However, if you discount the fabrications, misquotes and factual errors that can and do occur in journalism, the information is still relayed through a perspective, which carries with it any level of bias. It is carried through perspective because the purveyors of our news are just as human as the rest of us (another truism).

While presenting the news, people have different agendas or ideas as to what constitutes necessary or important information.

Often, people are taught to write news stories in an “inverted pyramid” structure, meaning the most important information goes first and then down to the little things most people, presumably, don’t need to know that much about. This structure also allows for ease when cutting down information when newspaper page space becomes an issue.

Supposedly all of this information in the news story is to be provided to create context pertinent to the reader. However, a hierarchy exists in the importance of the information, which is based on perspective.

Eventually, a news slant will begin to exist as this process continues because the context is not presented in its entirety. When this happens, the omission of facts greatly alters the meaning of a story. For example, a journalist could write an article that contains information that is entirely factual but not contextual due to missing information, thereby creating a misleading story.

Of course, the inverted pyramid structure serves a practical function to relay news. Otherwise, the system would not be able to sustain itself working through the complexities and intricacies of context.

But that is exactly why we should not be so apt to fully and immediately accept our news as absolute when it’s provided by our trusted news source. They might say things that are factual, but they can’t say it all.

As a result of this imperfect system, people should follow a variety of news sources to sift through information when forming their opinions, because oftentimes, we only take to heart what reinforces what we already believe.

This does not make us more informed but rather entrenches us into uncritical and narrow-minded thought. Many intelligent people fall into this way of thinking, and it is to the detriment of themselves and others, especially when their beliefs and viewpoints can affect public policy.

Still, this is what often happens on a day-to-day basis as people pick up their newspapers, turn on their TVs or check the Internet for the daily news. What makes this more unfortunate is that when a disrespected news source actually makes a point or offers new information that can lead to greater understanding of a situation, we dismiss it in our confidence that we already have the answer.

We should always be willing to challenge our assumptions and to refrain from only seeking out sources that merely placate them. With the same fervor and energy that people often use to decry and denounce contrary positions, people should turn to their own beliefs and question what influences, alters and defines them.

While journalists are taught ethics, the readers still have a level of responsibility to remain critical readers no matter what side of the story they fall on.

Moreover, this is not a diatribe on journalism. Some journalism is irresponsible, while some makes an honest effort to provide “unbiased” news.

Yet, “unbiased” should not be in our vocabulary when describing journalism, because that allows for the belief of its infallibility, which will in turn lead to our downfall.

Nick Ayala is a State News copy editor. Reach him at ayalanic@msu.edu.