The term "inherent editorial bias” describes the editorial expression of a longstanding social paradigm that inevitably shapes editorial frameworks and practices. Editorial decisions are not made in isolation but within specific historical, geographical, political, and societal contexts. While impartiality and integrity in public media are timeless ideals, their interpretation and application in practice evolve over time.
The shift in editorial paradigms
Media organisations’ editorial paradigms are undergoing a significant transformation, but few have had the time to reflect on this process. Forward-looking media organisations understand the ever-changing world in which they operate and are striving to future-proof their relevance and industry leadership.
They recognise that the existing inherent editorial bias paradigm is fraught with contradictions and may fail to meet audience expectations or align with contemporary anti-discrimination frameworks and obligations.
Towards an inclusive editorial paradigm
In response, these organisations are implementing a series of editorial and recruitment practices and policies, which we refer to as the “inclusive editorial paradigm”. This approach aligns with contemporary societal expectations that increasingly emphasise equity, respect for human rights, and inclusiveness.
Inclusion is not an exception to editorial standards. Properly understood, it is part of the infrastructure required to apply those standards rigorously and consistently. The inclusive editorial paradigm therefore demands more rigorous and consistently applied standards, not a relaxation of standards in the interests of diversity.
The shift is therefore from identity-based assumptions to evidence-based editorial judgement. Inclusive practice does not presume that particular identities are inherently more objective, authoritative or biased than others. It requires professional judgement to be assessed through the work itself: evidence and accuracy, qualifications and field experience, editorial reasoning, ethical conduct, rigour and demonstrated performance.
In contrast, practices associated with the “inherent editorial bias paradigm” can produce outcomes that are exclusionary, alienating or discriminatory, and may conflict with principles of equality and human rights. Despite this, the assumptions underpinning these practices have shaped societal norms and continue to influence public discourse.
How the inherent editorial bias paradigm operates
The “inherent editorial bias paradigm” assumes that values such as balance, accuracy, impartiality, rationality, and trustworthiness are more readily associated with those who conform to a historically dominant social “norm” than with those who do not (e.g., male, heterosexual, Christian or non-religious, able-bodied, Anglo and middle- or upper-class). Although this assumption is rarely stated explicitly, it manifests in various ways.
For instance, journalists who do not fit the norm may be deemed “too close” to their subject matter and thus not assigned certain stories. Conversely, journalists within the norm might be assigned the same stories without equivalent scrutiny of their proximity to the subject matter, based on the assumption that they can approach those topics from a neutral position.
It's also common for journalists outside the norm to be consulted only on matters related to their lived experience, rather than recognised for their expertise. When their advice does not align with the expectations of those within the norm, it may be disregarded or characterised as advocacy, reinforcing perceptions of inherent bias.
Journalists outside the norm may receive feedback such as, "We understand your passion about this topic, but we need to remain objective." As a result, editorial bias can continue to privilege perspectives associated with the norm, reinforcing the dominance of certain identities and perspectives in journalistic practice.
This creates an asymmetry: the identity of journalists from historically underrepresented backgrounds can become over-interpreted, while historically dominant newsroom identities and conventions can become comparatively invisible. The latter may consequently be treated as neutral or universal rather than as perspectives also shaped by social, cultural and institutional experience. The question is therefore not who “owns” editorial values, but whether assumptions about identity influence how competence, impartiality and authority are assessed.
Unfounded assumptions about bias
Journalists outside the norm are often suspected of bias simply because of who they are. This assumption persists despite being based on generalisations rather than evidence of an individual journalist’s professional conduct, which can be reduced to two main assumptions: an unfounded bias suspicion and an unfounded trust assumption. These are two sides of the same coin.
The unfounded bias suspicion is the belief that journalists are less capable of professionalism based on their race, cultural background, religion, disability, gender, or sexual orientation. Conversely, the unfounded trust assumption is that journalists within the norm are inherently more trustworthy than those outside it. Both assumptions are reinforced by a false conflation of lived experience and professional expertise.
The weaponisation of lived experience
There is a widespread misconception that lived experience and professional expertise are attributes associated with different groups: professionals within the norm are presumed to possess “professional expertise,” while those outside the norm are assumed to have only “lived experience.” Despite their qualifications, journalists outside the norm often have to prove that their professional expertise holds equal value.
For example, a journalist within the norm who was previously a police officer might be seen as having valuable lived experience when covering a court case. Conversely, an Indigenous journalist with family members who have experienced detention or custody might be perceived as biased. This reflects a failure to recognise that journalists, many of whom are subject-matter experts, possess both professional expertise and lived experience.
The “inherent editorial bias paradigm” has rendered the lived experience of those within the norm invisible, reducing scrutiny of how their own experiences may shape editorial judgement. Meanwhile, individuals outside the norm are often valued mainly, or only, for their lived experience when it is considered editorially useful. This lived experience can also be used against them, portraying journalists outside the norm as less professional or reliable as subject matter experts.
