Hello, I’m Daniel, a freelance journalist from the U.S. Over the past few years, I’ve traveled extensively across Europe, the Middle East, and the Caucasus region. I initially started this website as a travel guide, but it soon evolved into a platform where I publish travel stories and articles covering geopolitics.

Since I do cover politics, I believe that it’s important for me to disclose my biases and share my thoughts on maintaining journalistic integrity while wrestling with the concepts of objectivity and neutrality.

Objectivity and neutrality are often used interchangeably when their meanings are completely different. Objectivity means presenting – in good faith – as much relevant evidence as possible, whereas neutrality attempts to give equal weight to both or all sides. Take the subject of evolution vs. creationism for example. All observed evidence gathered since Darwin has only reinforced his theory.

However, if I decide to treat the topic as neutral, I would have to present the same number of reasons why defenders of creationism believe it to be true and then “let the reader decide” what to believe. While everyone deserves to have their voices heard and anyone is free to choose what to believe, I feel like it’s unethical and irresponsible to present the two topics as equal when it’s simply not the case. Religion is not science; it’s fallacious to compare the two.

For the second example, let’s use a hypothetical case of a local police force that has been credibly accused by many in the population of violating human rights with impunity. Others have corroborated the stories as well, yet no disciplinary action has been taken on the officers. I am then sent to that location to report on said abuses but arrive to find the police — in an attempt to clean up their image — acting in line with preserving and protecting basic human rights while the protesters are acting hostile towards them. An objective observation would dictate that I report that the police remained calm despite many provocations by the crowd. It is a factual statement, yet without any context, a reader with no background knowledge of the situation could easily view the protesters as the unreasonable ones when their aggressive behavior is driven by previous abuses against them. The reader could then easily become sympathetic to those responsible for the injustices in the first place and rejecting contradictory claims, which only increases the likelihood of radicalization.

I could easily be accused of bias in both examples. In the first example, a person already inclined to believe in creationism is unlikely to have their opinion changed if I act as if the two sides carry equal weight even though all the evidence for truth falls on the side of evolution. Ethically, I am supposed to present the truth as I see it, but I am also supposed to ethically refrain from guiding the reader in any kind of direction. This ethical tension is a paradox of journalism that is rarely mentioned and always overlooked.

In the second example, if I chose to provide context and background information as to why the protesters were so antagonistic towards the police, I could be accused of picking and choosing information that advances the cause of the protesters. If I chose to keep it “objective” in the manner mentioned above, I could be viewed as harboring sympathy for the oppressors by stripping away all context.

Journalism and democracy are interdependent. They rely on each other for survival. Not only do I support democracy on philosophical grounds, but I would also like to continue down this career path of truth seeking, therefore I will continue supporting it. I always found it fascinating how some people will be quick to admit that everyone has inherent biases yet those same people expect journalists not to possess them.

I think it’s absurd to ask a person to be completely unbiased just as I think it’s absurd for a journalist to pretend as if their inherent biases are nonexistent. It’s also unfair to ask a fallible human being to simply become infallible once the the fingers hit the keyboard. What matters above all else is if the journalist collected and presented their information in good faith, which is what I try and do at all times. I care about the truth first and foremost, and my stated positions are based on every piece of information I have ever come across.

Talk is cheap, which is why I invite you to explore my work, challenge my ideas, and reach out with any questions, comments, or suggestions at danielm549@gmail.com. Thanks for reading!