Note: Not a script, but here it is
In the journalistic point of view, being bias is showing a particular side of a story that is to your liking or interest. Journalists are supposed to present the story in fair way such that all sides of the story is brought to light, because journalists are meant to present the story, and let the audience decide for themselves which side they support instead of deciding for them.
A possible scenario would be when a journalist is sent to interview a charity’s work in a under-developed country, the journalist does not support the charity’s vision and goal, and after recent speculations about suspicious use of donated funds, feels that the charity is a bluff and thus only interviews the children and the beneficiaries, instead of the charity organizers. Since the beneficiaries are already suffering, they might just talk about all the unhappiness they face, and cause the charity who is trying to help to lose its already damaged reputation. In this case, the journalist is both right and wrong, because the organizers might not be trustworthy sources of information after the mishandling of funds, and interviewing the beneficiaries can help the audience know how they are benefiting. On the other hand, the journalist is being biased towards the charity, and not giving them a chance to explain their work. Is this a good or bad form of bias?
Conflict of Interests
Conflict of interests is referring to a journalist who is involved in multiple interests, and is requested to write an article about it. One interest would be his journalistic integrity, while the other might be the interviewee of that article. This set of certain circumstances creates a risk that judgement and actions taken can affect either side, influenced by the chosen interest that the journalist decides to support.
A case of this problem occurring might be when a journalist is both reporting and writing for a newspaper, and also working part-time for a publishing company to create a book. Due to bad rumours about this publishing company, the journalist is chosen to interview some people in the company and write an article about it. In this case, the journalist is in a dilemma, because he is required to write an article that is fair and shows all sides of the story, but showing the negative side might cause him to lose his job. As such, the journalist would have to choose between his job and his integrity.
There tend to be at least one or two interviews in a journalist’s job life where the interviewee spouts many vulgarities for whatever reason. In these cases, people want the source in its original and actual form, but unfortunately may not be appropriate for younger audiences.
An example might be when a journalist is sent to interview an important figure that has recently been caught in a scandal, resulting in major losses for him, and on trail in court. In this case, the interviewee is very displease and unhappy, as such uses very harsh language during the interview. While doing the transcription of the interview, the journalist will then have problems deciding what kind of words to allow to be put in the article, while the rest will have to be rewritten, while keeping the information as accurate as possible.