The second piece I wrote for the semester, about a demonstration outside of Roy Blunt’s Columbia office, was coverage of another event. This one during a GA shift. It was another interesting thing to get to watch unfold. Demonstrators packed in to the lobby of Blunt’s office and shared some moving stories about how Obamacare had impacted their lives and why they didn’t want to see it repealed. Most captivating to me, was how, after the event was over, people essentially lined up to talk to me. People wanted their voices to be heard. Which is understandable, but it also made me realize that I wasn’t really hearing the other side of this argument. Granted, the piece I wrote was simply covering their demonstration, and not attempting to understand the nuances of the ACA debate, I still felt that, in places, my article could be interpreted as being a bit like a platform for the demonstrators. And I don’t feel Sen. Blunt’s press secretary’s response helped — it felt incredibly stock. In the future I want to be more aware of how I can cover an event without simply acting as a megaphone for those particular opinions (though, at the same time, I understand that protests are an essential part of news, and should absolutely be covered). We’ve talked a lot about ethics in the class and a bit about bias, but one thing I’ve been thinking about is, despite any explicit bias, how do you report a story that doesn’t present a bias simply based on the subject matter/sources. Which, of course, I know there is no simple answer for.