should be nothing to hide.

Public servants are not in the business of making public comments on issues, nor should they be seeking to sway public sentiment towards political parties, one way or another.  They should vote and are expected to have their allegiances but those should not affect how they discharge their duties.

Journalists and political analysts, on the other hand, are active purveyors of opinions some reflecting political party messaging and perspectives and thus have a duty to show the angle from which they are coming. The disclosure (and subsequent public knowledge) of their biases does not, inherently, diminish the validity of their perspectives; it serves the vital function of enabling the listener to place their positions in perspective.  Giving one’s viewers and listeners the benefit of knowing who one is, politically, when pronouncing on political issues, is reasonable, fair, ethically responsible, and technically acceptable.

 Montano, A.K. (2021, October 12). The illusion of neutrality in science. Retrieved from


Canute Thompson is Professor of Educational Policy, Planning and Leadership at The University of the West Indies, Mona Campus, a social activist, and author of eight books and eighteen journal articles.

His academic achievements include:

  • Two Principal’s Awards in 2023 for research activity generating the most funds, and research activity with the most development impacts, serving as Project Director for a project executed by the Caribbean Centre for Educational Planning.
  • A 2022 Bronze place winner in the Independent Publisher Book Awards for his book, Education and Development: Policy Imperatives for Jamaica and the Caribbean.
  • A 2021 finalist in The Vice-Chancellor’s Award for Excellence for all-round excellent performance in Outstanding Teaching, Outstanding Research Accomplishments, Outstanding Service to the University Community, Outstanding Public Service.
  • A 2021 Principal’s Award for Most Outstanding Researcher.
  • Two Principal’s Awards in 2020 for Most Outstanding Researcher and Best Publication for his book, Reimagining Educational Leadership in the Caribbean.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *