Neutrality bias occurs when media outlets strive for false balance by giving equal weight to credible facts and fringe or unsubstantiated claims, often to appear impartial. This dilutes truth and legitimizes misinformation.
A prime example unfolded in coverage of President Trump’s social media accusation that Sen. Mark Kelly, an Arizona Democrat and Navy veteran, committed seditious behavior by stating military members can refuse illegal orders. Trump suggested recalling Kelly to active duty for a military trial.
The Arizona Republic legitimized the debate by exploring ‘how military recall works’ and quoting ASU professor Brad Allenby, who cast doubt on the legality but framed it as a live controversy. Meanwhile, Allenby directly told the outlet any punishment would be illegal, underscoring the claim’s baselessness.
This neutrality bias shows in amplifying Trump’s unproven threat alongside expert dismissal, using neutral phrasing like ‘it could happen’ to suggest viability. Readers might miss that military law experts unanimously reject recalls for political speech, found in legal analyses from the American Bar Association or DOD guidelines. By balancing absurdity with reality, coverage inadvertently boosts the fringe narrative, eroding public trust in institutions.