How to analyse the news without pretending to be objective

The problem with claiming objectivity

Many news outlets claim to be objective. Not as a provocation, but as a professional standard. When that claim is questioned, it is often experienced as an accusation.

That makes the discussion difficult. Because the issue is not whether journalists act in good faith. It is whether true objectivity is even possible.

How most people read the news today

Most people do not approach the news as a blank slate. They read with existing beliefs, concerns, and values. Articles that confirm those views feel clear and convincing. Articles that challenge them feel suspicious or incomplete.

This is not a failure of readers. It is how humans process information.

The problem starts when confirmation feels like neutrality.

What pretending to be objective looks like

Pretending to be objective does not mean lying. It usually means leaving certain things out.

Perspectives that complicate the story are skipped. Background that adds friction is shortened. Moral framing does the rest. One side is humanized through personal stories, while the other becomes statistics.

This feels balanced on the surface. Structurally, it often is not.

A concrete example: terrorism and perception

Terrorism is a useful example because it strongly affects how people feel about safety.

News coverage often creates the impression that terrorism is constantly increasing and that society is becoming more dangerous. That impression persists even when long-term data shows a different trend.

Below is a long-term view of terrorist attacks worldwide, based on the Global Terrorism Database.

The data shows fluctuations, but not a steady upward trend. In many regions, incidents have declined over time.

It is also important to understand what this data does and does not include. Violence carried out by governments against their own citizens, even when used to intimidate or suppress, is not classified as terrorism in this dataset. That kind of violence falls under state repression, which is measured separately.

Yet fear remains high.

That gap between perception and data is not accidental. It is shaped by repetition, emotional language, and selective emphasis.

Moral framing and dehumanisation

Moral framing plays a large role here. Stories often focus on a small number of named victims. Faces, families, and personal histories create emotional gravity.

At the same time, larger groups are reduced to numbers. Casualties become figures. Context disappears.

This is a classic dehumanisation pattern. A few individuals are elevated, while millions become abstract. Extreme actions then feel justified, because the scale is no longer emotionally visible.

Learning to see what is missing

I started noticing these patterns more clearly while using Impact News Lens. The tool highlights what is present in an article, but also what is absent.

Questions like:

Who is quoted, and who is not?
What perspective would complicate this story?
What information is placed at the end, instead of the beginning?
What does this actually mean for daily life?

Over time, this changed how I read the news, even without the tool. I became a slower reader. A more deliberate one.

Not telling you what to think

This is not about replacing one interpretation with another. It is not about forcing balance for its own sake.

It is about transparency. About recognizing framing. About understanding that neutrality is often claimed, but rarely examined.

Reading with more calm

Seeing structure instead of intent brings calm. It reduces outrage and increases understanding. You start noticing when fear is amplified, when scale is distorted, and when context is missing.

That does not make you cynical. It makes you informed.

What you can do next

If this way of reading resonates, you can try Impact News Lens to analyse articles yourself. You can also share this piece with someone who often feels overwhelmed by the news.

Not to convince them. Just to compare notes.