This is what we call the “weaponisation of lived experience”. By framing lived experience as a threat to journalistic values, this paradigm undermines journalists’ expertise and professionalism.
Lived experience and professional expertise are both valuable forms of knowledge, but they are not interchangeable. Lived-experience knowledge is formed through direct social, cultural or personal experience and can reveal context, language, harm, omission and audience realities that might otherwise be missed. Professional or disciplinary expertise is developed through research, training, sustained practice, field experience and demonstrated performance, providing subject-specific knowledge through which evidence can be tested, standards applied and complexity weighed. Lived experience may inform professional expertise, but it does not automatically establish it.
Equally, lived experience is not something possessed only by historically underrepresented groups. Everyone has lived experience. Race, culture, class, gender and institutional position can shape anyone’s perspective; dominant or white experience may simply become less visible because it is more readily treated as the default. Recognising lived experience across all identities makes those influences available for editorial scrutiny rather than selectively identifying them only when a journalist sits outside the dominant norm.
These forms of knowledge can overlap, challenge and enrich one another. Neither should be dismissed, but neither should be treated as automatically authoritative. The editorial question is what knowledge is being brought to a particular issue, what that knowledge is based on, how relevant it is, and how much evidentiary weight it should carry. Identity should neither diminish professional authority nor place a perspective beyond scrutiny.
Who defines professionalism and excellence?
Clearly, not all professionals are equally qualified, but their expertise and professionalism are not determined by whether they belong to the norm. Professionalism and excellence should be assessed on the basis of qualifications, field experience, ethical behaviour, rigour, and performance.
Another challenge facing the industry is that those responsible for evaluating professionalism and excellence may themselves lack literacy in conceptualising inclusive editorial practices. Consequently, their measures of excellence and professional success may inadvertently align with the values of the norm.
Inherent and unconscious bias: questions of accountability
The use of the term “bias” in media and some academic circles can be further problematised. While the construct of “inherent editorial bias” operates against those outside the norm, the notion of “unconscious bias” can imply innocence and, in practice, may shield those within the norm from accountability.
The fact that the values underlying the “inherent editorial bias paradigm” are seldom explicitly acknowledged can reinforce a presumption that discriminatory or exclusionary editorial judgements are unconscious rather than requiring examination and accountability. Not every manifestation of bias can be assumed to be unconscious. Where discriminatory assumptions are recognised, rationalised or repeatedly maintained despite challenge or evidence, describing them solely as “unconscious bias” can obscure both agency and accountability.
Bias, identity and the inclusive editorial paradigm
The foundation of the “inclusive editorial paradigm” lies in acknowledging that everyone has the capacity for bias, inaccuracy, partiality, imbalance, emotional influence, and unreliability.
The intersectional complexity of this issue requires a more nuanced understanding of how professional discrimination and biased editorial decisions operate within the inherent bias paradigm. For example, an Anglo non-binary woman living with a disability might show bias when recruiting or reporting on a CALD community, just as a CALD journalist might exhibit bias when reporting about the LGBTIQ+ community.
To ensure high standards and deliver accurate, fair, and appropriately impartial content, media organisations must establish increasingly rigorous editorial processes. These processes should include transparent stages of editorial oversight and accountability, managed by editorially competent staff, and should apply consistently to the editorial judgement of journalists and leaders alike, as well as to the narratives used to assess professional talent.
The purpose is not to lower or modify editorial standards according to identity, but to remove identity-based presumptions about who is capable of meeting them. The same standards of evidence, accuracy, fairness, impartiality, rigour and accountability should be applied consistently to everyone.
Potential bias should therefore be treated as a professional consideration for everyone and managed through editorial process rather than presumed from identity. Rigorous editorial processes, transparent oversight and accountability provide the mechanisms through which different perspectives and forms of knowledge can be tested. In this sense, inclusion strengthens editorial standards when a broader range of knowledge is subjected to the same evidence, rigour and accountability.
Conclusion
Many stories that might have been perceived as impartial and rigorous thirty years ago would not meet current editorial standards. Media organisations often grapple with semantics, as supporters of both the inherent bias editorial paradigm and the inclusive editorial paradigm, as well as those in between, assert that their perspectives and practices aim to uphold the fundamental values of journalism.
It's crucial to accept that the editorial conceptualisation and journalistic practice of accuracy, balance, and impartiality are not static. At the heart of this discussion lies the evolving understanding of what these concepts mean in 2024. An inclusive editorial paradigm does not displace the fundamental values of journalism. It asks whether those values are being interpreted and applied consistently, and whether all journalists are being assessed against the same professional standards rather than against assumptions associated with their identity.
Download the infographic .pdf file here
